To all the trolls and pollys who are clueless about the real y2k problem , leave and dont come back, dont even think of it. Go play elsewhere, we have no time for losers. And yes I said Losers, anyone who would intentional disrupt a valuable community service that is being performed here by the hard working men and women on this site are losers. Our planet is facing a serious crisis in the next few months and you dont have anything better to do then to disrupt,lie to and badger good people who are giving all they got from the heart to help our fellow human beings make it through what will be the harshest situation to face our planet in over 50 years. Genuine good news stories are welcomed here if they are backed up with indepedently verifiable proof. With out that we take the show me approach. Most of us here have worked for or are still working for hi tech Corporations or Govt contractors and we have seen the buls---t that they have gotten away with. No one dares to speak out because we have seen how they have distroyed many a decent folks career's. Corporations with billion dollar war chests can make their wistleblower's life miserable. When it's just about a job you leave and change careers and dont get involved,but when it involve the life and health safety of our families,friends and planet you get involved.

In 1992 I was part of a movement that pressured govts from around the world to stop nuclear testing because there was a growing body of scientific evidence it was causing massive ecological damage,accelerated global warming,fractures in the tectonic plates, and radiological polution of our largest aquifers. They finally gave in to stop the testing ...temporarily, because the evidence was over welming. There is ample evidence that the y2k problem is a serious matter. Go read the BIS contingency plan for the year 2000 or the letter to congress from the IEEE or anyone of the many testamonies to the senate investigating the Impact the y2k bug . It is very eyeopening. So if you feel you have to much time on your hands go do some research at the senate's year 2000 site. Get the facts. Dont waste our time anymore. Where doing the best we can with the little time we have left to prepare as many people as we can for the y2k title wave that will strike in a few short months. If we turn out to be wrong we can accept that and will take responsibility for it and be joyous it didnt kill society as we know it. But if were right which there is a mountain of evidence supporting that massive failures of critical support entities of our society will experience remediation failure , are you willing to take responsibilities for your actions or face the angry mob that will wonder why you messed with their minds when they really needed to be clear about preparing. If you have a shred of self worth you will cease your games. Y2k is not I repeat not a game and could be deadly serious for billions of people on this planet. If you cant provide something useful for the preparation of others go elsewhere. We have a big task ahead of us to get the politicians to stop the denial and get our community's prepareness into high gear before y2k hits. They know the for the most part we are out of time for remdiation. That is why every f500 company now has an emergency y2k command center establish. Contingency operations are already in high gear. The time is near.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), July 06, 1999

Answers

Good post Mike. The only way to stop the post's of these morons, is to ignore them. I have taken them to task on their lies many times over the past months. It has served no purpose. As rollover gets closer they will become even worse. At some point, THEY WILL GET IT. It will be to late. The gene pool will have been cleansed.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), July 06, 1999.

mike

Your last sentence speaks volumes. "The time is near". Close to where I'm sitting theres a guy who walks up and down every day wearing a sandwich board proclaiming "The end of the world is nigh". His personal concept of the cause of this coming catastrophe is "The western world's ingestion of too much protein". Hes clearly a nut, but harmless, and almost part of the furniture around these parts. So whats on your sandwich board ? Lets take a look . . .

{snip} To all the trolls and pollys who are clueless about the real y2k problem {end snip}

Case in point. Pollys are clueless. You hold the only key to the eternal truth. No other opinions may be tolerated. We are the losers, and by definition, you are the winner. But its a weak position that cant stand a challenge on points of evidence.

{snip} anyone who would intentional disrupt a valuable community service that is being performed here by the hard working men and women on this site are losers {end snip}

A personal opinion, to which you have every right. This does not make it true, or relevant. You claim that this forum is a valuable community service. That depends. Certain regular posters here are totally convinced not only of the impending end of the world (through Y2K) but also the rise of the new world order, the imminent invasion of earth by reptilian aliens (note many unchallenged references to David Icke's website), the chemical contrail conspiracy, the invasion of the USA by Korean or Chinese UN troops, and countless other conspiracy theories. Do these posters provide a valuable community service, or are they to be banished too ? How does it serve the community to advocate the blind acceptance of a theory (that Y2K will bring a 10+ Milnesque meltdown) without the need for critical analysis ?

{snip} Our planet is facing a serious crisis in the next few months {end snip}

Is it ? Prove it . . SHOW ME !!

{snip} and you dont have anything better to do then to disrupt,lie to and badger good people who are giving all they got from the heart to help our fellow human beings make it through what will be the harshest situation to face our planet in over 50 years {end snip}

well personally, I DO NOT BELIEVE that it will be the harshest situation to face our planet in over 50 years, and furthermore, I make every effort not to badger, disrupt, or lie to anybody. But my opinion differs fundamentally to yours. Does that mean I cant post my opinion here ?

{snip} Genuine good news stories are welcomed here if they are backed up with indepedently verifiable proof {end snip}

UNTRUE. Good news stories, whatever their verification, will always be met with torrents of abuse, yelling, ridicule, and cries of "cover- up", "spin", and "shillery" from the likes of yourself and others. And what does that say about your attitude to Y2K and to this forum ? It says that you DONT want to hear anything that differs from the mind state you have adopted regarding this issue. And thats all there is to it.

{snip} Most of us here have worked for or are still working for hi tech Corporations or Govt contractors and we have seen the buls---t that they have gotten away with {end snip}

If you could provide links to expert information of this kind, listing details which can be verified (your "proof"), then maybe this statement can stand. But you cant, or wont, and the standard disclaimer follows. . .

{snip} No one dares to speak out because we have seen how they have distroyed many a decent folks career's. {end snip}

So theyre all concerned about their careers ? Strange, the term career suggests a long term view of a working arrangement. How can people who are CERTAIN that the world (as we know it) will end in mere months be concerned for their "careers" ? Do you mean that if they turned out to be wrong after all, and none of their predictions come close to being fulfilled, they'd never work in their industry again? That I can swallow. But its strange to see a forum where on one thread there are countless eulogies to the courage of "The founding fathers of the constitution", speaking out for truth and justice, in the face of torture and death, for the benefit of their country and its people, and on many others we hear how "We cant speak out because things might get a tad sticky for us in the long term (which, by the way, we dont subscribe to because the S is soon going to HTF)". Some story straightening required here.

{snip} Corporations with billion dollar war chests can make their wistleblower's life miserable. When it's just about a job you leave and change careers and dont get involved,but when it involve the life and health safety of our families,friends and planet you get involved. {end snip}

Blatant contradiction. Its too scary to blow the whistle, because it would cause a PERSONAL catastrophe, even though you advocate involvement in a cause which would "involve the life and health safety of our families,friends and planet". So do I take it that you dont believe Y2K will involve the life and health safety of our families,friends and planet ?

Ill skim over your activist credentials in the anti-nuke movement, and get on to the next Y2K relevant part.

{snip} There is ample evidence that the y2k problem is a serious matter {end snip}

Nobody says it isnt serious. The value of the counter-argument to this forum is that it allows everyone to critically analyse the meaning and relevance of any evidence. Are you proposing a forum where no analysis takes place of any new information on Y2K issues, and everyone starts from the basis of "This is clearly true and correct, and lets see how it may affect our prep plans" ? What value would that kind of forum have to the community ? With a problem of this supposed scale, there must be literally heaps of irrefutable, uncategorical evidence to back up your supposition that it will be a globally catastrophic event. So where is it ?

{snip} Where doing the best we can with the little time we have left to prepare as many people as we can for the y2k title wave that will strike in a few short months {end snip}

So you admit that you're evangelising. That allows no room for debate, or critical analysis. Your mind is made up, and now its time to covert the few strays into the happy flock. Perhaps you should make that clear at the entry point to the forum, and in the preamble on EY's homepage. Otherwise, one has to suspect that, like Mr North, you are simply riding the Y2K vehicle in order to seek out converts to some kind of "action group" fulfilling some other agenda.

{snip} If we turn out to be wrong we can accept that and will take responsibility for it and be joyous it didnt kill society as we know it. {end snip}

So then you are prepared to publish here, publicly, your full personal contact details, so that post-rollover, anyone who took your advice and made life-changing alterations to their circumstances, and now find themselves in severe economic difficulty because they acted upon your advice, may seek reparation ? I figured not. But you expect others to share your convictions in an environment where critical analysis and debate is banned ? Thats a reasonable definition of a cult isnt it ?

{snip} But if were right which there is a mountain of evidence supporting that massive failures of critical support entities of our society will experience remediation failure , are you willing to take responsibilities for your actions or face the angry mob that will wonder why you messed with their minds when they really needed to be clear about preparing. {end snip}

Of course. But what does "taking responsibility for my actions" mean ? I take responsibility for having attempted to cast a critical and analytical mind over a huge volume of information in order to try to separate (as best I can) the wheat from the chaff. I'm not the one evangelising some kind of action. Myself, and many of the other posters labelled as "pollies" here, never to my knowledge dissuade people from preparing as they see fit. But to pretend that your attitude is equivalent is a joke. You ARE the evangelist. The responsibility to be faced (if there is one) is yours.

{snip} If you have a shred of self worth you will cease your games. Y2k is not I repeat not a game and could be deadly serious for billions of people on this planet. {end snip}

This first statement cannot be addressed to 90% of the posters here who regularly attempt to debate each item of "evidence" as it appears. We arent playing games, were simply trying to avoid "blindly following the pack". If evidence is good, it should be capable of withstanding critical analysis. If it cant, its not very good. If you are trying to encourage people to take drastic action based on not- very-good evidence, then I fear you are the one playing games. In teh second line, your use of the word "COULD" is well judged. To find out just how close to "WILL" that "COULD" might get, you need to apply some critical analysis to the information.

{snip} If you cant provide something useful for the preparation of others go elsewhere {end snip}

What could be more useful than attempting to test the value of each new piece of information in order to adjudge its potential impact on the specific preparation required ? If youve already decided on the total Infomagic bug-out scenario, complete with fields of fire, grenade pits and land mines, good for you. What about those who havent ?

{snip} We have a big task ahead of us to get the politicians to stop the denial and get our community's prepareness into high gear before y2k hits. {end snip}

The assumption that politicians are in denial is questionable. (not wrong necessarily, just questionable, and at least a gross generalisation). Maybe you could expand a little on how you see posting to a Y2K forum as contributing to this worthy aim.

{snip} They know the for the most part we are out of time for remdiation. {end snip}

Do they ? How do you know that ? SHOW ME.

{snip} That is why every f500 company now has an emergency y2k command center establish. Contingency operations are already in high gear. {end snip}

I refute your conclusion. Those F500 companies who have "emergency Y2K command centres established" are very familiar with the concept of "Business Continuity Planning", and follow the advice of EXPERT, SPECIALISTS. If part of their contingency plan involves an emergency command centre, then they'll set one up. By way of an analogy, it would be inconsistent to decuce that because a F500 company creates a backup data centre, with dual redundancy this is a clear indicator of the belief of the company that their main data system is about to fail, simply that it MAY fail, at some time. You're extending the deduction too far if you think that this is PROOF that the big corporates BELIEVE that Y2K is the end of the world.

So do you still want the forum to be devoid of any contrary opinion ? If so, maybe you should cut the semantics and just come out and say that.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Hey W0lv3r1n3 -- looks like you have a talent for documentation, real or imagined. Go see if your friend cpr needs help in collecting those files on Yourdonians. Or maybe Doc Paulie (who is neither a doctor nor a Paulie) needs help in his ludicrous attempt to get this forum kicked off the MIT computer. Perhaps he needs help in giving documentation to the reporter he's talking to, about how we're such zombies, turds, shills, Nazis, whatever the slur du jour is. Whatcha doin' here, you run out of old ladies' mailboxes to superglue shut?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 06, 1999.

Maybe talking bout me ?

-- corrine l (mike@conservation.com), July 06, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3:

Round of applause there from me. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I usually enjoy reading the exchanges between doomer and polly on this forum, but I get slightly vexed when I see a doomer resort to the "all pollys are discouraging preparation" argument. I have never tried (and would never try) to discourage people from preparation, and I haven't seen anybody else try it either. I always dock a point from the doomers when I see that old chestnut crop up.

Current score in this thread? 15-0 to the pollys.

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 06, 1999.

Old Git

I'm disapointed in your response to W0lv3r1n3. Because he/she posts on the debunking site, you assume that he/she "keeps files" or is helping Doc Paulie (who is neither a doctor nor a Paulie) get this forum booted from the MIT server. This is flat out bad logic. Does this mean that you believe/endorse every post here? Even the posts about the NWO, earth changes etc?

I see absolutely no harm in posts like W0lv3r1n3 made. If we as a forum can't handle any dissenting opinions, that tells me that we are insecure as to our own conclusions, and can't bear the thought that others have come to different conclusions based on the same evidence.

To me, trolls aren't people like W0lv3r1n3 who argue a position. Trolls are people like y2k pro and JBD who merely disrupt and denigrate every thread they manage to have someone read to them.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), July 06, 1999.

Old Git, I have no idea what I said to warrant such a barbed attack.

Are you also of the opinion that the "privilage" of posting to this forum should be reserved for the faithful, and that anyone who posts to any other forum thereby subscribes, de facto, to every word written on that forum ? Neither CPR or Doc Paulie are "my friends" as you suggest. In fact, we agree on some things, and disagree on others. As to their activities, I believe that people's individual methodologies are their own concern, and I try wherever possible to address the essential information surrounding Y2K, and to ignore the inevitable "noise" and "playground squabbling" that accompanies it. I also prefer to assess that which is written, rather than he or she who writes (unless the former is unmistakeably tainted by a confessed facet of the latter).

You are (I think you said) from Yorkshire. Armed with this knowlege, I will try to overlook the undercurrent of snidery and baseness which permeates your reply, instead putting this down to my reading of a regional idiosyncracy in the use of English. Speaking as a pasty southern "git", I prefer to use a less inflammatory, more considered style, (absolutely "de rigeur" in the nicer west end drinking holes).

Having said that, let me respond to your post by saying that, aside from your attempt to find me "guilty by association" (and I'd challenge you to find a posting of mine which compares well alongside ANY ranting invective, whether from CPR, Doc P, Andy, yourself, INVAR, Will Continue, Y2K aware mike, or anyone else), your reply totally ignores any specific point which I raised in my post, and instead attempts to counter with childish jokes and unwarranted allusions. I do not normally associate this modus operandi with yourself. This leads me to wonder whether someone is spoofing your address in this case.

If I'm wrong, and this is indeed you, then I can only say that it saddens me to think that an Englishman (or woman) would so willingly discard the best elements of their native culture, (after all, the birthplace of modern democratic and legal debate), and would choose instead to assmimilate enthusiastically those elements of their adopted culture more often seen on the Jerry Springer show. Judging by this last post of yours, you have had far better days on this forum. Perhaps a cup of tea would help you to compose yourself.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

If you would read Wolverine's past posts on Debunking Y2K you would see why I posted this. After seeing where the Debunking forum head is actively trying to shut down this forum, I have no patience with anyone who gives such a person legitimacy by posting "polly" views on his forum.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 06, 1999.

Careful . .

Which posts ?

NOTE. If you cant come up with anything which (requoting myself) "compares well alongside ANY ranting invective, whether from CPR, Doc P, Andy, yourself, INVAR, Will Continue, Y2K aware mike, or anyone else", (meaning that it clearly represents an unequivocal, sincere, agressive, beligerant ad hominem attack on another poster, or perceived group, or position), then you've just said "GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION".

So, which is it ?

Because if it IS guilt by association, then maybe your well documented faux pas in the "Brownshirts" thread wasnt such a "freak bodyline delivery" after all. Which would be a shame.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

git,

though i do not count myself amongst the aged i have been having a little problem opening my mailbox lately. thanks for the heads-up.

a super glue smooch to ya.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 06, 1999.

Mike,

Though I understand your frustration, as well as the sense of urgency which is obviously welling up inside you, I disagree with your desire for so-called Pollys to disappear.

I also take exception to your use of "we" (13 times) throughout your piece. You don't speak for me nor (I'm guessing here) most folks who visit &/or participate on this forum. If you have signed proxies in your possession from a large number of people please scan & post it.

Games are indeed being played. I'm not blind to them. Why not just leave each of us to filter them out intellectually? Is it that you are overloaded? Burned out? Perhaps a vacation is in order. Time away can work wonders Mike. I've taken several weekend trips over the past year & look what it's done for me! ;-)

Maybe you & Git can get away together. She obviously requires a bit of R&R. "OG" was once a very, very popular poster, full of helpful ideas. Now she's "Mrs. Hyde". Venom, conspiracy, threats - how sad. I hope you return to your former self on the soon-to-be All Preps All The Time Forum. I do miss you so!

W0LV, nice job of dissection. LOL on the sandwich board story!

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), July 06, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3

The following is a portion of yours & Y2k aware mike's discussion concerning the veracity of claims of Y2k Compliancy made by government and big business. I find your answer interesting, because it implies that this is not a concern nor will it affect the outcome of the Y2k situation.

snip} Most of us here have worked for or are still working for hi tech Corporations or Govt contractors and we have seen the buls---t that they have gotten away with {end snip}

If you could provide links to expert information of this kind, listing details which can be verified (your "proof"), then maybe this statement can stand. But you cant, or wont, and the standard disclaimer follows. . .

I then read the post by Linkmeister immediately above this thread, and wondered if you would address that one also. You seem to think that there is very little or no lying going on regarding Y2k compliance & remediation from government and business. I find the post by Linkmeister alarming, and this is one of the reasons that I believe that the roll over could and probably will lead to greater problems than we can efficiently handle in order to hit the preferred BITR scenario.

It seems to me that Linkmeister's article regarding this very issue is quite convincing and has a definite "ring of truth" to it. It seems to verify what so many "GI's" on this forum are saying. You see, its the not knowing where those "wild and wonderful" failures are going to occur that leave so many unable to trust to capitalism and democracy's magical way of making it all work when its supposed to.

I'll be anxiously watching the above thread by Linkmeister to see your reply.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), July 06, 1999.

Wolverine, you said "Careful . . Which posts ?" And then went on with some twaddle about personal attacks on others.

To requote myself, I said: "I have no patience with anyone who gives such a person legitimacy by posting 'polly' views on his forum." I said nothing about your attacks on anyone. You HAVE posted sympathetic views on Doc Paulie's forum, haven't you? Right, that's exactly what I said.

I posted in that tone deliberately. It is badly copied from cpr, Doc Paulie, Mutha, and the rest over there, and is the way they treat anyone whose views differ from theirs. Actually, my attempt is not quite so vehement as theirs because it doesn't come naturally. I have seen not one post from you asking your Debunking associates what their victims have done to deserve such barbs.

You said, "Because if it IS guilt by association, then maybe your well documented faux pas in the 'Brownshirts' thread wasnt such a 'freak bodyline delivery' after all. Which would be a shame."

Ah, you've swallowed Decker's twistings, have you? Well, I'm not surprised, I recall your admiring posts on "Debunking". The well-documented thread you mention was started by Decker who referred to the people on this forum as wearing jackboots. I have explained my self twice--here's a third time: I was making the point that big hooligans from little hooligans grow if left unchecked. The old-timers on this forum know better than to believe Decker's rantings. And they know better than to be taken in by your twisting my remarks to say I am associated with those monsters.

If you insist on intimating I am associated with Brownshirts, then I refer you to the post where I informed Decker of the Internet libel laws. You too are flirting with libel--the law is different in the US, you know, the lines are drawn tighter, and venue is decided where most favorable to the victim.

Guilt by association? As in "birds of a feather flock together"? Well, why not? You invited the whole Debunking crew for the rollover at your "wife's family's house, a 19th Century castillian farm comprising 3 buildings enclosed by tall stone walls (forming a courtyard), surrounded by many acres of the rich red soil that gives the area its nickname of 'La tierra del pan y vino'."

I remember a post, too, where you said you agree with everything cpr said. And I know you have several times referred to the Debunking group as "we".

If you associate with football hooligans at the pub then move over to a more sedate group, are you surprised when you are treated somewhat badly? If you hang about with the Deunking hooligans, some of that reputation rubs off on you. Your current "leader", Clinton-clone Blair, may not agree with me, but I bet Thatcher would. As would Churchill. You may try to deflect my remarks, but the fact still stands:

You are a regular contributor and supporter of sympathetic views of that group publicly committed to destroying this forum.

Now, I've just had a fresh load of lumber delivered and I intend to spend most of the rest of the day working on a new carpentry project.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 06, 1999.

Cary MC from TX, I have (as requested) commented to Linkmeisters thread.

Old Git.

Very good, you almost admitted outright that you were practicing "Guilt by association" although you dressed it up with and offensive stance, and some fine and cloudy analogies.

I may well have posted somewhere, once, to the effect that I agreed with every word CPR said. No doubt. But . . IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT HE SAID.

Likwise with Mr Decker. I often have cause to agree with Mr Decker, but not, as you seem to think, because I have some kind of agenda to destroy this forum, or because we belong to some "hooligans club". It would only be because . . I agreed with what he said. Is that the crime you accuse me of ? Daring to agree with people you dont like once in a while ?

How many times have you agreed with Andy ? Or INVAR ? Or any of the other countless people here who occasionally post a thoughtful and well explained position on an issue ? Do I take it then that I am right to extend that to saying that you agree uncategorically with every word they say and everything they do ? Please clarify.

In terms of libel, please dont hesitate to let me know where you believe I libelled you. You may also be interested to know that where I live, and where you used to, it is perfectly common practice to counter-sue anyone who threatens legal action against you and then does not carry through. So are you about to sue me ? Your intention remains unclear. Maybe you should have your solicitors contact mine. My email address is real. If your intent is to put the scares into me then you need to do better than that.

In essence, you continue to hoist yourself with your own petard, by responding to my questions with simple ad-hominem attacks.

My posts are "twaddle" - (according to you), Ive "posted sympathetic views on Doc Paulie's forum" - (the meaning of "sympathetic" being left up to the reader, but basically boiling down to the fact that I happened to agree with what another poster may have said), you "have seen not one post from {me} asking {my} Debunking associates what their victims have done to deserve such barbs" - (principally because I do not see it as my role to defend anyone except myself. If another poster is attacked, let he or she defend themselves), I've "swallowed Decker's twistings" - (by which I guess you mean that I agree with him more often than not), I've "{twisted your} remarks to say I am associated with those monsters" (actually I just referred to a thread, thats all), I have "invited the whole Debunking crew for the rollover at {my} wife's family's house" - ( thank you for cross posting verbatim personal information from another forum without my permission. This is another area where the law is being formed as we speak, and I will investigate whether you may have "unlawfully invaded my privacy by your use of a telecommunication service". Whether it is or not, I hope that I can remember to treat your privacy with a higher degree of respect in future despite the precedent which has been set - and in any case, what the hell business of yours is it who I invite to my house ?), and I have "several times referred to the Debunking group as "we"." - (are you sure I wasn't referring to persons of moderate views on Y2K ? How sure ? Can you find the posts in question and prove your point ? I guess not, or you would have already).

Perhaps on rereading the above, you would like to reconsider your position regarding the libel laws, and should also possibly consider an apology to me for the position you have taken on this thread. I shall not, however, be holding my breath. In essence, your post comprises a string of abuse, some thinly veiled threats (which i shall take advice upon in terms of their legality), and some meaningless analogies. My crimes (in your eyes), as is evident for all to see are . . .

1. To disagree with a point of view which you subscribe to.

2. To post to that effect (albeit with no reference to you) on this forum.

3. To also monitor and occasionally post to a forum which you do not approve of.

4. To occasionally agree with some people you dont like.

This represents, does it not, the bare bones of your position on this thread ? Yes or no ?

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Old Git,

Here's a your quote:

"A valid comparison can be made between the trolls and the early actions of the Brownshirts. Borrowing from your somewhat stretched analogy, one could even go so far as to say troll attacks on this forum are a verbal version of Krystallnacht, when the Brownshirts broke the windows (and many heads) of Jewish businesses. Intimidation is intimidation, no matter how it's delivered--in a poison ivy of prose or at the end of a cudgel.

The Brownshirts had complete freedom of speech, in all those words they spewed at all those beer halls. Even when they started singling out Jews to attack, people ignored it, saying, oh, those Jews obviously did something to deserve it. Was this a good thing? Pity you can't ask your relatives.

If the Brownshirts' actions and speech had been curtailed, World War II might never have happened and lots of people your age would have happy memories of doting grandparents and great-grandparents. But the cogniscenti of the time said, oh no, don't worry about them, they're just ignorant ruffians, no manners, they don't know any better, they can't do any harm. Tell your relatives THAT.

What's that quote about evil -- all that's necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing? Something like that.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 07, 1999."

I have a tough time deciding which statement is more offensive: Comparing "trolls" to the Brownshirts OR suggesting a strong dose of censorship and oppression might have thwarted the Nazis.

You are free to litigate, "Old Git," but a suit this frivolous would never make it to trial (though it might provoke a counter-suit.) Ask an attorney, if you doubt me. (An interesting legal question: How does one defame the "character" of of an anonymous poster?) You might learn a bit more through a visit to:

http://www.cyberlibel.com

For the record, my commentary does not come close to meeting the standard of libel.

NOR are Internet squabbles the same as breaking the windows (and heads) of Jews. Your comments insult those who participate in this forum AND minimize the plight of the thousands upon thousands of people who suffered more than hurt feelings.

I do not expect you to apologize to the "trolls" on this forum. In fact, every time you use the word, "Old Git," you might as well be using any racial, ethnic or religious slur. I respectfully suggest you should stop now, before you do more damage to your reputation.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 06, 1999.

"... I respectfully suggest you should stop now, before you do more damage to your reputation."

Deck knows wherefore he speaks when it comes to auto-trashing reputations. Indeed, one area where his credibility is impeccable.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 06, 1999.

Here, out of his own mouth, are W0lv3r1n3's plans for the rollover. I wonder if all of the Debunkers are so well "prepared"?

Tuesday, 08-Jun-1999 10:00:29

193.243.244.8 writes:

Nobody asked me directly, but I'll pitch in anyway. The following outlines the "preparations" which my extended family have in place for the new year. (Please note that none of this is specific to Y2K, but would in any case be available.)

The plan for myself, wife and child, is to drive down to central Spain in mid-December, to spend Christmas and the New year in my wife's family's house, a 19th Century castillian farm comprising 3 buildings enclosed by tall stone walls (forming a courtyard), surrounded by many acres of the rich red soil that gives the area its nickname of "La tierra del pan y vino".

There, we have access to the normal reserves of products which rural- dwellers in that country keep on hand as a matter of course.

These include :- a cellar full of local wine - mostly "Toro" - (the region, not the animal), a large "panadera" (or dry-basement) stocked with dried, preserved and canned foodstuffs (which would usually be employed to help the family through the harsh and long winter), and, (this being Spain, where they eat anything with 4 legs except the tables), a ridiculous quantity of home-produced products of Pig- origin, including Jamon Serrano, Chorizo, Salchichon, Lomo adobado, morcilla, and which, being a vegetarian, I shall NOT be taking advantage of.

Also by then the autumn harvest will have provided us with copious quantities of tomatoes, peppers, onions, fruit and other assorted items from the land. The village bread keeps for years too.

We have a freshwater well within the courtyard area, and, having destroyed the last of the family's vines this year, about enough firewood to last until Y3K. The nearest inhabited house is 3 miles away, and the closest town (only 42,000 inhabitants) is a 30 minute drive.

As idyllic as all this sounds, I expect to be back at my desk in London by 1-15-00 (doing it the american way). Strangely though, since actually having to sit down and list it all, I'm almost tempted to hope we DO get "confined to barracks" for a few months. What better excuse to drill a large hole in the wine cellar.

W0lv3r1n3

-- none (none@none.none), July 06, 1999.

This forum is open to the public Mike. If you are serious about restricting access, write the maintainers and ask if a firewall can be put into place. Sound a bit harsh? Your choices are free speech or isolation.

-- Mori-Nu (silkenet@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

5 Open questions to TB2000 regulars of moderate disposition.

Q1. Do you feel that the inclusion of the semi-personal information above, cross posted to this thread without permission (i.e. showing scant regard for simple netiquette), represents any kind of relevant contribution to the conversation at hand ?

Q2. Do you believe that the act of diverting a relevant Y2K conversation by means of ad hominem attack and provocation can be reasonably fitted within a definition of "Trolling" ?

Q3. Do you believe that "Trolling", when carried out by those regular TB2000 posters who take a pessimistic outlook should be ignored or overlooked, while similar examples by optimistic contributants are roundly condemned and acted upon by the forum sysops ?

Q4. Do you believe that an evident, visible double standard in the administration of this forum would both exacerbate the difficulties often experienced in maintaining useful and informative discourse on Y2K issues, and would also act as a strong undermining influence as to the credibility and usability of the forum to posters and interested new readers alike ?

Q5. Would you prefer a situation where persons (such as myself), who attempt to analyse and discuss Y2K information (albeit from a slightly different perspective to that demonstrated by many regular posters), are harrassed and chased away from this forum, thereby leaving no room for debate or disagreement, but simply a round table back-slapping exercise for people who think exactly the same way ?

I would be interested to see any responses to the above questions posted within this thread.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Q1. Do you feel that the inclusion of the semi-personal information above, cross posted to this thread without permission (i.e. showing scant regard for simple netiquette), represents any kind of relevant contribution to the conversation at hand ?

Semi-personal? You posted it on the internet for the world to see, for Gods sake. How is that by ANY means personal? As far as it being cross posted, yes, I believe in this particular thread it IS relevant. It's difficult to assess a persons y2k outlook without any background of that persons views.

Q2. Do you believe that the act of diverting a relevant Y2K conversation by means of ad hominem attack and provocation can be reasonably fitted within a definition of "Trolling" ?

Yup

Q3. Do you believe that "Trolling", when carried out by those regular TB2000 posters who take a pessimistic outlook should be ignored or overlooked, while similar examples by optimistic contributants are roundly condemned and acted upon by the forum sysops ?

Nope

Q4. Do you believe that an evident, visible double standard in the administration of this forum would both exacerbate the difficulties often experienced in maintaining useful and informative discourse on Y2K issues, and would also act as a strong undermining influence as to the credibility and usability of the forum to posters and interested new readers alike ?

Yup

Q5. Would you prefer a situation where persons (such as myself), who attempt to analyse and discuss Y2K information (albeit from a slightly different perspective to that demonstrated by many regular posters), are harrassed and chased away from this forum, thereby leaving no room for debate or disagreement, but simply a round table back-slapping exercise for people who think exactly the same way ?

Looking back at your original contribution to this thread, no, people who post a dissenting opinion should not be "chased away". However, I have seen optimists cry harassment over the fact that their opinions are challenged. Apparently some have mighty thin skin, and when they stick their head in a bee hive (knowing full well what they are doing) , they cry foul when they get stung.

What seems to be happening here is that people are sick of the true trolls like JBD and y2k pro, who never make a valid argument on the issues, but rather only frequent this forum to ridicule any thought of y2k being more then a bitr. What unfortunately has happened, is that they have made a lot of people defensive about ANYONE who resembles a troll. It's unfortunate, because the very reason I came to this forum almost a year ago (under a different name) was to try to sort out the reality from the fiction concerning y2k. This no longer seems to be what happens here. You are right.... now it seems to be a place to back up each others rigidly formed opinions of what will happen in a few months. I miss the way this forum used to be.....

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), July 07, 1999.

Bob,

Thanks very much for your response. Permit me a few comments.

{snip}Semi-personal? You posted it on the internet for the world to see, for Gods sake. How is that by ANY means personal? As far as it being cross posted, yes, I believe in this particular thread it IS relevant. It's difficult to assess a persons y2k outlook without any background of that persons views. {end snip}

Yes, I posted it. To a location, and into an environment which I chose. It is a simple courtesy to ask the permission of a poster before cross-posting ANYTHING from one location to another. I clearly recall threads in this forum where "polly" posters were castigated and demonised for having the gall to cross-post without permission from other fora. As to the validity or relevance of the inclusion of the posting on this thread due to its content giving "background information" on my general Y2K stance, if that were the aim, surely it would have been quite sufficient (and more appropriate) to say "The person has admitted to a certain level of preparedness" or even to refer to the posting to the other forum and provide a link. Or maybe someone could have actually ASKED ME. Nothing wrong with that, and unlikely to offend. But do you truly believe that was the motivation for including this information ? If so, why was it done in such an agressive way by an anonymous poster ?

Your answers to questions 2,3 and 4 indicate that you are in broad agreement that the conduct of the two posters in this thread is unacceptable, and that as such, having been seen participating in "Trolling" activity, that action should be taken against them in keeping with the forum posting guidelines. Thank you. Thats the point I was trying to make.

As to your suggested justification that . . {snip}What seems to be happening here is that people are sick of the true trolls like JBD and y2k pro, who never make a valid argument on the issues, but rather only frequent this forum to ridicule any thought of y2k being more then a bitr. What unfortunately has happened, is that they have made a lot of people defensive about ANYONE who resembles a troll. {end snip} . . my only comment would be that while I'm sure this is a true reflection of the way in which some people on this forum treat posters who they disagree with . . THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It is clearly in flagrant breach of the forum posting guidelines. Now whats the point in having guidelines if you dont act when they are broken ?

I am NOT a troll, and I object to being treated like one when I am simply trying to contribute to the debate. I can see the argument, but it changes nothing. They were both wrong to do what they did, and something should be done about it. Otherwise, your answers to questions 4 and 5 seem to indicate the true nature of what this forum has become.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

And, just as I feared . . nothing but an eerie silence was heard from the Sysops.

You really should get those guidelines changed.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.