WOW!

It worked!

Our requests for Delete removed that silly Princess Di thread.

I only noticed because when I hit refresh my screen jumped UP not down.

Good job moderators. This was a true troll post.

Thanks

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999

Answers

This is a moderated forum.

In a moderated forum there is no such thing as censorship.

If someone don't like the fact that this is a moderated forum (and as such EVERY post is at the mercy of the moderator) then just leave.

I post here with the rules in mind and as such should my post be deleted then thats live. This is the beauty of a moderated forum.

Like I said, you don't like it go somewhere else. Don't scream censorship when there is NON by definition

-- justme (justme@justme.net), July 12, 1999.

The moderators are fair you say ? Interesting.

"Screaming about censorship" in a moderated forum is indeed silly. Nobody who understands the concept of forum moderation would bother to post here if they were upset by censorship. The forum is censored, of that there is no argument, and thats fine. The problem lies elsewhere.

Justme said . . "I post here with the rules in mind and as such should my post be deleted then thats live. This is the beauty of a moderated forum."

Well now we're getting somewhere. "Fairness" is something which requires no specialist training to recognise. It's application (or lack thereof) also speaks volumes about the true intent of those applying any rule. The problem in this forum lies in the fact that the stated "rules" are . .

a) Misleading. In that in practice they are applied as a device to silence any voice of "dissent" from the forum's accepted (but unstated) intellectual bias, while this is not made clear from the outset.

b) Not intended to be applied fairly. In that they are constantly being applied vigorously against some people, while others are allowed to flagrantly ignore them with no action being taken. (again, this is duplicitous, as the "rules" give no indication that they are only meant for persons of some given opinion, and not for all).

c) In their interpretation, clearly in contradiction to their own statement regarding the forums purpose. They also vary from the opinion (of the forum's purpose) published on the forum owners own website, (incidentally, this has previously been pointed out on other threads, but never answered).

Specifically, the term . .

" Y2K--preparation and related issues--are recommended discussion topics "

..is vague, and open to wide interpretation. Is the logical assessment of the degree to which preparation is required NOT a preparation issue ? Does a "recommendation" represent a definitive ban on anything NOT adjudged to be within this remit ?

Until this situation is remedied, this forum will remain, openly, visibly and unarguably a place where, in practice, the only opinions which are truly welcome are those which do not vary from those held by the forum's "regime", (basically the sysops and regulars). Thats clear.

Nothing necessarily needs to be done about this, if the vast majority of posters are happy with the status quo, but to try to pretend that the situation does not clearly show bias, duplicitousness and lack of credibility is pure folly. Is it so hard just to admit it ? Why the need to hide behind democratic devices like rules ? Or false claims of democratic fairness ?

My opinion, for what its worth, is that the only interpretation which a newcomer to this forum could possibly gain as to the nature of the medium is that of a "cultish-PR" site, where anything which may "threaten the assumptions or beliefs of the cult" is shouted down or censored. And I'm still not sure that everyone here would be so madly in favour of that simple fact. Evidence, this reply by your senior moderator to a suggestion of mine to bring the forum "rules" in line with their evident application . . .

(snip} "You are free to leave. NO ONE is chaining you to this forum. Except you.

Or start your OWN Forum. Go here...

http:// www.greenspun.com/bboard/index.tcl {end snip}

and, more succinctly, in another thread on a similar subject . .

{snip} Frankly, I have ZERO compassion for Y2K Pro and his ilk.

He/she has contributed almost nothing of value to the Y2K discussion here, he/she constantly badgers and heckels, to which *some*, not all, regular posters respond with flames and counter-heckles.

Y2K Pro is welcome to leave too. Or start his/her own forum.

Is this "fair?" No. It doesn't have to be.

Get over it, or depart. Your choice. {end snip}

In other words . . the rules are for the "elite" to interpret, they dont feel any obligation to apply the rules fairly, and if you dont like it . . leave. The interpretation of what constitutes a "contribution" to the debate apparently being "posting anything which agrees with the cultist dogma".

Now maybe some here would consider this to be a reasonable way to deal with "Y2Kpro and his ilk", but should it apply to a poster who's only "sin" is apparently having also posted to another forum ? Is the Y2K=doom argument really so fragile that it has to be defended by such bullying totalitarian means ? Because surely you realise that thats how it looks.

Of course, if anyone can educate me as to a more logical analysis of this phenomenon, then please dont hesitate to do so.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

W -- What the heck were you saying? Between Milne on one side and Chicken Little on the others, what more would you like? Mother Teresa and Attila the Hun? If the spectrum of opinion were any wider, it would shade into infra-red. Save your ink for YOUR opinion of Y2K, which is welcome. As is the post you just made, whether or not I or anyone agrees with it.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 12, 1999.

Big Dog. Im not sure which part of my posting you are responding to.

I agree with you that the breadth of opinion on this forum is by and large considerable, but that wasn't the point. If its enough for you that people of many opinions continue to post here, regardless of how they are treated, then you have no real need to post on a thread which deals with the issue of "fair treatment". You would appear to be satisfied simply that they are "permitted" to post.

The point of the thread, and of my response, was whether the sysops were applying their powers (to interpret and apply the forum rules) FAIRLY.

In other words, "is the exact same application of the rules occurring regardless of the identity or opinion of the poster". Answer - No.

TO RECAP

No argument that this is a censored (moderated) forum.

No argument that we are all free to leave, or set up our own fora.

The argument is that the sysops work from a set of "guidelines" (rules is a better description, because you dont get punished for not following a guideline), which are drafted in such a way as to make the reader believe that they will be applied "fairly". And this is simply not the case.

I have been arguing the need to change the wording of the rules, in line with their actual application IN PRACTICE, in order to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. Surely you agree that the existing situation undermines the credibility of the whole forum ? The counter- arguments which I have seen attempt to assure me (and others) that the sysops are good people and that they try to apply the rules fairly (with one curious exception, where Diane herself recently admitted that she's not interested in fair play, and nobody said a word).

Did you have an opinion on that ? I'd sure like to hear it. You've heard mine.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Perhaps this July 9 post was overlooked --

Someone passed this along in another e-mail:

Amazon Books says: "This is an Internet classic! Featured on CNN, PBS, and the BBC!!"

An interesting tidbit on netiquette...

"Censorship" on the net

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p79.html

[snip]

One of the remedies noted above for errant flamers is appealing to the culprit's sysadmin or to the newsgroup moderator to have network privileges revoked. This will no doubt elicit cries of "censorship!" from some. Sorry. Currently, no network service that I'm aware of is run as a democracy. While scorn is rightly heaped on such services as Prodigy -- which monitor discussion group content ruthlessly for anything that could be construed as remotely offensive -- there is such a thing as Going Too Far in almost any group. Privately owned and managed groups do have a right to monitor and censor their contents.

[snip]

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 12, 1999.

A moderated forum will be NEVER fair. This is a given. Live with it or shut up.

-- justme (justme@justme.net), July 12, 1999.

The guidelines are clear. They are not hard to follow.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 12, 1999.

Fine.

You all have the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not DEMANDING that the forum be fair.

I'm not DEMANDING that the moderators change their methods.

I'm simply STATING that there is a clear and unarguable disparity between the phraseology, implied intent, and application of the current "guidelines".

Now if the guidelines are changed such that a newcomer to the forum gets a clear, truthful and accurate idea of how the forum works, I'll shut up. Until then, the accusation of hypocrisy, accidental or intentional, stands unchallenged.

As an aside, I must also say that its honestly a surprise to see so many (usually vociforous) ethical, conservative, truth loving, spin hating, liberal baiting people just "shutting up" in the face of proven hypocrisy and double standards. Whats that old phrase about evil succeeding because good men stood by and did nothing ?

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3 you are an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

You holler about 'fair,' when 'fairness' is a concept that's open to interpretation. If my post is deleted, it's 'unfair,' if your post is deleted, it's 'fair,' (to me). Rant all you want, that changes nothing; it just wastes space, fool.

-- ugly (hates@idiots.here), July 12, 1999.

W -- I sincerely do not understand what you are trying to say. OTOH, obviously some think I don't get it about this whole subject of moderating/censorship. I do think it is a valid subject, though it gets tiresome, because the forum is valued by so many, including many of us who rant AT each other. That matters to me and I believe it matters to all the moderators.

I think what you're saying is that some posts that mock the character of people are left up and others are deleted? And you're saying this is inconsistent? If so, that is possible and should be considered by the mods. That is, it should be consistent as much as possible.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 12, 1999.

A fine example.

The post above contains NO contributive element to the discussion, and is simply insult and invective, aimed at me, ad hominem.

Will it be challenged ? Will there be calls for deletion ? Will the sysops do ANYTHING ?

I think I know the answer. Ugly can do what he wants, because. . .

THE RULES DONT APPLY TO HIM, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO CHALLENGES A "POLLY".

Fairness is open to interpretation is it ? I'm pretty sure any undecided newcomer will be able to "interpret" it perfectly well based on these examples.

Kind regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3 (a De Bunker regular),

Would you give this up please! When the heck have YOU be censored or Decker, or Y2K Pro or Flint, or, or, or. Your meme is sounding like a broken record.

1)

a) Misleading. In that in practice they are applied as a device to silence any voice of "dissent" from the forum's accepted (but unstated) intellectual bias, while this is not made clear from the outset.

See... under About

Founded by computer expert and noted author, Ed Yourdon:

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. ...

What about that do you NOT get? Are you intentionally dense?

2)

b) Not intended to be applied fairly. In that they are constantly being applied vigorously against some people, while others are allowed to flagrantly ignore them with no action being taken. (again, this is duplicitous, as the "rules" give no indication that they are only meant for persons of some given opinion, and not for all).

Trash posts, are trash. What about that do you not get?

Virtually anything goes here because the regular participants want it that way.

3)

c) In their interpretation, clearly in contradiction to their own statement regarding the forums purpose. They also vary from the opinion (of the forum's purpose) published on the forum owners own website, (incidentally, this has previously been pointed out on other threads, but never answered).

Ed Yourdon set this forum up, moderated it, deleted trash posts, then turned it over to a Moderating team.

What do you NOT get about that?

4)

Until this situation is remedied, this forum will remain, openly, visibly and unarguably a place where, in practice, the only opinions which are truly welcome are those which do not vary from those held by the forum's "regime", (basically the sysops and regulars). Thats clear. 

What IS clear is you dont read all the bump-in-the-road posts here. Are they censored? No. The Syspos and regulars all think there is an upcoming Y2K problem. So?

What about that do you not get?

5)

Nothing necessarily needs to be done about this, if the vast majority of posters are happy with the status quo, but to try to pretend that the situation does not clearly show bias, duplicitousness and lack of credibility is pure folly. Is it so hard just to admit it ? Why the need to hide behind democratic devices like rules ? Or false claims of democratic fairness ?

The BIAS here is... people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.

What about that statement do you NOT understand?

6)

My opinion, for what its worth, is that the only interpretation which a newcomer to this forum could possibly gain as to the nature of the medium is that of a "cultish-PR" site, where anything which may "threaten the assumptions or beliefs of the cult" is shouted down or censored. And I'm still not sure that everyone here would be so madly in favour of that simple fact.

Youve stated your opinion. Doesnt mean youre right or that most here agree with you. YOU ARE free to depart, if you dont LIKE IT. So are newcomers. So are regulars.

Suggest you get off the cult kick though.

7)

In other words . . the rules are for the "elite" to interpret, they dont feel any obligation to apply the rules fairly, and if you dont like it . . leave. The interpretation of what constitutes a "contribution" to the debate apparently being "posting anything which agrees with the cultist dogma".

See the about statement... that Ed created... that weve maintained. Clearly, you see only what you wish to.

8)

...if anyone can educate me as to a more logical analysis of this phenomenon, then please dont hesitate to do so.

Trash is still trash. Get it. Is that illogical? No. Most recognize it when they see it. Clearly you dont choose to. So leave.

Fair enough?

See...

Yes, It's STILLL, STILL, STILL Y2K Stupid

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 00146I

And re-read the guidelines...

TimeBomb 2000 Forum Posting Guidelines:

 Y2K--preparation and related issues--are recommended discussion topics
 Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames
 If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post
 Post using your own name or handle--stealing may result in deletion
 Once 3-5 regular posters request DELETE--pointless threads may be removed
 Refrain from using profane/obscene language--or post will be deleted
 Dont feed the trolls--please
 Delete assessment of TBY2K SYSOP(s)--is final

What is hard to understand about that?

This is a TimeBomb 2000 Forum. Get it?

This is so silly, its patently ridiculous.

Back to Y2K issues.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Diane --

I am somewhat uncomfortable with how quick you were to delete the "apocolypse" posts that were on the forum last night. While it is true that the author was less than subtle in his/her presentation, deleting the posts was a dangerous precedent.

If this truly is a preparation forum, than you must expect those of a Christian persuasion to address the Tribulation, Armageddon and other issues contained in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible. For some Christians, there is strong evidence that this could be an important time in human history.

When this person posted their thoughts last night, the first response was something to the effect of "well looks like the full moon brought out all the wackos tonight."(made by someone else). You then proceeded to address the forum and ask something like "does anybody want to delete this." My question is why? The second question is why are you soliciting "delete" votes from the regulars in this case?

The predictions of Nostradamus are frequently discussed here, why delete the predictions of the Bible? If you are going to start making this type of decision, are you going to start deleting anything to do with psychics, Nostradamus, astrology, or any other ideas that are not considered mainstream?

I have been supportive of your right to censor the forum in the past, but this was highly questionable. These posts did not look like the work of trolls. Even if they were, the conversation that ensued may have been meaningful to some readers. Look how much dialogue is started when Y2K Pro throws out obvious troll bait.

My question to you is are you going to continue to omit and censor anything related to Christianity, the Bible, Revelation, etc? If so, I think it needs to be stated up front that this is your intent.

-- ariZONEa (disapponted_in@the_forum.com), July 12, 1999.

Diane,

In amongst your heated hyperbole, there is much to challenge. Here are your starters for 10. . . (yours in bold, mine in italics)

W0lv3r1n3 (a De Bunker regular),

What relevance does the fact that I occasionally post to other forums (if you think I post there regularly, maybe you can back up that accusation with some fact, especially as that forum lists IP addresses, so youll know EXACTLY how often I post there, and the nature of my postings), have to this debate ? Did you just throw that comment in there to help enlist the self-righteous indignation of your fellows in condemning me out of hand ?

Would you give this up please!

Why ? Does the subject make you uncomfortable ? Would you prefer a situation where anyone who is offended by the double standards practiced here, not to mention the outright inaccuracy of your guidelines, just shuts up and doesnt bother you ? Well I'm sorry that I am unable to furnish you with your utopian dream. I think it's wrong, and I'm free to comment (according to you and your guidelines), so answer the questions, ban me, or butt out, but dont tell me to drop the subject.

When the heck have YOU be censored or Decker, or Y2K Pro or Flint, or, or, or.

In case you've missed the vital clues in my previous postings . . THIS IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP. What part of that dont YOU understand ? This is about whether your administration of the forum, and application of your own regulations, is or is not FAIR. That, Iu am suggesting, is the true test of the strength of your case. The TREATMENT of persons contributing to the debate, albeit not from the angle you'd prefer, is the issue here. Do they get the same benefits from the guidelines OR NOT ? Answer - NO.

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. ... What about that do you NOT get? Are you intentionally dense?

Then its intended for me. My particular interest is in trying to ascertain EXACTLY WHAT I SHOULD BE PREPARING FOR, SO AS NOT TO RUN AROUND LIKE SOME SHEEP JUST PREPARING FOR DOOM BECAUSE SOME OTHER SHEEP TELL ME DOOM IS COMING. Is that not a valid reason for me to post here ? It doesnt excuse the fact that when I (and those like me) post here, we are subject to ABUSE, in BLATANT CONTRADICTION OF YOUR GLOBAL GUIDELINES, and that YOU CONDONE IT BY INACTION. On the other hand, should someone behave the same way towards one of your cronies, woe betide them. Also, the "dense" comment, as an ad-hominem attack, coming from a sysop, speaks volumes. Call to delete anyone ?

Trash posts, are trash. What about that do you not get? Virtually anything goes here because the regular participants want it that way.

Trash posts should then be dealt with in the same manner, regardless of the poster or their opinions right ? THEN WHY ARENT THEY ? And do the regular participants want it that way, or just the vociforous minority of extremists ?

Ed Yourdon set this forum up, moderated it, deleted trash posts, then turned it over to a Moderating team. What do you NOT get about that?

What I dont get about it is how its relevant. What I'm asking about is the CONDUCT of the moderators, in line with their own stated rules for the forum. Your comment bears no relevance to that at all.

What IS clear is you dont read all the bump-in-the-road posts here. Are they censored? No. The Syspos and regulars all think there is an upcoming Y2K problem. So? What about that do you not get?

You're back on the censorship thing again. I have never accused the board of eliminative censorship. But there are many means to an end. By permitting "bump in the road" posts, but then allowing "regulars" to mistreat those posters, in disregard of the guidelines, without taking any action, you achieve the same outcome. That is, that only doom and gloom posters can express their opinions here and hope to be protected to any degree by the rules. So, as I said, one rule for them, another for us. What about THAT do you not get ?

The BIAS here is... people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. What about that statement do you NOT understand?

I'm someone who is concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on my personal life, and who wants to discuss it with a whole range of different people. That way I might get some rational idea of what to prepare for, and how. Why then are you acting solely in the interests of the extremists, whos intent is to persuade everyone to bug-out, quit their jobs and move to a cave ? Is there no place on this forum for people who wish to assess the information based on a more moderate standpoint ? If so, can they expect the same degree of protection under the posting guidelines as the extremists ? If so, why has this not been forthcoming to date ?

Youve stated your opinion. Doesnt mean youre right or that most here agree with you. YOU ARE free to depart, if you dont LIKE IT. So are newcomers. So are regulars. Suggest you get off the cult kick though.

Yes I have, and it has been very educational to see the official response from the forum sysops. In all, it has led me to consolidate my belief that a presumption of a Y2K 7+ scenario is a prerequisite for protection under the "guidelines" and that anyone falling outside of that limitation should be duly warned from the outset that the board will be overtly and officially hostile if they dare to post their opinion here. What have you said so far to invalidate that conclusion ? As to your suggestion . . why ? Is that a veiled threat ?

Trash is still trash. Get it. Is that illogical? No. Most recognize it when they see it. Clearly you dont choose to. So leave. Fair enough? See...

So, like it or leave. Remember we're in the "Our moderators are fair" thread.

This is a TimeBomb 2000 Forum. Get it? This is so silly, its patently ridiculous. Back to Y2K issues.

So why not be open from the outset, and amend the guidelines so that they HONESTLY reflect the attitude and conduct of the sysops ? Y2K issues, by your definition, are "We know its gonna be catastrophic, now which is the best mulcher to buy and where should we store our beans ?". By intimating that you are open to alternative viewpoints, you lay down a standard which you are INCAPABLE of living up to. I'm simply illustrating how deeply it undermines the forum's credibility.

And I agree with your comment that its silly ... but only because you think that by shouting and screaming "We ARE fair, cant you SEE ?" that will make moderate-minded people magically overlook the double standard. And you guys complain about the Clinton administration. Thats rich.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Italics OFF.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Sheesh! It's still Y2K.

Diane, still a "5"

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Policy can include as much "gray area" as its enforcers choose. this place is like being on the front lines of the battlefield, it's free (and free to leave) and a lot of people like it just the way it is, including the decisions of the moderators".

This forum (stooges and all) will be written in history as a national treasure...nothing wrong with "weeding" the garden along the way, makes the rest of it grow better...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 12, 1999.

I have no problem with having moderators and am grateful that they take the time to perform the service.......on a y2K potential impact scale, from what I have read here I'm likely sitting close to where Diane is on a scale of 1 to 10......somewhere around a 5 depending on the particular news of the day and new information I receive.

I've found that at least so far, there has been a fair implementation of the rules by the moderators anyway and they have allowed 'artistic license' which I think keeps this group lively.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with the dopes that continually play the labelling game.......taz's last post fits in that category IMHO........he says this group is for 'GI's'.........is that GI's as defined by Taz or by who?? I'm a GI but openly challenge those who I feel are going completely overboard when they talk about burying schoolbuses and shooting people. To some of these people, I will play the devils advocate and for that some of them label me a DGI......does this mean that I should be silenced?

The other group that raise my ire are the ones that although sincere, continue to blanket this group with the same old 'The Bible says we're in the last days' nonsense.........I never ever start an argument with these folks however if they insist on positng this same thought four or five times a day, I will respond in kind four or five times a day that the 'End Times' is simply a name for the whole period of time from Christ until today......and the 1990's have no special significance whatsoever.....

If they want to repeat the same old very bad interpretation of scripture then they should expect that they will be corrected.....

Perhaps we can stick to Y2k and our opinions, whether higher or lower on the scale, can be respected by others. But something about how severe we feel Y2k will be or good preparation tips or Y2K news clips we find are far more on-topic than:

"Y2k=NWO,=666=devil,,do you all-want to,ROAST-IN-HELL=soon, god-loves- you=Repent,--he don,t want to TORTURE=you but he can,t help HIMSELF=justice is king. DEVILhates your EVIL things-+=like elekticty &*EVIL=t,v, shows like JERRY SPringer--LUCIFER,s TOOL!!!,,,*&)"

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 12, 1999.

Thanks for a thoughtful and interesting response craig.

Can I ask you to clarify your thoughts on these things please . .

I've found that at least so far, there has been a fair implementation of the rules by the moderators anyway and they have allowed 'artistic license' which I think keeps this group lively.

Please can you, or anyone else, cite examples where sysops have stepped in to defend any of the following posters from malicious, ad- hom, trash, labelling responses from forum extremists. . .

Myself Mr Decker Paul Davis Flint

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with the dopes that continually play the labelling game.......taz's last post fits in that category IMHO........

I agree. Now lets watch this thread and see if the sysops decide to take any action against Ugly, or Taz for the breach of two (2) forum posting guidelines. CLUE - It wont happen, because they were attacking a "polly" and thats OK.

he says this group is for 'GI's'.........is that GI's as defined by Taz or by who?? I'm a GI but openly challenge those who I feel are going completely overboard when they talk about burying schoolbuses and shooting people.

Me too, and look where it got me.

To some of these people, I will play the devils advocate and for that some of them label me a DGI......does this mean that I should be silenced?

Apparently not. However, being in a similar position, I can inform you from my experience that it does mean that you will be attacked, slandered and bullied by forum extremists, in breach of the guidelines, and that the sysops will do nothing whatsoever about it. How does that make you feel ? Is that "Fair" ?

Perhaps we can stick to Y2k and our opinions, whether higher or lower on the scale, can be respected by others.

I agree, but in this forum, thats only part of the story. You can post whatever Y2K information you want, so long as THEY feel its constructive. If however you "troll", they will stomp you. On the other hand, if you post a moderate opinion, and get attacked by doomer "trolls" the sysops will ignore it. This is official policy. But it doesnt say that at the door does it ?

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

Craig

What the hell are you doing bringing common sense to an arguement.

And here I am waiting for the heavens to open up over the lack of peoples vision in inserting two extra digits in date code.

Canadians,,, sheesh

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 12, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3..........

The worst you or I can be 'stomped' on this forum is to have someone we really couldn't less about either delete our post or say some rude things to us.......it's really not that serious.....

I don't know if a lot will be gained by dragging up a lot of previous offenses.......There will always be those that feel they have to rant and rave to get there point across.......heck, I remember a few months ago taking something someone had said to me here totally out of perspective and writing a completely ranting response that way out of line........if that post had been deleted I probably would have been glad.......a few 'regulars' commented along the lines that I must be having a bad hair day or needed to go soak my head for a few minutes and calm down.....

I do agree with you......there are some that seem to be on almost a religious quest to stomp out all the Y2K non-believers and shouting you down is part of their crusade.......however, there are also the opposite extremists, the Y2K is nothing believers society and some of them are equally as rude and on their own mission to disrupt things.....

Personally, for the most part, I have a good chuckle at the agendas of both sides of the spectrum......The odd time that someone tells me to piss off, or worse, is probably good for me (let's see who obliges me on this one!!..hahahaha). The most telling thing is whether I can retain some semblance of civility when I respond to them.......

At the end of the day I find that the extreme points of view in most things turn out to be wrong.......time will tell.....in the meantime we'd all do well to lighten up just a bit........heck, I think I'll strip down to my shorts and run around my office building pretending to be an airplane........BTW, is it monster.com where I look for a new job?

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 12, 1999.

Craig . . .

again . . thanks. I agree with your post 100%.

I'm not unaware that when all is said and done, this forum is nothing more than electrons in a box. However . .

I find it very difficult to sit by and observe (and suffer) the kind of treatment which is meted out to persons like those mentioned in my last post (Mr Decker, Paul Davis, Flint, myself) on this forum, while all the while it masquerades as a proper, well run, even handed debating arena, complete with rules and guidelines. Its kinda like the teacher in class defending the bully and yelling at you cuz you got your lunch money stolen. You dont just sit back and let it happen. Its not right.

But, if my "ranting" serves no other purpose, at least it proves that when you stick to reason and logic, and dont break their precious rules, THE "WE'RE RIGHT BECAUSE WE SAY WE ARE" SYSOPS SIMPLY CANT (OR WONT) GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A STRAIGHT QUESTION, (unless of course they like the question).

And that, my neutral friends, is all you need to know.

Let the truth shine through.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

W:

While I've certainly noticed the treatment I usually receive here, I also notice the *nature* of that treatment. Most of the time, it emphasizes just what I'm saying, since it ignores the topic and attacks the poster. What better demonstration of the bankruptcy of the extremists' positions?

I certainly wouldn't want to see such educational demonstrations deleted.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 12, 1999.

Flint . .

thanks for your response.

One more time with feeling.

Im not campaigning for censorship. In no way shape or form.

Im not campaigning for a switch in agenda.

Im not campaigning for MORE moderation (in the "moderator" sense of the word, although in the general usage, the forum could use as much moderation as it could get)

Im simply campaigning for CONSISTENCY.

How hard could it be for such noble and intellectual minds as those of Diane and her co-sysops to simply BE CONSISTENT.

Otherwise, if thats not possible, at least change the text of the guidelines so that they reflect what happens in the real world.

Jeesh, I'm SO idealistic eh ?

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

W:

I find the moderation here both consistent and predictable. As I've written before, when the judge is clothed in a white sheet and pointed hood, you *know* what kind of justice will be dispensed. You know it will be consistent and predictable. You know how the rules will be interpreted.

Maybe you're asking for objectivity? Hehehe.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 12, 1999.

Heh

Yeah, what he said. *G*

Not *THAT* kind of consistency. The objective kind.

You got it.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

be careful what you wish for folks. the very same tactics that you accuse many of our government officials of being guilty of (lack of information or the holding back of known facts) is beginning to find it's way into this forum. much of what you feel the public should know about y2k is being "deleted" from newspapers, government meetings, etc, etc, etc. now there is a clamoring for the delete process to be exercised here. an interesting development in deed.

a deleterious kiss to you a

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 12, 1999.

And Corrine 1 (are we expecting a II?) puts it thru the posts... go, girl.

-- Lisa (lisa@monday.allday), July 12, 1999.

Flint said,

"I find the moderation here both consistent and predictable. As I've written before, when the judge is clothed in a white sheet and pointed hood, you *know* what kind of justice will be dispensed. You know it will be consistent and predictable. You know how the rules will be interpreted."

This is not the first time you've said this and is at least as bad as anything you accuse others of -- maybe worse. The KKK? "Maybe you're asking for objectivity? Hehehe."

Your foolishness is that you think you're objective.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 12, 1999.

Wolfie, Wolfie, come clean, old boy. You've been hanging around with the BFI and Bonkers crowd for MONTHS. Look what you wrote on BFI four months ago at --

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/957/1.html

where it says --

Leave your response here and let the whole world know! For the Squillionth time . . .

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Re: I have a question (Deb)

Date: Mar 16, 06:35

From: W0lv3r1n3

NOBODY here purports to believe that everything is 100% peachy and 1/1/00 will pass like any other night with no sense that anything has happened.

There will be problems. Find one post here from any regular commentator who claims otherwise.

What we claim is simple.

[WE? Like cpr, pat, Mutha, Maria, Cherri, Doc Paulie and the rest???]

1: It will NOT be TEOTWAWKI

2: Those claiming that it will have their own agendas, most of which are MORE sinister than the problems likely due to Y2K.

3: Those people (in 2) should not have free reign to spread their swill across the internet.

4: You should make whatever preparations are appropriate for the place where you live and your family circumstances, after gaining such information as is neccessary to make those decisions from RELIABLE SOURCES. (try actually contacting your local utilities, suppliers, representatives, community leaders).

Thats about it.

Answer your question ?

Youre welcome.

W

Well, you certainly answered OUR question Wolfie, old boy.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 12, 1999.

What in the hell makes anyone think that they are justified in raising a bitch about a privately owned forum which is given to everyone for free?

Who in their right mind is going to accept a gift from someone and then complain about how the gift is being dispursed?

Lets just imagine for a minute that this is real life, my name is I'mdon and I've just been given the use of a large building so that I can invite people to come in and discuss y2k free of charge. Just for the heck of it, lets say we call this building The TimeBomb 2000 forum. In attempt to maintain some type of order I decide that I'm going to make a few rules (or guidelines if you wish).

As can be expected, there are varying degrees of discussion and as can be expected, some discussions are pretty heated. No big problem. We're all adults and we handle it fairly well.

Now, all of a sudden, we got Joe Blow over there deciding that he doesn't like the way that I'm running the show, so he decides he's gonna open his big yap hole and start bitchin' about it. Now, I don't know about other people, but in my neck of the woods, this crap ain't gonna fly. Who the hell is this guy and what makes him think he has any right to tell me how I should run MY show. My advice to Joe Blow is to shut the fuck up or get the hell out. If ol' Joe wants to start cryin' about his right to freedom of speech, then I'll show him and his First Ammendment Rights the front door and he might just get a taste of concrete on the way out.

While we're on the subject, lets say we have a couple of punk ass kids come in. We'll call them 'Chicken Doodle' and 'Wannabe Pro'. It's obvious from the getgo that these two guys only intentions are to act like the little pricks that they are. They start goin' around makin' stupid ass comments and gettin' in peoples faces while throwing idiotic insults at them. Needless to say it's only a matter of minutes before someone finds Chicken Doodle and Wannabe Pro layin' on the floor in the fetal position with boot prints all over their face while they're cryin' for their mama.

That's real life, or at least it is were I'm from.

Joe Blow, Chicken Doodle or Wannabe Pro would never make it in the real world acting like that, but since this is cyberspace and these assholes are not welcome in the real world, they hide behind their little computer screens and pretty much get by with anything. It's their way of substantiating their existance. They're nothing but idiots and cowards.

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 12, 1999.

Anyone who feels that Y2K risk is small enough that they don't feel contingency planning is necessary will almost certainly feel uncomfortable when worst-case scenarios are discussed here. Looking at worst-case scenarios is part of assessing Y2K risk. An analogy with auto insurance:

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9913.htm

[snip]

Life is filled with risk and surprising outcomes. That is why we pay insurance premiums to cover improbable, but not impossible surprises that can damage our health, homes, cars, and businesses. Every such situation requires a personal assessment. Should your car insurance include a collision rider? If not, you can reduce your current out-of- pocket expense. How risk averse are you?

Right now, people are attempting to assess Y2K risk.

[snip]

Those who believe that current news about Y2K is quite good and getting better everyday have no need for this forum. People who believe the news is good and getting better everyday should have the courage of their convictions and leave those who are making small, medium or large Y2K contingency plans alone.

This is not a call for censorship, by the way. It's just that anyone who continuously calls here saying concern is not needed, by their actions, indicate that Y2K is a greater potential problem than they care to admit.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 12, 1999.

WO1v3r1n3, I agree with many of the things you've written. I,like you have formed my own conclusions from the actions or inactions of the forum moderators and the responses or non responses of the posters. However, I will say that despite its shortcomings, for me, this is a source of discussion about y2k and the many related aspects of the subject, some of which have not yet been officially deemed relevant. Spiritual preparation for example, that one gets criticized incessantly but for human beings to face any type of unknown future, there are many who want to discuss this aspect of preparatory thinking. To each their own. Anyway, to make my point, this cyberspace forum for me is what there is in terms of discussion of this subject. It is not ideal. I don't know where that exists. I have asked for definitions about what constitutes a valuable post, who is really who they say they are and how can one discern, what is a doom zombie, what is someone who holds y2k views in between,etc. No answers from the sysops/moderators but that itself was helpful to me in some respects, none the less. The presence of labels within the jargon here is evidence of a "stop thinking" perspective for anyone to question if they care to do so. It's all about thinking anyway. This forum is not always informative, but many times, stimulating, thought provoking. And that, IMHO, is the best that I can do for myself by reading here, selectively of course and with an eye on the "politics" if one would allow that it exists!

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), July 12, 1999.

mixer of music said:

"This is not a call for censorship, by the way. It's just that anyone who continuously calls here saying concern is not needed, by their actions, indicate that Y2K is a greater potential problem than they care to admit.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 12, 1999."

Has it occured to you that some might want to protect those of a less technical nature from becoming panicked by extremism?

-- extremism (is@never.agoodthing), July 12, 1999.

extremism,

You asked...

Has it occured to you that some might want to protect those of a less technical nature from becoming panicked by extremism?

There is no panic right now. I don't see panic on the public's part later this year if, indeed, the news about Y2K is as good as the optimists say it is and is getting better. The "protect those of a less technical nature" comment smacks of elitism. It's OK for governments and businesses to assess Y2K risk and make contingency plans, but not families?

-- Linkmeister (link@librarain.edu), July 12, 1999.

Not elitist, Kev. Many are pontificating on subjects they know nothing about, and some might mistake them as an expert.

Truth is truth and should be displayed honestly. With businesses finishing up y2k related fixes and saying "looks good, should be AOK" what need is there for individual risk assessment? If your power is on, and Micky-D's has burgers what's the big deal?

Do you work for a company that has its head in the sand re:y2k fixes? probably time to look for a new job. what does the latest Illuminati plot have to do with that?

please, no long old and stale cut and pastes now, O.K.? I've read them a thousand times.

-- no elitist (but@anti.extremist), July 12, 1999.

elitist: "please, no long old and stale cut and pastes now, O.K.? I've read them a thousand times."

Zap! you've made yourself clear!

Your existence starts with you, then goes thru your company, then out to the rest of the world! You don't understand the interconnection part!

Working with you pollies is like trying to figure out how to train a parrot to cook breakfast.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 12, 1999.

oh yes. I forgot the "interconnected" mantra.

poo-poo on me

-- no elitist (but@anti.extremist), July 12, 1999.

"Bossman" (I'll just bet),

You do have a mouth on you, don't you? Like the man said, "If you don't know what you're talking about, the very least you can do is to SHUT UP!"

For your edification (that means so that you'll know more after you read this than you did before you read it. . .you can read, can't you?), this forum is funded, at least in part, by FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS. That means that, "ol' Joe", who, "wants to start cryin' about his right to freedom of speech", has the same right to run his mouth that you have and just did.

You belong in a bar ditch somewhere on the Alabama Gulf coast, chopping weeds and chained by the ankles to others who would deprive those they don't agree with of their rights.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 12, 1999.

Hardliner,

Are you saying that, because this forum is partially funded by tax dollars, anyone come come in hear and say what they please, without worry of deletion or censorship? If so, you are sadly mistaken.

Because this forum is available to the public, does not mean it belongs to the public. It doesn't matter if the server that it is run from is TOTALLY funded by tax dollars. THIS FORUM belongs to someone. The one who created it (or whomever he disignates), has control over. If he wants to go as far as doing away with this forum then he may do so without answering to anyone or any federal agency. That's his right. He can run it however he wishes.

Federal funding has nothing to do with how this forum is run. Yourdon has turned the forum over to someone else. He has given them control over what goes on here. They make the calls the way they see fit. It's pure BS for someone to come in here and start telling them how they should run this forum.

As I said in my scenerio above, in the real world, this crap wouldn't be tolerated, nor should it be.

By the way, my comment about freedom of speech was based on my predisposed notion that someone would start crying about somebody's "freedom of speech" (such as you did) when I said I'd show him the front door for running his mouth about how I should be running MY show.

Like it or not Hardliner, freedom of speech does not mean that we are free to go wherever we want and say what we want. That's the way it is and the way it should be. Live with it.

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 12, 1999.

Bossman you better "prep" for a verbal ass-whooping. Hardliner will kick the snot out of you.

-- bossman (is an@ elitist.pig), July 12, 1999.

What the F**CK is going on here? I simply meant to thank the moderators for deleting a post that even pollies would like removed.

I realize that everyone wants to CYA, and keep the door open for his or her opinion, but shit, I'm not even a moderator. Chill everyone, chill.

Any comments can be sent to my email address. I never use an alias.

-- GBA (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.

Dear, dear people,

Reading the preceding has been enlightening. I feel my work here is complete for now. Perhaps I'll pop back in around the time of the next non-event...when is that exactly? 990822, I believe, when the GPS system is supposed to fail and send us into global war or some such nonsense. I'll point out then that yet another date has passed without event, and you will rail and rant in a wholly unsubstantiated and assuming manner about genitalia and murderers and accents and vocabulary and spelling...

Relaxing, smiling, satisfied,
Andy Ray

:)

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.

I'm well aware of Hardliner and his postings.

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 12, 1999.

What work is that Andy Ray? Finding an answer to your embedded chip question?

See ya!

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 12, 1999.

:)

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.

Andy Ray,

What's your problem, shit head? Go away, you contribute nothing to the world. Flint, Poole, Decker, Corrine1 and many other "less than doomers" all raise a few hairs, but at least they have something to say. You don't. Piss off.

Tantrum over.

-- backontrollpatrol (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.

:)

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.

Mike,

This is a sincere question. What was the post that started all this? I missed it. Tell me what was it about the post that was so offensive to cause all this? What was stated it it?

Really want to know what caused all the ruccus so I can decide for myself.

-- Kelly (peacefullhome@yahoo.com), July 12, 1999.

'This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.'

click for details

-- (mod@mod.mod), July 12, 1999.

Wow . . . you go to bed, you wake up . . and suddenly we're playing softball in tangentville.

Diane (in your OutingsR costume, for I think it surely must be you) . . is that cross post the best you can do to "try" to discredit me as a poster just because you dont like the message ?

So what did I say in that post that I should be ashamed of ? That I dont think Y2K=TEOTWAWKI ? That I use the term "we" when answering a newbie question on a forum I post to ? (When you say "we" are you including Andy, INVAR, bossman and the rest of the extremists in your group )? Or maybe it was the part where I said that I am totally in favour of everyone preparing as they see fit ? Methinks the utter lameness of the attempted slur kinda backfires on you, but I'll leave that for the impartial to decide.

The fact is, (bossman et-al), you have the wrong end of the stick yet again. I'm not shouting my mouth off about free speech. If you bothered to read my postings, and tried to understand them, then youd probably get a clearer idea of my gripe.

Once more then, for those who still DGI *G*

If someone "owns" the forum, and they decide to mete out justice as they see fit, then that's fine (lets pass over the sticky issue pof public funding for now .. because as a non-US taxpayer, I feel it is frankly none of my business). Indeed, I belong to clubs and groups in real life where this is the way things go. Its fine. Everyone takes their chances. If you anger the host, you leave before the fish course is over. No argument there. If I had been muzzled a year ago by Ed Yourdon, in person, I would have no room for comment. That action would however reflect on Mr Yourdon, and I am sure that being the smart operator he is, this is an indication of why he was never particularly energetic in trying to "silence the rational voice of opposition". But my how things have changed.

You now have a moderation committee. The game is different. As soon as you establish a "team of administrators" (like a committee), and they go through the motions of establishing a set of guidelines, rules, or norms (no pun intended) of behaviour, then they immediately and voluntarily become the visible custodians of the group's credibility. Thats just the way it is. Its sometimes referred to as "carrying the torch". The many screams of outrage seen on this forum regarding the behaviour of your own President echos this point. Once someone steps up to the mound in the public eye, their behaviour DOES become subject to the scrutiny of those they govern. Why should the moderator team be any different ? Do the same anti-Clinton folk not object to the loose-cannon government of this forum making rules and then deciding who must obey them and who has the "get out of jail free card" ?

Now, back to this thread. Far from deserving all this pent up anger and wrath, what I'm trying to do here is actually an attempt at HELPING. Maybe some of the regulars here are too close to the trees to see the wood. By the simple error of applying you own guidelines in a biased and unfair way, you send a message to any newcomer or lurker to the forum as to the kind of environment it represents. If the forum environment is such that the rules "suggest" the limits of behaviour, but there is an unstated agreement among the moderators that they only apply to non-doomer posters, dont you think the newbies will notice ? And what will they learn from this realisation ? And how does that affect your ability to teach them anything ? Doesnt credibility matter ?

If you accept this argument, you may save time and stop reading at this point. If however you still feel that I am simply "shouting my mouth off where its not required" then I'll try one more time to get my point across.

So, for those who NEED an example (in line with bossman's building analogy), then here is one . . .

On another thread, entitled "To all the trolls and pollies that are visiting the tb200 to disrupt it . . ."

(http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012sl)

Y2K aware mike posted a diatribe setting out his gripe with non- doomer posters. I replied, giving an alternative viewpoint, line by line. In no respect did I break any of the forum guidelines, I refrained from ad-honinem attack, and I made every effort to put the case for the opposition as best I could. This, I believe, was a contributive post. Mike made certain assertions, coupled with assumptions and opinions, which I felt needed to be challenged. I did so in the least provocative way I could, and (I felt) without the usual descent into "us and them-ism". In fact, I tried to reply in a way which showed the inherent prejudice in the original post, without the use of counter-prejudice. Anyway, the upshot is, one of your esteemed regular posters . . OldGit, decided that my reply was sufficient justification to harangue me on a personal level.

OldGit and I exchanged several posts, hers becoming more savage, mine remaining combative, but never lapsing outside of the guidelines. After a while, an anonymous poster (somewhat similar to OutingsR, but using the handle none, none@none.none), decided to cross post some information from another forum, without prior consent, and which had no bearing on the subject at hand. Despite this sequence of events, (with regular posters repeatedly breaking the forum's own published guidelines), the sysops sat back and did nothing. This annoyed me to such an extent that I posed several questions regarding the guidelines, and the nature of the forum. This thread seems to have developed into a continuation of that original.

So, finally, if the case is simply that the guidelines ARE meant only as a means of controlling the "pollies" (and, de-facto, pessimistic posters are exempt, but the sysops are shy of admitting this openly within the guideline content), then I can only say that it is as shameful and "un-american" a thing as I have ever seen.

If not, then something should be done about it.

Kindest Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Wolfie, OutingsR never confirms or denies guesses as to its identity and encourages guessees to do likewise. And (as if you didn't know), OutingsR cross-posted your BFI post so that readers don't mistakenly assume you're being purely objective and helpful, as you claim.

Ed Yourdon originated the Timebomb 2000 forum. Without too much brain strain you can understand that the forum represents Ed's opinions, that people who agree with Yourdon's opinions are the major posters here, and have been for some time. What is it about Ed Yourdon's position on Y2K that you don't understand? You say you believe --

"1: It will NOT be TEOTWAWKI"

That's not what Ed Yourdon says, is it? Then you say --

"2: Those claiming that it will have their own agendas, most of which are MORE sinister than the problems likely due to Y2K."

Some of us DO say it will be the end of the world as WE know it. You say we have a "sinister" agenda, more so than Y2K. You libel many of the regular contributors to this forum and expect courtesy, tolerance and understanding in return??? Then you follow with --

3: Those people (in 2) should not have free reign to spread their swill across the internet.

So you complain about "censorship" on this forum and yet demand that Yourdon supporters be censored. Sorry, didn't catch the anniouncement where you were appointed moderator of the Internet, let alone this forum. You describe us as "those people" and our posts as "swill." Still you expect sweetness and light???

4: You should make whatever preparations are appropriate for the place where you live and your family circumstances, after gaining such information as is neccessary to make those decisions from RELIABLE SOURCES. (try actually contacting your local utilities, suppliers, representatives, community leaders).

What you advise is pretty much what most Yourdon supporters have done and advise others to do, except we don't suggest we're unreliable sources. So who IS "reliable" -- cpr is? Doc Paulie is? Stephen Poole is? You are? Many of us have contacted some or all of the people you describe -- they have lied to us before, are probably lying to us now, and will lie to us again. You would know that if you had read our posts rather than just dropping in to criticize every once in a while. How would you know about our leaders anyway -- you're English and living in England. You know zip about the leaders in this country except what you read in -- what? The Guardian? Its more right-wing equivalent, the London edition of The New York Times? BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Of course you can understand Clinton because you have Blair for prime minister.

Do you people from BFI and DB draw straws to see who'll be the straw man for the current week? Who's turn is next? Tell them we can't be saved, it's a waste of time, we're incurably infected with the meme you BFI and DB people are always ranting about.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 13, 1999.

Outings-R

I think your post does a good job of discrediting you all by itself, but I'll answer your points anyway. Please let me know if in any of the following I breach the posting guidelines (as you did, repeatedly). (Your bold, my italics, as usual)

Wolfie,

My handle is W0lv3r1n3. Surely you are not using the name "woflie" as a term of affection ? No, youre trying to be provocative, and rile me into a heated, angry response. You failed.

OutingsR never confirms or denies guesses as to its identity and encourages guessees to do likewise.

No, because that would reveal your identity, and expose you to the same direct ad-hominem attacks which you yourself use against me. And you dont seem the kind of person who's prepared to take that which they give out, which reflects badly on you, but not me. People who post insulting, provocative and insulting things while hiding behind anonymity fit quite well into Flint's description of the "judge dressed in a white sheet and pointed hood" dont you think ? My email address is real, is yours ?

And (as if you didn't know), OutingsR cross-posted your BFI post so that readers don't mistakenly assume you're being purely objective and helpful, as you claim.

And how exactly do you suggest that it does that ? We will see your case shortly. Incidentally, you are quick to question MY stated motives. Could you please state yours so that I may have the same opportunity ?

Ed Yourdon originated the Timebomb 2000 forum. Without too much brain strain you can understand that the forum represents Ed's opinions, that people who agree with Yourdon's opinions are the major posters here, and have been for some time.

Then my call for an amendment to the posting guidelines holds water. Your guidelines do not in any way inform newcomers that anyone using this forum has to agree with Mr Yourdons views. Are you assuming that they already know what those views are ? Also, are you suggesting that there is some significance in the assertion that "people who agree with (Mr) Yourdon's views are the major posters here" ? So what ? If the forum is off limits to those who do not agree with his views, why not say so ?

What is it about Ed Yourdon's position on Y2K that you don't understand?

What I dont understand is how you feel you are qualified to speak for Mr Yourdon. ARE you Mr Yourdon ?

You say you believe --

"1: It will NOT be TEOTWAWKI"

Correct. At this stage, I do not see Y2K causing the end of the world as we know it. I think changes will occur, but the accepted use of the term TEOTWAWKI does not fit with my estimate of what will occur.

That's not what Ed Yourdon says, is it?

My understanding of Mr Yourdon's position is that he no longer believes that Y2K will bring about some kind of apocalyptic end to civilisation (thats if he ever did, using your apparent understanding of the term). If you have evidence to suggest that I am mistaken, feel free to pass it on. In fact, the following passage, from Mr Yourdon's testimony to the senate, seems to suggest that he agrees somewhat with my position . . .

(reproduced for educational purposes only)

"The emotional rhetoric that has characterized many speeches and articles about Y2K preparedness has unfortunately polarized the country into two groups of extremists, when most of us would prefer to find a "middle ground" where we are comfortable. Those who have an optimistic outlook about Y2K are often characterized as naove, foolish, irresponsible "pollyannas" who refuse to make any preparations at all for Y2K disruptions. And those who have a pessimistic outlook about Y2K are often characterized as hysterical, gullible "doom-and-gloomers" who threaten the nation's economy by attempting to corner the market in Spam and tuna fish. It should be possible to discuss Y2K personal preparedness as calmly and objectively as we discuss, say, appropriate levels of life insurance and medical insurance. If I were to ask everyone attending this hearing how much life insurance he or she had, the most likely answer would be "Enough." If I pressed further, I would probably discover that some people had ten times as much insurance as others -- because their circumstances are different, and because their perception of the need for insurance is different. But it's unlikely that the discussion would be distorted by angry rhetoric; it would simply be an exchange of information that might help some of us re- think the rationale that we used for determining how much insurance we needed."

Then you say --

"2: Those claiming that it will have their own agendas, most of which are MORE sinister than the problems likely due to Y2K."

In some cases, yes, I believe that to be true. Do you deny that uncategorically ?

Some of us DO say it will be the end of the world as WE know it. You say we have a "sinister" agenda, more so than Y2K. You libel many of the regular contributors to this forum and expect courtesy, tolerance and understanding in return???

Yes, some of "YOU" do. But most of the posters here (that I have read) fall some way short of that. Should they leave too ? I can make no guess as to what your personal agenda may or may not be, because of your anonymity. I libel NOBODY on this forum, and would remind you that accusing someone of libel unjustefiedly is, in itself, libellous (unless of course you can back that claim up with some proof). Of course, behind your mask, its safe to do so isnt it ? Finally, yes, I do prefer tolerance and understanding, because only through those means can a serious debate take place. If this forum is designed as a "like-minds back slap party", or as a "boxing ring" then say so in the same place as you put the guidelines. Although doing so would, I fear, alienate the vast majority of posters.

Then you follow with --

3: Those people (in 2) should not have free reign to spread their swill across the internet.

My choice of words could perhaps have been better. My intention (whether you believe it or not, and I could care less), was to suggest that those who DO have hidden agendas should not be allowed to propogate their message UNCHECKED BY THE PRESENCE OF ALTERNATE OPINION. I have no desire to censor anyone. But if they have a right to air their views, I demand the same right to air mine. Are you against that concept in principle ?

So you complain about "censorship" on this forum and yet demand that Yourdon supporters be censored. Sorry, didn't catch the anniouncement where you were appointed moderator of the Internet, let alone this forum. You describe us as "those people" and our posts as "swill." Still you expect sweetness and light???

No, as I have explained, I am NOT in favour of censorship per se. I am however in favour of fair play. As to your claim that I have described "you" and your posts as "swill", by asserting this you are by intimation confirming that you do have a hidden agenda. Maybe this is not what you meant to say. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

4: You should make whatever preparations are appropriate for the place where you live and your family circumstances, after gaining such information as is neccessary to make those decisions from RELIABLE SOURCES. (try actually contacting your local utilities, suppliers, representatives, community leaders).

What you advise is pretty much what most Yourdon supporters have done and advise others to do, except we don't suggest we're unreliable sources.

Why the defensiveness ? I said nothing about posters to TB2000. The above was posted on a site related to Gary North. Are YOU Gary North ? If so, why deny that you have a hidden agenda ? You make it public elsewhere that you hold your own country's constitution in contempt, and relish the idea of the destruction of the current system. If you are NOT Mr North, then why are you adopting this stance ? My comment has no bearing on 99% of the posters to TB2000, who seem to be trying to prepare as best they can for whatever they believe Y2K will bring. How is my stated opinion that one should do that based on credible evidence of offence to those people ? I simply believe that a medium which allows the posting of any opinion, however extreme, should also allow those views to be challenged, and should treat both sides impartially. What in that is there to fear ?

So who IS "reliable" -- cpr is? Doc Paulie is? Stephen Poole is? You are? Many of us have contacted some or all of the people you describe -- they have lied to us before, are probably lying to us now, and will lie to us again. You would know that if you had read our posts rather than just dropping in to criticize every once in a while.

In my opinion, it is up to each individual to decide who is and is not reliable. I do not wish to be the standard bearer for anyone. Why do you try so hard to discredit me by association ? I am not CPR, or Stephen Poole, or Doc Paulie. For your information, I read many posts here very thoroughly, and comment accordingly where I see fit. Please provide evidence to where I "drop in to criticize". Also, I do not subscribe to your thinly veiled accusation that everyone who claims to be handling their own Y2K issue is a "lying" or "part of the NWO conspiracy" .Is there no room on this forum for a range of opinion ?

How would you know about our leaders anyway -- you're English and living in England. You know zip about the leaders in this country except what you read in -- what? The Guardian? Its more right-wing equivalent, the London edition of The New York Times?

Do you live in a sound proof box ? Are you seriously suggesting that in order to have sufficient understanding of a national issue to be able to use the issue in a broad comparison, one has to live in that particular country ? Are you a political science expert ? How do you know I'm not ? If I was, (despite being in the UK), would that in your opinion give me the right to comment ? Incidentally, your guesses as to my choice of news information are mistaken.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Of course you can understand Clinton because you have Blair for prime minister.

bwaaahahahaha yourself. You have just suggested that I am unqualified to speak about Clinton. By your own standards (not mine), what right do you have to comment on Blair ? Are you in the UK ?

Do you people from BFI and DB draw straws to see who'll be the straw man for the current week? Who's turn is next? Tell them we can't be saved, it's a waste of time, we're incurably infected with the meme you BFI and DB people are always ranting about.

"We People" from BFI are not, as you suggest, organised, government paid operatives working on a rota. I will allow the other persons who frequent those fora to speak for themselves. For me, I simply want an answer to my question. "Why aren't the forum moderators applying the posting guidelines fairly ?" Maybe, in your opinion, I have no right to ask. Fine, now we know your opinion. Now I'd like to hear from some others. Is that Ok with you sir/madam ?

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3,

That looks like Wolverine, if you use E's instead of 3's and I's instead of 1's.

That, I think, is why OutingsR called you wolfie.

I read it that way myself, instead of wolv 3 r 1 n 3, which is tiresome.

And, from my experience in this forum, it is not Diane's style to use an anonymous handle to post.

J

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), July 13, 1999.

J

Thanks, yes, I know.

But the fact remains that the act of shortening someones name into a "pet" name (no pun intended) is either a sign of affection (if there is a mutual friendship involved) or a provocative act (if you intend to go on to attack them).

As to whether or not Diane posts as anything other than her own handle, I couldnt be sure, because I have no access to the forum's IP registry, however SHE DOES. So if she wanted to take OutingsR to task on his/her flagrant breaches of posting guidelines, she sure as hell could. Which brings me to the conclusion that she doesnt want to.

Got logic ?

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Uh... W0lv3r1n3,

Diane (in your OutingsR costume, for I think it surely must be you).

I'm NOT OutingsR.

Just for the record.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Also, someone just e-mailed me this link...

From Ne4tiquette

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p43.html

Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control

"Flaming" is what people do when they express a strongly held opinion without holding back any emotion. It's the kind of message that makes people respond, "Oh come on, tell us how you really feel." Tact is not its objective.

Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a longstanding network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat.

But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars -- series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group. It's unfair to the other members of the group. And while flame wars can initially be amusing, they get boring very quickly to people who aren't involved in them.

They're an unfair monopolization of bandwidth.

###

See also... the forum guideline...

 Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames

Cool down Wolverine.

Take a breather. Relax.

This forum still operates in the Ed Yourdon tradition, and will continue to do so.

Nuf said.

Diane

And sensitive newcomers are encouraged to go post at the "troll-free" Prep Forum...

NEW!!!

TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Preparation Forum (Y2K Prep Only Discussions)

http:// www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic= TimeBomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29%20Preparation%20Forum

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Well Ive seen some lame cop-outs, but thats a keeper. Maybe you could forward that to some of your forum "friends". Do I need to cite relevant examples of "approved" posters doing exactly what youre admonishing me for while you sit by saying diddly squat ?

Thanks Diane, for proving my point.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

From the book, Netiquette, by Virginia Shea, 1994. Amazon Books says -- "This is an Internet classic! Featured on CNN, PBS, and the BBC!!"

Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control

"Flaming" is what people do when they express a strongly held opinion without holding back any emotion. It's the kind of message that makes people respond, "Oh come on, tell us how you really feel." Tact is not its objective.

Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a longstanding network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat.

But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars -- series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group. It's unfair to the other members of the group. And while flame wars can initially be amusing, they get boring very quickly to people who aren't involved in them. They're an unfair monopolization of bandwidth.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 13, 1999.

ROFL

Diane and Outings arent the same person everyone . .

what you have just seen is a complete . . er . . coincidence.

Heh

Kind Regards, as ever, and especially to schizophrenics.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Obviously Wolverine,

OutingsR does sent me some e-mail.

;-D

But then, so do LOTS of other folks too.

Back to Y2K... it's "what's important" IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

And BTW...

Its my understanding that OutingsR is a team effort, given the De Bunker attempts at CENSORSHIP of this forum...

"Doc" Paulie tells about effort to remove TB2000 from MIT server

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0012Bg

Well, you might understand why a group of individuals might be * annoyed* with their constant trolling actions?

And attempt to do something about it.

The whole things a waste of energy. Think you can encourage your friends to say on their own site? And follow their own guidelines?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Diane,

probably not, after all, I couldnt even persuade you to convert your forum from a mockery of fairness into something resembling a flat playing field, and how hard could THAT be ? God knows I tried.

Maybe you should go ask em. And by the way . . I tend to reserve the word "friends" for people I know in real life. The people on De-Bunky (as you call it) are simply folk online who I agree with sometimes.

But anything that keeps you from having to answer my question eh ?

regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Oh, and one more thing . . .

Its "your understanding" that Outings is a team effort ?

Trying to pretend for the newbies that you dont KNOW who it is ? To keep them from wondering why you allow them to break all your rules ?

But wait . . . surely, in the same way that you can ident Kelly AKA Killer, (from their IP which you have access to) and threaten to contact his/her organisation, you must, in the same way, be able to identify OutingsR . . if you WANTED TO . . right ?

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

Of course I "know" who *some* not all, of the OutingsR team is.

Others just picked up the the original OutingsR flag. Because they didn't know what else to do, to stop the constant assualt and abuse here, that your "friends" delight in dishing out.

Now if you want to *really* do this forum, and Y2K newcomers a service, then please ask your De Bunker friends to "grow up" and quit trolling here. Or refer newbies to the Prep Forum.

Done with this pointless back-and-forth nonsense.

Have a nice day, Wolverine.

Gonna be another hot one here.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 13, 1999.

"Bubba Bossman",

You should have quit before you revealed even more of your ignorance. That you may actually believe some of the things that you said is sadly indicative of the general state of your education with respect to the law, about our government and about how things really work.

You ask, "Are you saying that, because this forum is partially funded by tax dollars, anyone come[sic](can?) come in hear[sic] and say what they please, without worry of deletion or censorship?" Not quite. That this forum receives any public funds is enough; that it is operated and physically exists on the campus of MIT is enough; and that anyone is free to enter and post is enough; and all three factors ensure, that this forum meets the definition of a public forum, as opposed to a private forum, as defined by the US Supreme Court. The legal effect of this classification is that the same freedoms that are enjoyed by anyone on any other public forum are mandatory here as well. This does not mean that obscenity is OK, it means that the same definition of obscenity applies here as in the "real" world. It means that no one may be denied his say simply because someone else disagrees with it. It means that no one may be discriminated against for any of the reasons that are prohibited in the "real" world. It does mean that neither the moderator(s) nor Phil Greenspun nor MIT may change the rules or "guidelines" in opposition to the law to suit any of their own ideas of what might be proper.

You continue, "Because this forum is available to the public, does not mean it belongs to the public." It does and it doesn't. The law is quite clear that the software and the hardware and the stored data is the property of MIT. That makes it quasi-public and very different than if it were owned by "WWW.BUZZFUTZ.COM". In a very real sense too, the "forum" consists of the ongoing intellectual activity that transpires here. "That" forum is completely and communally owned by the participants. You go on, "It doesn't matter if the server that it is run from is TOTALLY funded by tax dollars." You are absolutely wrong here. Federal funding, even in part, makes some actions that might occur here in criminal violation of federal law.

18 USC Sec. 245
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 245. Federally protected activities

(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with -

(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from -

(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance;

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term ''participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly'' shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot.

More inaccuracy follows when you say, "THIS FORUM belongs to someone. It certainly does, but not the guy who created it. See above. The one who created it (or whomever he disignates)[sic], has control over. Ed Yourdon, and now the moderator(s), have limited control, in that they operate the forum software, but they are themselves controlled by the currently defined laws of our society as to what actions they are permitted to take. If he wants to go as far as doing away with this forum then he may do so without answering to anyone or any federal agency. That's his right. You're half right here. Whoever is running things may certainly shut them down (and forego the remaining federal funds) as far as the feds are concerned. As for answering to no one, the administration of MIT might have something to say about the loss of those federal dollars. He can run it however he wishes. Wrong again. See above.

Federal funding has nothing to do with how this forum is run. Wrong again, Bubba. Go back and read the law about federal financial assistance again. Yourdon has turned the forum over to someone else. So it seems. He has given them control over what goes on here. You really do keep on exposing your ignorance. See above. They make the calls the way they see fit. If they're prudent, they'll make those calls in such a way that they don't bring the feds down on MIT or themselves. These laws aren't just for forums, they're for anywhere.

18 USC Sec. 242
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,. . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And since it's been revealed that there are multiple moderators, the following statute is relevant to this discussion:

18 USC Sec. 241
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . .They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Furthermore, those are just the criminal statutes. Violation of or deprivation of anyone's civil rights is a tort as well as a crime and the following laws govern the rights of civil redress of those whose civil rights have been abused.

Title 28 Sec. 1343
Civil rights and elective franchise

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, . . .

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

42 USC Sec. 1985
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
Sec. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . ., for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;. . . in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

It's pure BS for someone to come in here and start telling them how they should run this forum. Your opinion has been apparent all along, but it simply doesn't matter to the Supreme Court what you like or don't like or want or don't want. The same laws apply to everyone, and I'd venture a guess that you don't have a snowball's chance in Belize of talking them into changing their minds.

As I said in my scenerio[sic] above, in the real world, this crap wouldn't be tolerated, nor should it be. Where do you live anyway? Lower Slobovia? "This crap" is not only tolerated, it is enforced in the real world. Your "scenario" is nothing but a figment of your imagination. Your comments to the effect of leaving bootprints on someone in a fetal position and giving them a "taste of concrete" lend a vivid insight to that imagination too. You really do belong on the Alabama Gulf coast under the conditions previously described.

By the way, my comment about freedom of speech was based on my predisposed notion that someone would start crying about somebody's "freedom of speech" (such as you did) when I said I'd show him the front door for running his mouth about how I should be running MY show. I'd hardly characterize a factual description of the legal parameters that this (and any other) public forum operate under, "crying about somebody's freedom of speech", but it's clear that your bragging of operating on "predisposed notions" and your verbal chest beating about "showing someone the door" and the aforementioned imagined physical abuse originate in an intellectually impoverished nerve knot. Far from running YOUR show, all you're running is your mouth, and it's apparently not connected to even such troglodyte mentality that you do possess.

It sure sounds like you really need to say something that makes you sound as if you know what you're talking about, but you miss the boat again when you say, "Like it or not Hardliner, freedom of speech does not mean that we are free to go wherever we want and say what we want. No one ever said that it did, and all you've done is beat your chest a little more and tell us what freedom of speech is not. It's quite clear that you have no idea what it is. And, BTW, it doesn't make a Tinker's Damn whether or not I like it but it just so happens that I do. That's the way it is and the way it should be. How's that? It's sure not the way that you thought (unless you were lying to us). Live with it. I don't expect any problems doing just that, but it would appear that you're going to miss out on a few "activities".

The Supreme Court has this to say about it. "This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and was not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses, as do many opinions of this court, the importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties." Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 13, 1999.

It's safe to say this mission statement does not describe W01v3r1n3's mindset or postings.

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people."

About

-- (about@about.about), July 13, 1999.

"Done with this pointless back-and-forth nonsense.

"Have a nice day, Wolverine."

Wait a minute, Diane. You are simply going to walk away from the most important question Wolverine has asked yet:

"But wait . . . surely, in the same way that you can ident Kelly AKA Killer, (from their IP which you have access to) and threaten to contact his/her organisation, you must, in the same way, be able to identify OutingsR . . if you WANTED TO . . right ?"

Not only did you "out" this poster, you indeed actually threatened to contact their organization:

"Thank you... Killer (DominantSniper@yahoo.com) a.k.a. Kelly (peacefullhome@yahoo.com), etc.

"But you need some of Freud's analysis more than I do.

"Please stop trolling, or I will be more than happy to contact your D.C. head office and complain about your abuse actions here.

"Either that or talk to a few reporters. Bet they'd be "interested" in your actions and where you "appear" to be coming from.

"'Nuf said."

(http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00150p)

And now you will simply wander away from the most flagrant abuse of your sysop power to date? Is this a chilling sign of things to come?

The dictatorial imprudence is appalling. Please, for the sake of all of us who find this forum useful, address your writing here. Defend, if you can, what you have done.

-- Concerned (anon@anon.com), July 13, 1999.

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will love it.

-- Old (mac@donald.farm), July 13, 1999.

"Someplace where there isn't any trouble. Do you suppose there is such a place, Toto? There must be. Not a place you can get to by a boat or train. It's far, far away--behind the moon, beyond the rain."

Dorothy 1939 The Wizard of OZ

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), July 14, 1999.

Thanks to all for contributing to this latest twist in the tale.

Some fascinating insights have arisen.

Thanks especially to Hardliner for the legal insight. Especially relevant (in my opinion) is the following . . . (my emphasis)

{snip} Sec. 245. Federally protected activities

(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with -

(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from -

(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance;

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; {end snip}

Interesting also is the following passage . . . {snip} If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . .They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; {end snip}

Well it certainly seems from that passage that . .

(i) Any action taken by the forum moderators which can be demonstrated under law to constitute clear and evident prejudice against any individual based on their opinion, origin or beliefs (assuming such person remains within the published posting guidelines). or . .

(ii) Any case of willful inaction by the forum moderators to curtail or avoid such prejudice, where they have means to do so... or . .

(iii) Any attempt by the forum moderators to threaten, oppress or otherwise intimidate any persons lawfully using the forum, based on their opinion, origin or beliefs ... or

(iv) Any case of willful inaction by the forum moderators to curtail or avoid such action, where they have means to do so.

Is clearly a criminal offence punishable under US law.

Perhaps in the light of this information, Diane would care to rethink her position, and will post here accordingly, informing the forum of her (and the other moderator's) intent with regard to this question.

Interesting isn't it that Diane, on several occasions, has had every opportunity to comply with statute in regard to this issue, simply by assuring the forum that the published guidelines WILL be applied fairly to all users of the forum. But I guess that was asking too much.

Kind Regards

W

PS. I wonder if killa/kelly is owed an apology for the aforementioned threat. The original stated intent (to complain to the persons ISP about their behaviour) seems legal, (assuming Diane has some irrefutable evidence that the person in question HAS abused some part of the relevant law concerning the use of telecommunications services), but I wonder what a Jury would do with the subsequent implied threat to "talk to some reporters". That sure sounds like an attempt at intimidation to me. Of course, it would be up to that individual to decide what action, if any, to take. - W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

stray tag nightmare. BOLD OFF.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

The Rick Cowles electricity forum is also on Greenspun/MIT. I wonder if W01v3r1n3 is planning to make this an issue there too. The Cowles power forum is much more moderated than this one.

-- (ignore@the.trolls), July 14, 1999.

Squire's operational stance seems to come from the following:

My enemies enemy is my friend

Are the rules designed and implemented to muzzle pollies?

Of course.

Will Squire have the courage to admit to this obvious bias?

Of course not.

Those of us who do not worship at the Cult of Doom now know for certain that there is another obstacle to free expression.

"Do I wish to see the present Federal governmnet completely disemboweled? Yes, absolutely"

Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 05, 1999.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), July 14, 1999.

" The Cowles power forum is much more moderated than this one."

Yes it is. The difference of course is that the rules are applied (unlike here) to everyone over there - not just pollies...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), July 14, 1999.

The 'bias' has already been admitted.

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like- minded people."

click here

-- (concerned@bout.impact), July 14, 1999.

Concerned.

FYI. The number of times you post the same message has no direct impact on the relevance of that message to the issue at hand. Your point has been answered before should you care to look. For your convenience, here is a restatement of the answer.

(i) As previously stated . . I am concerned about the impact of Y2K on myself and my family, and wish to discuss it with like-minded people (taking as a definition, those people aware of Y2K, and not of the "It doesnt exist" school of thought). No "polly" that I have ever seen posting here or at "De-Bunky" has ever reccommended non preparation. If you have evidence to the contrary . . lets see it. The difference of opinion, and the particular element of the debate which interests me, is the degree of impact which can be realisticly anticipated. This changes on a daily basis, along with information made available, and if I wish to discuss it here with other people aware of Y2K, who are you to prohibit me from doing so ? And, for that matter, what right do the moderators have to demonstrate prejudice in their application of the published guidelines to myself or any other poster who remains within those same guidelines ? (my original question, still unanswered by the moderator team).

(ii)As also previously stated, regardless of the "intended purpose" of the forum, (bearing in mind that it resides on part-publicly- funded equipment), the limitation of the constitutional freedom of anyone, or prejudicial behaviour towards anyone, who wishes to use this service is, it appears, prohibited by law.

(iii)(To ignore@the trolls). The operation of any other forum has no relevance to this question. The defense "We did it because they did too and they're getting away with it" has no standing in law. (Example: Try telling a traffic cop who's booking you for speeding to go book all the other guys who were speeding at the same time as you, and see how far it gets you).

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

An aside . . to Y2K pro, (and anyone else who frequently incurs the wrath of the sysops).

If you and I, as "pollies", are in agreement that the mods/sysops here should apply the forum rules fairly and without regard to the Y2K-rating position of the poster, then it also seems only fair that we (you included) commit to making every effort in the future to comply 100% with THEIR guidelines, (should they decide to comply 100% with OUR wishes and be impartial in the way that they apply them).

I feel that a commitment from you that this would be the case could only serve to add weight to our argument. It is of course entirely up to you, and this is merely a suggestion, but if the terms of the agreement are as stated above, then I fail to see what you have to lose by doing so.

In particlular, I imagine that these two guidelines in particlular would be of most interest to them . .

 Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames

 If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post

These regulations seem to deal with the issue of "annoyance" postings, which mainly comprise ad-hom attack, deal with the poster rather than what they say, and contribute little of substance to any debate. If we seek protection from "doomers" in this respect (on a future flat playing field), then we can hardly do the same thing ourselves.

I suggest this because in my experience, in negotiating, some movement from both sides (even so small a thing as a statement of future intent) can be instrumental in oiling the wheels, and can help to unblock a stalemate. Otherwise, the two factions can feasibly sit yelling at each other till the cows come home.

For myself, I have no hesitation in making such a commitment, should the moderators decide to alter their current way of doing things and exhibit fairness in the way they interpret the guidelines. And you can quote me on that.

Maybe this will help, maybe it wont. In any case, its just a suggestion.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here as to what constitutes "Freedom of Speech" and what the legal protections provide.

Without attempting a comprehensive definition of free speech, suffice it to say that such right is not absolute. The well worn but correct, yelling, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is one example of limitation.

Perhaps a more relevant example would be a biology course at a publicly funded college. Students in that course would be protected by the above law against deprivation of their rights (all of them) but such protection does not constitute a license to interject discussion of English grammar into the course of instruction.

Such protection would include students' rights to discuss anything that they chose to, in that classroom, but not during the actual instruction.

To relate this to our forum then, it is clear that one who posts unrelated information into a thread is doing something disruptive and is not exercising his right to free speech. OTOH, one who posts a separate thread about comets, or sunspots or germ-spewing airplanes clearly is exercising that right in the same way that a student who initiates a discussion in the classroom of the latest rock group's music, during a break .

Where things get sticky, both here and in that classroom, is when a student wants to talk about evolution during the biology instruction or a poster wants to talk about what a hoax Y2K is. In both cases, the potential for disruption is great, and someone has to make the call as to whether things are getting too far off-topic. The courts have been prone to allow the instructor (or here perhaps, the "moderator") a fairly free hand in the matter, and unless the situation is very clear cut, will not interfere.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 14, 1999.

Good point Hardliner, and well made.

However, I'm far more interested in the interpretation of what constitutes "prejudice, oppression and denial of basic rights" as regards a public forum.

Im my opinion, even handed treatment can never be labelled as prejudical. On the other hand, a person in authority punishing one individual for doing a certain thing while at the same time permitting another individual to do the exact same thing, and basing the distinction solely on the person's opinion DOES constitute prejudice, and even denial of rights.

An analogy would be where the rules declared that "These rules apply only to females, men are exempt". This would not be tolerated as it is plainly prejudicial. The same might be said for discrimination based on an individuals interpretation of the severity of the subject under discussion.

Are creationist students permitted to partake in biology lessons which discuss evolution ? Are they permitted to air their opinion ? Does the denial of their right to air their opinion constitute prejudice ? Maybe you would know.

With regard to freedom of speech however, and the particular analogy you provided, I am in full agreement.

Kindest Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

Let's discuss Y2K unless these points are more than academic.

-- (tired@of.noise), July 14, 1999.

You should have quit before you revealed even more of your ignorance. That you may actually believe some of the things that you said is sadly indicative of the general state of your education with respect to the law, about our government and about how things really work.

You ask, "Are you saying that, because this forum is partially funded by tax dollars, anyone come[sic](can?) come in hear[sic] Thank you for correcting my mistakes. It's very considerate of you to proofread my post. and say what they please, without worry of deletion or censorship?" Not quite. That this forum receives any public funds is enough; that it is operated and physically exists on the campus of MIT is enough; and that anyone is free to enter and post is enough; and all three factors ensure, that this forum meets the definition of a public forum, as opposed to a private forum, as defined by the US Supreme Court. The legal effect of this classification is that the same freedoms that are enjoyed by anyone on any other public forum are mandatory here as well. This does not mean that obscenity is OK, it means that the same definition of obscenity applies here as in the "real" world. It means that no one may be denied his say simply because someone else disagrees with it. It means that no one may be discriminated against for any of the reasons that are prohibited in the "real" world. It does mean that neither the moderator(s) nor Phil Greenspun nor MIT may change the rules or "guidelines" in opposition to the law to suit any of their own ideas of what might be proper. Fine. I agree with you so far.

My question is in reference to your statement that Ol' Joe has the same rights as I do in speaking out on this forum. Yes, he does have the same rights as I do, but he does not have the right to disrupt or harass. The comparison between my scenerio and me posting on this forum are two different circumstances and are able to be handled in different ways. What may be allowed here does not necessarily have to be allowed in the scenerio I gave. In the scenerio I gave, it could be considered illegal and I would not allow it. I would not be required to tolerate the disruption.

As far as this forum is concerned, the simple fact is that people cannot come in here and do as they please. The First Ammendment is limited to what the law allows. You cannot come here and say or do whatever you please if what you are doing includes violating the law. In a situation such as that, the easiest thing to do is to simply delete the offending post (if the moderator so chooses).

You continue, "Because this forum is available to the public, does not mean it belongs to the public." It does and it doesn't. Either it belongs to the public or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. The law is quite clear that the software and the hardware and the stored data is the property of MIT. Ok. So now it's clear. The software and hardware does not belong to the public. That makes it quasi-public So what? That still doesn't make it public property. and very different than if it were owned by "WWW.BUZZFUTZ.COM".

In a very real sense too, the "forum" consists of the ongoing intellectual activity that transpires here. "That" forum is completely and communally owned by the participants. That has absolutely nothing to do with what  I was talking about. You go on, "It doesn't matter if the server that it is run from is TOTALLY funded by tax dollars." You are absolutely wrong here. Federal funding, even in part, makes some actions that might occur here in criminal violation of federal law. No, I'm absolutely right. Federal funding does not mean this forum belongs to the public (which is what I originally said). In the sense that this forum exist in 'virtual space', it belongs to the creator. The creator (or whoever is now in charge of it) decides the name, the topic(s), the purpose, etc. The creator (or owner) also decides when to shut it down. The public has no say so if that is the final decision of the creator.

The owner, or person running this forum, has the right to enforce guidelines or rules that are within the law. When I say that he can run it however he wishes, I'm not talking about violating the law. I'm saying that he has the right (and obligation in my opinion) to maintain order and not allow others to harass or disrupt this forum.

 

18 USC Sec. 245
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 245. Federally protected activities

(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with -

(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from -

(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance;

[Like I said, I'm not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, but this further adds to my stance that the First Ammendment is limited. Individuals do not have the right to come here and start harassing and disrupting this forum.]

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term ''participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly'' shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot.

More inaccuracy follows when you say, "THIS FORUM belongs to someone. It certainly does, but not the guy who created it. See above. No, he does not own the hardware or software that is involved (which is not what I'm talking about), but it does belong to him in the virtual sense in that he created it, decides it's purpose and that he (or the moderators) have control of it (however limited). ---- I have 3 webpages. I don't own the hardware or software that they are on but I consider them "mine" and I am responsible for them. This is what I mean when I say "this forum belongs to someone". The one who created it (or whomever he disignates)[sic], has control over. [sic](it?) Ooops, you missed one. Ed Yourdon, and now the moderator(s), have limited control, in that they operate the forum software, but they are themselves controlled by the currently defined laws of our society as to what actions they are permitted to take. I agree, and this is what I've been talking about. I'm not trying to imply that they are allowed to violate the law. What is in question here is deletion of posts. The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion. That's a judgement call they have to make.   If he wants to go as far as doing away with this forum then he may do so without answering to anyone or any federal agency. That's his right. You're half right here. Whoever is running things may certainly shut them down (and forego the remaining federal funds) as far as the feds are concerned. As for answering to no one, the administration of MIT might have something to say about the loss of those federal dollars. I'm not sure I catch your drift here. Are you implying that if this forum (TimeBomb 2000) was shut down, MIT would lose federal funding? You may be right. I wasn't aware that this particular forum was the sole reason for any federal funding. He can run it however he wishes. Wrong again. See above. Right again. See above.

Federal funding has nothing to do with how this forum is run. Wrong again, Bubba. Go back and read the law about federal financial assistance again. Right again. See above. Yourdon has turned the forum over to someone else. So it seems. He has given them control over what goes on here. You really do keep on exposing your ignorance. See above. Quite the opposite. See above. They make the calls the way they see fit. If they're prudent, they'll make those calls in such a way that they don't bring the feds down on MIT or themselves. These laws aren't just for forums, they're for anywhere.

 

18 USC Sec. 242
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,. . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And since it's been revealed that there are multiple moderators, the following statute is relevant to this discussion:

 

18 USC Sec. 241
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; . . .They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Furthermore, those are just the criminal statutes. Violation of or deprivation of anyone's civil rights is a tort as well as a crime and the following laws govern the rights of civil redress of those whose civil rights have been abused.

 

Title 28 Sec. 1343
Civil rights and elective franchise

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, . . .

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

 

42 USC Sec. 1985
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
Sec. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . ., for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;. . . in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

It's pure BS for someone to come in here and start telling them how they should run this forum. Your opinion has been apparent all along, but it simply doesn't matter to the Supreme Court what you like or don't like or want or don't want. The same laws apply to everyone, and I'd venture a guess that you don't have a snowball's chance in Belize of talking them into changing their minds. I'm not refering to laws in that particular statement. I'm just saying that I think it's BS for someone to come in here and start arguing and insisting that the moderators change things.

As I said in my scenerio[sic] above, in the real world, this crap wouldn't be tolerated, nor should it be. Where do you live anyway? Lower Slobovia? "This crap" is not only tolerated, it is enforced in the real world. You're wrong. It is not tolerated and there are laws against it. Your "scenario" is nothing but a figment of your imagination. Yes, that particular scenerio is imagination, but any similar situation that occured in real life would more than likely result in the same ending. No one has the right to disrupt or harass others, and any insistence in doing so would probably result in him being shown the front door. Your comments to the effect of leaving bootprints on someone in a fetal position and giving them a "taste of concrete" lend a vivid insight to that imagination too. No imagination here. It's not uncommon for someone to get the crap beat out of them for getting in someone's face and insulting them with statements such as I've seen on this forum. I've seen it happen many times. You really do belong on the Alabama Gulf coast under the conditions previously described. So now I should be locked up for sole reason of expressing myself. I have broken no laws. You are truly a hypocrite.

By the way, my comment about freedom of speech was based on my predisposed notion that someone would start crying about somebody's "freedom of speech" (such as you did) when I said I'd show him the front door for running his mouth about how I should be running MY show. I'd hardly characterize a factual description of the legal parameters that this (and any other) public forum operate under, "crying about somebody's freedom of speech", but it's clear that your bragging of operating on "predisposed notions" and your verbal chest beating about "showing someone the door" and the aforementioned imagined physical abuse originate in an intellectually impoverished nerve knot. Far from running YOUR show, all you're running is your mouth, and it's apparently not connected to even such troglodyte mentality that you do possess. Whatever.

It sure sounds like you really need to say something that makes you sound as if you know what you're talking about, but you miss the boat again when you say, "Like it or not Hardliner, freedom of speech does not mean that we are free to go wherever we want and say what we want. No one ever said that it did, and all you've done is beat your chest a little more and tell us what freedom of speech is not. Uhhh...yeah. That was my point. So what? It's quite clear that you have no idea what it is. I'm quite clear on what is is and what it is not. Unfortunately some people think they have the right to harass and disrupt and they choose to use the defense that they have the right to freedom of speech. And, BTW, it doesn't make a Tinker's Damn whether or not I like it but it just so happens that I do. As do I, but I don't like people trying to hide behind it. That's the way it is and the way it should be. How's that? It's sure not the way that you thought (unless you were lying to us). It's exactly as I thought. See above. Live with it. I don't expect any problems doing just that, but it would appear that you're going to miss out on a few "activities".

The Supreme Court has this to say about it. "This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and was not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses, as do many opinions of this court, the importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties." Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147 That's very nice. Thank you.

-- Bossman (seein'@right.though.em), July 15, 1999.

Bubba,

Are you related to Mister Decker? Whether you are or not, you seem to hold his tactics of changing subjects in mid stride in high regard. I'd say you have weasel-like tendencies but that would be insulting to weasels (including the Wild one that lives here).

Your original post began, "What in the hell makes anyone think that they are justified in raising a bitch about a privately owned forum which is given to everyone for free?" I have explained that the forum is not privately owned, nor is it a private forum within the legal meaning of that term but is a public forum at law and that a person is well within his constitutional rights to question the administration of a public forum.

You have clearly changed your tune from your first post in which you say, "Lets just imagine for a minute that this is real life, my name is I'mdon and I've just been given the use of a large building so that I can invite people to come in and discuss y2k free of charge. Just for the heck of it, lets say we call this building The TimeBomb 2000 forum. In attempt to maintain some type of order I decide that I'm going to make a few rules (or guidelines if you wish)", and your latest one in which you say, "The comparison between my scenerio[sic] and me posting on this forum are two different circumstances and are able to be handled in different ways. What may be allowed here does not necessarily have to be allowed in the scenerio I gave. In the scenerio I gave, it could be considered illegal and I would not allow it. I would not be required to tolerate the disruption."

Either you think the two are the same or you don't. Which is it?

Furthermore, you started out claiming that no one had the right to complain about forum administration by saying, "Now, all of a sudden, we got Joe Blow over there deciding that he doesn't like the way that I'm running the show, so he decides he's gonna open his big yap hole and start bitchin' about it", but in your latest post, you again change your tune and say, "Yes, he does have the same rights as I do, but he does not have the right to disrupt or harass."

Disruption and harassment are not part of free speech, and no one ever claimed that they were. Your argument, to be consistent however, must equate opening, "his big yap hole and start bitchin' about it", with disruption and harassment. Would you have us believe that?

And just so that you can't say that no one ever told you, your description of "your scenario" would constitute either a public or limited public forum under the law. There's not much difference between the two, but for certain, neither designation would justify "bootprints on a face" or "giving anyone a taste of concrete" whether they were disruptive or harassed anyone or not.

Even if you were in a private forum such as your own living room, with members of your own church, having a prayer meeting, you still are not justified in denying anyone their free speech rights. Your are well within your rights to deny them access to your property, or to revoke an invitation if their behavior did not suit you once they were there, but that is completely different than denying him a right. He has no right to be on your property nor to stay if you change your mind, for any reason. Requiring him to leave would be your sole remedy at law. And, at that, you'd do well to not take the law into your own hands in bringing about that leaving, let alone committing battery which is both a crime and a tort.

It is in fact true that a public forum does and also does not belong to the public. Belonging in the sense of property ownership is one thing, intellectual property rights are another, and the communal interest that I described is yet another. None of these however, have any bearing on the question of free speech in a public forum. Everyone is permitted there and everyone has the right of free speech.

And, no, you're absolutely wrong. Despite your denial (and only several lines away at that!), what you said was, "It doesn't matter if the server that it is run from is TOTALLY funded by tax dollars." It obviously does matter, else the congress would not have enacted a law to define just how it does matter. You seem to have property rights associated with the physical aspects of a forum confused with access rights to a forum.

As for the creator of a communal endeavor "owning" that endeavor, you're just as wrong. Jefferson, Franklin and a few others "created" a Constitutional convention, but they did not "own" it. Insofar as anyone owned it, it clearly was the "property" of all of the participants. Just so with a public forum such as this. None of which, BTW, has anything to do with who does or does not have the right of free speech or what that right might consist of.

You're not making much sense either, when you say, "Like I said, I'm not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, And this is your response to a statute that clearly is talking about it? but this further adds to my stance that the First Ammendment[sic] is limited The First Amendment is not limited. The Right of Freedom of Speech is regulated. Like the man said, "If you don't know what you're talking about, the very least that you could do would be to SHUT UP!" individuals do not have the right to come here and start harassing and disrupting this forum." And once again, no one ever said that they did.

Yet again, you change horses from your original post to your most recent when you say, "What is in question here is deletion of posts. The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion. That's a judgment call they have to make", but your original question was, "Who the hell is this guy and what makes him think he has any right to tell me how I should run MY show.(?) My advice to Joe Blow is to shut the fuck up or get the hell out. If ol' Joe wants to start cryin' about his right to freedom of speech, then I'll show him and his First Ammendment[sic] Rights the front door and he might just get a taste of concrete on the way out."

How about a little intellectual honesty here? You quite plainly started out saying, "Shut up and get out! I don't want to hear about your rights and I'm probably going to feed you some concrete!" You just as plainly abandoned that in your most recent post and moved to, "The moderators decide what qualifies for deletion." That's not only quite a change, you're wrong on both counts.

I've already explained at length that your show is only free to operate within bounds and to your credit, you seem to understand that, but what you clearly did not originally understand is that those bounds include the tolerance of dissent. You could fill a library with the legal writing explaining dissent. Dissent is clearly a right that is protected by not only the first, but the fourteenth amendment and clearly, opening one's "big yap hole" and "bitchin' about it" are dissent.

And, as for the moderators deciding whether or not a post qualifies for deletion, wrong again. The law makes the determination and has even largely published the criteria. It is incumbent on the moderator to acquaint himself (or herself) with the state of the law and recognize whether or not a post is qualified for deletion. As I wrote above however, the courts have been prone to allow the instructor (or here perhaps, the "moderator") a fairly free hand in the matter, and unless the situation is very clear cut, will not interfere. You're quite right that it will be a judgment call, but the judgment must be whether the post meets the legal test, and not whether it meets any other guideline that a moderator may propose.

In the matter of the funding arrangements, I have no knowledge of the particular arrangement of this grant to MIT. If funding were proportional, then shutting down one forum might cost them, or if funding were based on usage, it might cost, but it could just as well be unrelated to usage.

And, regardless of how you phrase it, the operator of a public forum may only operate it "any way he wishes" if he wishes to operate it within the rules of the law. If he wishes to exclude opinion, he is outside the law and that operation will not stand.

Your further confusion (or is it obfuscation?) is evident and you continue to confuse free speech and dissent with disruption and harassment. Clearly the former is protected and the latter is prohibited. Clearly, "beating the crap out of someone" is not an acceptable remedy, even for disruption or harassment. In fact, "beating the crap out of someone" will most likely be more disruptive and harassing than the speech which motivated it! It may indeed happen in the real world, but it is still unacceptable to the law.

Finally, I owe you an apology, and I hereby formally apologize. I am not however, a hypocrite. You do not belong on the Alabama chain gang for expressing yourself, which is all that you really did. What I meant and what I should have said was that if you did as you imagined, you would belong there. Putting bootprints on someone's face (especially one in the fetal position which is completely defensive) or "feeding them concrete" or "beating the crap out of them" are simply not acceptable actions to me (which hardly matters) or to the law (which very much matters) as responses to speech which "pisses you off".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 15, 1999.

Allow me to respond to "bossman" in a brief and succinct fashion.

Bossman, the issue, once you remove the bluster from it, is really very simple.

1) I am a regular user of this forum, who qualifies to use it under the official statement of "purpose" posted at the gate.

2) I am complaining about the blatant prejudice demonstrated by the forum moderators in the apllication of the forum guidelines, (which according to US Law) are only legal if, in practice, they give equal protection to all users of the forum without prejudice.

Your main thrust is as follows . . .

{snip}Like I said, I'm not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, but this further adds to my stance that the First Ammendment is limited. Individuals do not have the right to come here and start harassing and disrupting this forum.{end snip}

1) Please provide clear documentary evidence of where I have harassed or disrupted this forum. Alternatively, please provide evidence of where I have argued for the rights of persons to disrupt or harrass the forum (using the legally acceptable definition).

This evidence should be of such quality that it would hold water in a court of law. You may feel that my "daring" to ask a question, or to voice a protest (within the terms of the posting guidelines) about a situation where I feel I have been subjected to prejudicial and discriminatory treatment (see my previous posts), constitutes harassment or disruption, but I doubt it would stand up in court.

2) If you are not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, then maybe you are on the wrong thread, because thats exactly what IS being discussed currently.

Secondly, you continue . .

{snip}. I'm not trying to imply that they (the moderators or owners of the forum) are allowed to violate the law. What is in question here is deletion of posts. The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion. That's a judgement call they have to make.{end snip}

Indeed. Logically, the person in control has to make judgement calls. The point is, they have to make those calls mindful of the law. If the decisions, or calls, that they make, are in contravention of the law, in that they demonstrate unconstitutional prejudice or discrimination, then they are subject to the same process of prosecution as anyone else in any other walk of life. Do you suggest that I have no right to speak out against illegal discrimination if I feel it is being practiced ? Apparently, your statement . .

{snip}. I'm not refering to laws in that particular statement. I'm just saying that I think it's BS for someone to come in here and start arguing and insisting that the moderators change things.{end snip}

. . . would suggest that you do. Shouldnt people be allowed to speak out and ask for change if the existing situation is unlawful ?

Finally, you say . .

{snip}. So now I should be locked up for sole reason of expressing myself. I have broken no laws. You are truly a hypocrite. {end snip}

If you think that by calling publicly for the violent repression of my right to speak out against prejudice is not unlawful, then you are misled as to the relevant statutes. The accusation of hypocrisy seems a little misdirected.

Put simply, you are alleging, without evidence, that I post harrassing and disruptive posts, and that furthermore, (should you get the opportunity), that you would not hesitate to silence me by the use of violence. And meanwhile, you have the affrontery to engage in a discussion of democratic law.

In the words of Diane Squire . . . "Nuff Said"

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

24 hours later . .

And no response whatsoever from the sysops/moderators. (although they appear to be active on other threads).

Read into this whatever you wish. But to the top anyway, because this isnt just going to go away.

regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 16, 1999.

Are you related to Mister Decker? Funny you should ask.Whether you are or not, you seem to hold his tactics of changing subjects in mid stride in high regard. I'd say you have weasel-like tendencies but that would be insulting to weasels (including the Wild one that lives here). No Hardliner. I'm not attempting to weasel out of anything. I am explaining my statements which you have either misinterpreted, or have chosen to add your own meaning. It is quite obvious that you are willing to go to great lengths to discredit them according to your interpretation or understanding. I stand behind my statements and will go to great lengths to clarify them as you question them.

If I had known in advance that my statements were going to be picked apart and attacked according to your prospective of their meanings, I would have certainly made them much clearer. Since you have chosen to do so, I feel I am obligated to substantiate their true meaning.

If there is any "weasel-like" activities going on, it is by you Hardliner. You have weaseled your way into my post and are trying to pick it apart according to what your interpretation of it is.

Your original post began, "What in the hell makes anyone think that they are justified in raising a bitch about a privately owned forum which is given to everyone for free?" I have explained that the forum is not privately owned, nor is it a private forum within the legal meaning of that term but is a public forum at law and that a person is well within his constitutional rights to question the administration of a public forum.

You have clearly changed your tune from your first post in which you say, "Lets just imagine for a minute that this is real life, my name is I'mdon and I've just been given the use of a large building so that I can invite people to come in and discuss y2k free of charge. Just for the heck of it, lets say we call this building The TimeBomb 2000 forum. In attempt to maintain some type of order I decide that I'm going to make a few rules (or guidelines if you wish)", and your latest one in which you say, "The comparison between my scenerio[sic] and me posting on this forum are two different circumstances and are able to be handled in different ways. What may be allowed here does not necessarily have to be allowed in the scenerio I gave. In the scenerio I gave, it could be considered illegal and I would not allow it. I would not be required to tolerate the disruption." Hardliner, I have changed absolutely nothing. Like I said above, you have misinterpreted my meaning and I am merely attempting to make the true meaning clear to you. Feel free to call it whatever you want if that makes you feel more comfortable.

I was making a comparison between this forum, as it exists, to a similar scenario (Better? Thank you for furthering my education) if it took place in real life. By "real life", I mean if everyone was actually physically present, in body, as opposed to being present, in the virtual sense, in the form of opinions expressed in text and stored on a computer somewhere.

Either you think the two are the same or you don't. Which is it? No, they are not the same. I didn't say they were the same.  They are similar. Where did I say that they were the same? This is further evidence of you putting your own interpretation into my statements.

Since you seem to have a problem with understanding the difference, I'll explain it again. One is basically nothing more than information stored on a computer somewhere. The other takes place in the real world. You know, where people actually see each others physical existence. A place where we can touch, smell, see, etc. The way things happen and the way they are handled in these two extremes are quite different. I was attempting to point out the difference in the way they would be handled if you had a "real life" situation  that was similar to this "virtual one.

Furthermore, you started out claiming that no one had the right to complain about forum administration by saying, "Now, all of a sudden, we got Joe Blow over there deciding that he doesn't like the way that I'm running the show, so he decides he's gonna open his big yap hole and start bitchin' about it", but in your latest post, you again change your tune and say, "Yes, he does have the same rights as I do, but he does not have the right to disrupt or harass." Apparently you are confused Hardliner. Now I am beginning to understand the reason for your misinterpretation. You have made you own assumption of what I meant by "bitchin'" and decided that I meant "complain". I have an idea Hardliner, why don't you just ask me what I meant, instead of deciding that your interpretation is correct and attacking my statements.

Since you've decided that your interpretation of  my use of the word "bitchin'" means to "complain", and your interpretation is wrong, let me help you understand what I meant. First off, my use of the word was intended to be the same as the phrase "raisin' hell" (which are comparable and can mean basically the same thing), but since I didn't use that term, and I don't expect you to make the connection now. We'll work on the meaning of my original word as it was meant in the scenario.

Bitchin': Short for "bitching" or "to bitch". If one were to be bitching about something, you could say that person was being "bitchy". At this point I'll assume, for the sake of argument later (if I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm just trying to nip it in the bud), that  you feel I'm trying to weasel out of what I said. If that is the case, I'll remind you that I didn't plan on someone picking apart my statements, nor did I expect someone to put my meaning of the word "bitchin'" into question. I am merely clarifying what I meant when I used the word. "Bitchin'" is slang and I was using the word loosely. In hindsight, it is now apparent that there was a need to state what my use of the word was.

I've already explained how I get to the word "bitchy", and to further aid you in understanding what I meant, I'll refer to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary.

Bitchy: Slang. Malicious, spiteful, or ill-tempered.

Malicious: Resulting from, inclined to, or marked by malice.

Malice: 1. A desire to harm others or see others suffer. 2. Law. Intent, without just cause or reason, to commit an unlawful act, injurious to another or others.

Disruption and harassment are not part of free speech, and no one ever claimed that they were. Your argument, to be consistent however, must equate opening, "his big yap hole and start bitchin' about it", with disruption and harassment. Would you have us believe that? Yes, as a matter of fact, I would. To give further credence to my meaning, refer to my very first statement in my original post when I speak of "raising a bitch" (you know, like I said earlier......"raisin' hell"). See above.

Before we go any further, let me say that I feel there is a difference between "raisin' hell" on this forum and "raisin' hell" in real life. What may be tolerated or generally accepted here, is not necessarily accepted in real life.

In my scenario, I was attempting to make an "imagined" real life situation that was similar to this forum. When someone makes several posts to this forum and is persistent in saying something by repeating it over and over, and capitalizing certain parts of the posts, the equivalent in real life would be saying something in a way so that everyone could hear it (as is done on this forum), repeating it over and over, and shouting (the common interpretation for capitalization on the internet) at times. Yes, in real life, I would consider that disruption and possibly harassment.

And just so that you can't say that no one ever told you, your description of "your scenario" would constitute either a public or limited public forum under the law. There's not much difference between the two, but for certain, neither designation would justify "bootprints on a face" or "giving anyone a taste of concrete" whether they were disruptive or harassed anyone or not. Once again Hardliner, your attempting to use your own interpretation of my statements in your favor. I never said that anyone would be justified in leaving bootprints on someone's face. Please show me where I said that.

Since you apparently missed it the last time, I'll repeat what I said in my last post. "It's not uncommon for someone to get the crap beat out of them for getting in someone's face and insulting them with statements such as I've seen on this forum. I've seen it happen many times." There is nothing in that statement nor in my first post about someone being justified in doing it. It's merely a fact of life. It happens. Do you understand it yet Hardliner, or do I need to repeat it again?

As far as tasting concrete goes.....That is a fairly common saying where I'm from. The phrase is a way of expressing (but not confined to) what happens when someone resists restraint or necessary force being applied by persons who are generally in the position to enforce laws. Their resistance usually results in them being placed on the ground, face down, against their will.

Even if you were in a private forum such as your own living room, with members of your own church, having a prayer meeting, you still are not justified in denying anyone their free speech rights. Your are well within your rights to deny them access to your property, or to revoke an invitation if their behavior did not suit you once they were there, but that is completely different than denying him a right. He has no right to be on your property nor to stay if you change your mind, for any reason. Requiring him to leave would be your sole remedy at law. And, at that, you'd do well to not take the law into your own hands in bringing about that leaving, let alone committing battery which is both a crime and a tort. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. As far as the battery thing goes, see above.

It is in fact true that a public forum does and also does not belong to the public. Belonging in the sense of property ownership is one thing, intellectual property rights are another, and the communal interest that I described is yet another. None of these however, have any bearing on the question of free speech in a public forum. Everyone is permitted there and everyone has the right of free speech. Here, yet again, you are using your interpretation of my statements to substantiate your argument. If you are going to insist on using your interpretation of my statements as the correct one, then there is no point in continuing this debate. I've already explained what my meaning was in my last post to you.

And, no, you're absolutely wrong. Despite your denial (and only several lines away at that!), what you said was, "It doesn't matter if the server that it is run from is TOTALLY funded by tax dollars." It obviously does matter, else the congress would not have enacted a law to define just how it does matter. You seem to have property rights associated with the physical aspects of a forum confused with access rights to a forum. Again, this is according to your interpretation of what I meant.

As for the creator of a communal endeavor "owning" that endeavor, you're just as wrong. Jefferson, Franklin and a few others "created" a Constitutional convention, but they did not "own" it. Insofar as anyone owned it, it clearly was the "property" of all of the participants. Just so with a public forum such as this. None of which, BTW, has anything to do with who does or does not have the right of free speech or what that right might consist of. I've already explained what I meant by "owning" this forum in my last post. This forum, and your reference to a Constitutional convention, are two entirely different things and don't apply to what I was saying.

You're not making much sense either, when you say, "Like I said, I'm not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, And this is your response to a statute that clearly is talking about it? Look, you posted the thing, I didn't. My statement just points out that you had brought up something which I was not talking about. but this further adds to my stance that the First Ammendment[sic] is limited The First Amendment is not limited. The Right of Freedom of Speech is regulated. Like the man said, "If you don't know what you're talking about, the very least that you could do would be to SHUT UP!" Ok, I used the wrong word. Was my choice of words so far off that you didn't understand what I was trying to say? In defense of my use of the word though......to "regulate" something, or control it, do you not limit it's use? Maybe not, but it's the only defense I have for my wrongful use of the word. individuals do not have the right to come here and start harassing and disrupting this forum." And once again, no one ever said that they did. Yeah, no more than I ever said someone would be justified by leaving bootprints on someone's face.

Yet again, you change horses from your original post to your most recent when you say, "What is in question here is deletion of posts. The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion. That's a judgment call they have to make", but your original question was, "Who the hell is this guy and what makes him think he has any right to tell me how I should run MY show.(?) My advice to Joe Blow is to shut the fuck up or get the hell out. If ol' Joe wants to start cryin' about his right to freedom of speech, then I'll show him and his First Ammendment[sic] Rights the front door and he might just get a taste of concrete on the way out."

How about a little intellectual honesty here? Ok, and I'll ask the same of you at the end of this post. You quite plainly started out saying, "Shut up and get out! I don't want to hear about your rights and I'm probably going to feed you some concrete!" No, that is absolutely not what I said, nor implied. Since you have put your own spin on what you think I was saying, I'll explain what I meant by stating it a different way. It would go something like this (and I'll put it in milder terms this time, though what I would be thinking in my head would be closer to my original statement): "Who the hell is this guy who has decided to come in here and disrupt this place by hollering and repeatedly saying (loud enough that everyone can hear)   that I'm doing things wrong and that I should change them according to how he feels they should be." My advice to him would be to shut up or get out. If he insisted on continuing his behavior, I would more than likely show him the front door. If it came down to him being escorted out the front door, and he felt he had a right to stay there and continue and he tried to do so, then there is a good chance that he would wind up on the floor and held there till the police arrived.  Now, if he had just approached me in a rational matter it would have been totally different. You just as plainly abandoned that in your most recent post and moved to, "The moderators decide what qualifies for deletion." That's not only quite a change, you're wrong on both counts. Yes, it's quite a change, and since it's two entirely different sets of circumstances, there's room for the change. BTW, you're quoting something I didn't say. I'll assume you meant: "The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion". Basically the same thing, but if you're going to quote me, at least get it right.

Like I said before (having to repeat myself is getting quite common, isn't it?), "The comparison between my scenario and me posting on this forum are two different circumstances and are able to be handled in different ways."

The moderators of this forum do delete posts, therefore they have had to make the decision as to what qualifies for deletion. That's two different situations that are handled in two different ways. What's so hard to understand about that and how am I wrong?

I've already explained at length that your show is only free to operate within bounds and to your credit, you seem to understand that, but what you clearly did not originally understand is that those bounds include the tolerance of dissent. And I have already explained at great lengths that your interpretation of what I said was wrong. You could fill a library with the legal writing explaining dissent. Dissent is clearly a right that is protected by not only the first, but the fourteenth amendment and clearly, opening one's "big yap hole" and "bitchin' about it" are dissent. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, but as I have repeatedly tried to point out, that is not what I'm talking about. Your opinion that my statements of opening one's "big yap hole" and "bitchin' about it" are dissent, are incorrect. Why do you insist that your interpretation of what I said is the correct one?

And, as for the moderators deciding whether or not a post qualifies for deletion, wrong again. The law makes the determination and has even largely published the criteria. Oh really? The law is the one who has made the deletion of posts on this forum in the past? I was unaware of that. Please explain further. It is incumbent on the moderator to acquaint himself (or herself) with the state of the law and recognize whether or not a post is qualified for deletion. As I wrote above however, the courts have been prone to allow the instructor (or here perhaps, the "moderator") a fairly free hand in the matter, and unless the situation is very clear cut, will not interfere. You're quite right that it will be a judgment call, It will be and it was.but the judgment must be whether the post meets the legal test, and not whether it meets any other guideline that a moderator may propose.

In the matter of the funding arrangements, I have no knowledge of the particular arrangement of this grant to MIT. If funding were proportional, then shutting down one forum might cost them, or if funding were based on usage, it might cost, but it could just as well be unrelated to usage. Then why did you make the following statement (my bold):

"Whoever is running things may certainly shut them down (and forego the remaining federal funds) as far as the feds are concerned. As for answering to no one, the administration of MIT might have something to say about the loss of those federal dollars."

And, regardless of how you phrase it, the operator of a public forum may only operate it "any way he wishes" if he wishes to operate it within the rules of the law. If he wishes to exclude opinion, he is outside the law and that operation will not stand. No disagreement here. In fact, it's what I said. Remember this statement that I made in my last post:

"The owner, or person running this forum, has the right to enforce guidelines or rules that are within the law. When I say that he can run it however he wishes, I'm not talking about violating the law. I'm saying that he has the right (and obligation in my opinion) to maintain order and not allow others to harass or disrupt this forum."

Your further confusion (or is it obfuscation?) is evident and you continue to confuse free speech and dissent with disruption and harassment. No, you continue to believe that your interpretation of my statements are the correct ones. Clearly the former is protected and the latter is prohibited. Clearly, "beating the crap out of someone" is not an acceptable remedy, even for disruption or harassment. I never said it was. I'll repeat my request and ask you to show me where I said that. In fact, "beating the crap out of someone" will most likely be more disruptive and harassing than the speech which motivated it! Hardliner, this is truly getting boring. This is another example of you assuming that I said something which I did not. I was not using the example of being disruptive or harassment in the "beating the crap out of someone" portion of my post. Go back and read it again. I clearly stated what the beatings would result from: "They start goin' around makin' stupid ass comments and gettin' in peoples faces while throwing idiotic insults at them." The portion of my scenario which centered around being disruptive and harassment involved Ol' Joe. It was Chicken Doodle and Wannabe Pro that got the crap beat out of them for getting in peoples faces and insulting them. It may indeed happen in the real world, but it is still unacceptable to the law. So what? It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and I never said that it was acceptable under the law.

Finally, I owe you an apology, and I hereby formally apologize. I am not however, a hypocrite. Well Hardliner, you can say that you are not, but you certainly presented yourself in that manner. I suppose that if your following statement is true, then you may, in fact, not be one. You do not belong on the Alabama chain gang for expressing yourself, which is all that you really did. Is this were I'm supposed to add the proverbial statement "Like the man said, "If you don't know what you're talking about, the very least that you could do would be to SHUT UP!"" What I meant and what I should have said was that if you did as you imagined, you would belong there. So can we then agree that what one says and what one means, may be two different things? And BTW, as I've explained above, I see no evidence of wrong doing on my part in the above scenario. Now the guys that beat the crap out of Chicken Doodle and Wannabe Pro is a different story and I'll reiterate, I am not saying that these guys are right in taking this type of action. Putting bootprints on someone's face (especially one in the fetal position which is completely defensive) or "feeding them concrete" or "beating the crap out of them" are simply not acceptable actions to me (which hardly matters) or to the law (which very much matters) as responses to speech which "pisses you off"

Ok, now here's the part where I ask for a little intellectual honesty from you. Is it not true that you have misinterpreted portions of my posts, assumed things that you should not have, and implied that I have said things which I have not?

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 16, 1999.

Wolverine said:

Allow me to respond to "bossman" in a brief and succinct fashion.

By all means, please do.

Bossman, the issue, once you remove the bluster from it, is really very simple.

1) I am a regular user of this forum, who qualifies to use it under the official statement of "purpose" posted at the gate.

2) I am complaining about the blatant prejudice demonstrated by the forum moderators in the apllication of the forum guidelines, (which according to US Law) are only legal if, in practice, they give equal protection to all users of the forum without prejudice.

Your main thrust is as follows . . .

{snip}Like I said, I'm not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, but this further adds to my stance that the First Ammendment is limited. Individuals do not have the right to come here and start harassing and disrupting this forum.{end snip}

1) Please provide clear documentary evidence of where I have harassed or disrupted this forum. Alternatively, please provide evidence of where I have argued for the rights of persons to disrupt or harrass the forum (using the legally acceptable definition).

Here we go again. I'll tell you what Wolverine (or whatever your name is), why don't you show me where I said that you did?

This evidence should be of such quality that it would hold water in a court of law. You may feel that my "daring" to ask a question, or to voice a protest (within the terms of the posting guidelines) about a situation where I feel I have been subjected to prejudicial and discriminatory treatment (see my previous posts), constitutes harassment or disruption, but I doubt it would stand up in court.

I will ask the same of you. Show me the evidence that I said what you claim. The evidence should be of the same quality as you desire of mine.

2) If you are not talking about violating the law in the process of running this forum, then maybe you are on the wrong thread, because thats exactly what IS being discussed currently.

Oh, I'm sorry. According to the original post in this thread, it has nothing to do with violating the law. Maybe the majority of this thread, including your posts, has nothing to do with the original intent of this thread.

Secondly, you continue . .

{snip}. I'm not trying to imply that they (the moderators or owners of the forum) are allowed to violate the law. What is in question here is deletion of posts. The moderators decide whether or not a post qualifies for deletion. That's a judgement call they have to make.{end snip}

Indeed. Logically, the person in control has to make judgement calls. The point is, they have to make those calls mindful of the law. If the decisions, or calls, that they make, are in contravention of the law, in that they demonstrate unconstitutional prejudice or discrimination, then they are subject to the same process of prosecution as anyone else in any other walk of life. Do you suggest that I have no right to speak out against illegal discrimination if I feel it is being practiced ? Apparently, your statement . .

Nope. That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

{snip}. I'm not refering to laws in that particular statement. I'm just saying that I think it's BS for someone to come in here and start arguing and insisting that the moderators change things.{end snip}

. . . would suggest that you do. Shouldnt people be allowed to speak out and ask for change if the existing situation is unlawful ?

Sure, speak out and ask for it. There may come a time though, when it becomes pointless to continue in that manner.

Finally, you say . .

{snip}. So now I should be locked up for sole reason of expressing myself. I have broken no laws. You are truly a hypocrite. {end snip}

If you think that by calling publicly for the violent repression of my right to speak out against prejudice is not unlawful, then you are misled as to the relevant statutes. The accusation of hypocrisy seems a little misdirected.

Again, I'll ask you to show me evidence where I did such a thing. Once again, I will ask the same of you as you ask of me. Show me the evidence that I said what you claim. The evidence should be of the same quality as you desire of mine.

Put simply, you are alleging, without evidence, that I post harrassing and disruptive posts, and that furthermore, (should you get the opportunity), that you would not hesitate to silence me by the use of violence. And meanwhile, you have the affrontery to engage in a discussion of democratic law.

My, my, my, aren't we delusional. Show me where I did any of what you claim. The same rules of evidence apply as those above.

If you truly feel I have done these things, then feel free to contact the appropriate authorities and take whatever steps are necessary to have me prosecuted. Unfortunately, I'm quite confident that you will be very disappointed in the results.

In the words of Diane Squire . . . "Nuff Said"

Heh, not hardly.

-- Bossman (seein'@right.through.em), July 16, 1999.

Interesting, I have spent nigh on to 15 minutes on this thread. The discussion is INTERESTING. But not, probably, for the reason anyone might think. I enjoyed the constitutional lesson, though I may not agree with the conclusion, I may have to do some research on my own on that one.

What I find so interesting is the marginal propensity of the members of the forum to knee jerk react, either way, when questioned. I HAVE had disagreements with the Moderator(s) actions or inactions in the past. (some too quick, some not quick enough and some were not done at all). Specifically, the Bagga stuff, the Di thread, and the Kennedy's head thread as referents for too quick and not quick enough (not in any specific order).

What is MISSING here, is specifics. As I said, I have spent about 15 minutes (so I'm not a speed reader. I'm also not a speed typist, as some here might attest, were I to sign a different handle) scrolling through this thread. I have yet to see any CONCRETE examples of what Wolv- whatever is referring to. A couple threads as referents might be nice. This might clear up the question.

I usually have problems with this type of discussion because I like to have concrete referents in front of me when things get to the point this has gotten to, so I can make a determination, and then either support or rebut. IN this case, I can do neither, due to the lack of referents. Night Train

-- Jes' an ol' footballer tryin' ta find daylight (nighttr@in.lane), July 20, 1999.

Night Train

Really, if I sat down to compile a list of the threads where the kind of activity I am complaining about is evident, I'd end up linking the whole forum (especially since Ms Squire took over).

Note: I am in no way commenting on deletion policy, or the speed to which the decision to delete, or not delete is applied.

My complaint concerns the way in which the forum posting guidelines are applied in practice.

For your concrete evidence, take any thread in which there is a participation from myself, flint, mr decker, or any of the other "optimist" posters who argue their point courteously, and within the guidelines. Note the responses from regular forum posters which are TOTALLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THOSE SAME GUIDELINES. Note how nothing whatsoever is said or done about it.

Next, look at any thread where the moderators or sysops HAVE intervened to remind posters of the need to conform to the posting guidelines. (Basically, to make this easier, pick any one in which there are calls from the "regulars" for deletion). Note that this process is only applied where the offending post is from an "optimist troll" (or polly troll if you prefer).

The basic requirement for a forum in which a healthy debate can take place, is the fair and balanced application of the rules for the protection of all participants who remain within those rules, regardless of the specific colour of their opinion. Anything else is BIAS, PREJUDICE, and DESCRIMINATION.

This thread has extended into a discussion of whether that descriminatory policy is even LEGAL, bearing in mind the funding arrangements of the server which hosts the forum.

The sysop/moderators are not only unwilling to engage in this discussion, they hold anyone who may be concerned about the state of affairs in TOTAL CONTEMPT. Note Ms Squire's repeated responses to me, which amount to "Like it or leave" and "Nuff Said". Is this indicative of open and accountable administration in your opinion ?

And then they try to assert that nothing is happening here to stand in the way of honest debate about the potential impact of Y2K. But the bottom line hidden agenda is clear. . if you dont think Y2K=TEOTWAWKI, then you shouldn't be here . . and yet they wont openly admit that where newcomers can be honestly advised as to what they're reading.

I hope now you see where I'm coming from. Your feedback would be welcome.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.