In a recent thread which he had initiated, "Sysman" made some very good observations/suggestions concerning a subject which would benefit *everyone* on this forum. A very intelligent and thought provoking conversation followed amongst a number of forum "regulars". Prior to the conversation's ultimate decline into just another name calling session, there were what I believed to be some very valid questions/suggestions raised by "W0lv3r1n3". In my view, Wolv presented his points in a very polite, sincere and well-meaning manner. He had made observations, (as had Sysman) which would, if implemented, be of great value to *everybody* on this forum. As I followed the thread it became more and more apparent that the moderators here did not want to address these "hard" questions. To my knowledge, neither Sysman nor any other moderator came forward with a response to the questions which Wolv raised. (Diane in particular, was conspicuous by her absence) It is my opinion that those questions go right to the heart of a moderators responsibility. It is also my opinion that, for the sake of this forum's members, at least one moderator here should step to the plate and honestly answer these tough questions. I use the word "tough" only in the sense that a lot of soul-searching would be required if it were to be *honestly* answered. I'll say again, in light of the potential involved for improving this forum, is any moderator willing to step to the plate and address wolv's comments? Thank you.

Truce plea

-- CD (not@here.com), July 23, 1999

Answers

I try to stay out of the polly/doomer wars (I'm a "moderate", BTW). I prepare for the bad (not worst) and hope for the best. Having said that...

My goal is to collect "facts" and "information". I like hearing opposing viewpoints. Not because I like to see people argue - I DON'T. Instead, I want as many viewpoints as possible, rather than being limited to 100% doomer/GI or 100% polly.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 23, 1999.

"neither Sysman nor any other moderator"

CD,

I'm not one of the moderators here, just a "regular." I started the thread late last night, after reading some constructive comments from Doomers Suck, and Y2K Pro, in an effort to keep the "noise level" down, and stay on the topic, Y2K. I did follow the thread from work, and I agree that "W0lv3r1n3" does have some valid points. I also think that "Will continue" is out of line, considering the nature of the thread, but I do understand her frustration.

Yes, it did lead to another "name calling contest,", but the end result was positive. Doomers@suck.com did agree to the truce. See the original thread.

Listen folks, there are all sorts of views on the Y2K problem. My experience as a programmer tells me that we are going to have problems. Others, including other programmers, think it will lead to nothing. As I said, I'm interested in any and all opinions and information on Y2K, and we do have the full range of opinions here. Please, lets stick to the subject, and knock off the personal attacks, name calling and other non-sense. We have enough to discuss without all that other "noise." <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

Thanks Sysman. (My mistake in believing you were a moderator.)

Would still like to hear from any forum moderators regarding this issue.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 23, 1999.

The point is every time I post here I stir up an already unstable mixture. I figure hey why do that? Although I won't say that your all wrong anymore that is not an admission of you being right. Seems to me that the harder I criticize the harder the forum fights back, and gets even further away from the overall peace. Probably a lesson every great leader learned one way or another. Some times a good defense consists entirely of knowing when not to implement your offense. Just a word to the other lurking trolls, on both sides of the issue. Maybe there could be some great progress made if everyone settled down and went to nuetral corners for a while. I know I will. That doesn't mean you have to change your views, or stop doing whatever it is your (preparing) doing, but just take a breather and let the this forum ship take it's own course for a while. I think the nautical term is "tack". Let's let TB2000, Y2K and the Whole World tack for a while and save the battle of words until something either newsworthy happens or not. Then in a while we can all see what is really going on and reconvene. Until then let's all simmer down and try to be objective. Yes, and maybe even a little optimistic. This, I believe, will be most beneficial to everyone no matter what the future holds.

-laying off the coffee now.

-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 23, 1999.

We all want to see the noise level reduced. Problem is, most of us want to accomplish this (at least to some extent) by wishing real hard that opposing voices would go away. This happens because we have very strong opinions, strong enough to overwhelm something as subtle as appreciation of civil discourse.

We've seen this problem arise more and more lately. For many here, there really *is* no distinction between a troll, and a person who sincerely feels the evidence doesn't point to big problems. For those people, no post favoring a gloomy viewpoint or attacking an optimist can be considered unsuitable behavior, regardless of language used or lack of any worthwhile content. The idea seems to be that a post calling someone else a jerk is helpful information, because the person attacked holds a different opinion and therefore *is* a jerk. So this kind of post isn't noise, it's a simple statement of fact!

Part of the problem is a moderator (or team) strongly committed to a pessimistic outlook. This team doesn't seem capable of realizing that condoning the use of such weapons when favoring one viewpoint, forces those same weapons to be used to forward an opposing viewpoint. It's very very hard to champion civility here, when someone who posts good news (without comment) is driven off, while someone who cross-posts foul rants is applauded. It becomes especially difficult when the moderator has repeatedly demonstrated total blindness to any and all bad behavior on the part of those with the 'right' opinion.

Sometimes I think that most of the thoughtful people have made up their minds as well as they're able and have left to get a life. And some of those remaining (a very vocal minority, I think) really aren't capable of more than reacting with mindless incoherence at the sight of an 'enemy' name at the bottom of a post. And the forum becomes increasingly impoverished as a result.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 1999.

I have been delighted to enjoy the company of some forum regulars off- line." My visit to the Virginia Y2K gathering was pleasant with a few good Monty Python-related laughs. I think it's possible for folks who disagree about Y2K to get along.

This said, the forum is an uncivil place. The departure of Ed Yourdon did not seem to help matters. The new moderators had a chance to provide "moral leadership." Unfortunately, the moderators selected all seem firm perssimists. In short, the umpires play for the one of the teams.

More troubling, some of the moderators have shown a willingness to engage in personal attacks. This has damaged their credibility along with a clear pattern ignoring poor behavior from the pessimsts. I am not suggesting the moderators censor any poster... but they could use their position to encourage better behavior. In my opinion, the solution this thread seeks will not come from the moderators.

Other posters, however, raise the level of the discussion. It does take the courage to face down the bullies... particularly those in your "camp." I know many people on this forum consider me an optimist. I also have demonstrated a willingness challenges the "optimists" when I think they are wrong. It's about principle.

Y2K should be taken seriously (allowing for an occasional funny song.) When "Will Continue," "Lisa," "King of Spain," etc. post a couple of sentences of personal attack... we all lose. And one of the biggest myths we face... is that personal attacks can be justified. Because you disagree with a post, does not give you the right to attack the poster. Most thoughtful people recognize the issue is Y2K... not the individual personalities involved. Of course, there will always be those who feel justified in spewing vitriol.

The thoughtful pessimists (and optimists) can make this behavior less acceptable. Without the tacit approval of the forum regulars, I think most of the attackers would improve or leave. Civility increases when there are social sanctions for poor behavior. Like most, I hope for a more civil society. In closing, if Ed Yourdon made a personal appeal for civil behavior... I think a few folks might listen.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 24, 1999.

"Maybe there could be some great progress made if everyone settled down and went to nuetral corners for a while. I know I will. That doesn't mean you have to change your views, or stop doing whatever it is your (preparing) doing, but just take a breather and let the this forum ship take it's own course for a while. I think the nautical term is "tack". Let's let TB2000, Y2K and the Whole World tack for a while and save the battle of words until something either newsworthy happens or not. Then in a while we can all see what is really going on and reconvene. Until then let's all simmer down and try to be objective. Yes, and maybe even a little optimistic. This, I believe, will be most beneficial to everyone no matter what the future holds. -laying off the coffee now.

-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 23, 1999."

You "DoomSucker", are full of shit. So, you took your pill tonight, and all of the sudden you're conciliatory. Great. You march on to this forum like Attilla, and now preach moderation. "Everyone play nice" and see what happens you say. Kiss my ass. If you REALLY have changed, I will never here from you again. I doubt that will be the case.

For those grammer queens out there: YES, I know my puncuation sucks.

-- MidWestMike_ (MidWestMike_@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

"Maybe there could be some great progress made if everyone settled down and went to nuetral corners for a while. I know I will. That doesn't mean you have to change your views, or stop doing whatever it is your (preparing) doing, but just take a breather and let the this forum ship take it's own course for a while.

The above crap was issued by the DoomSucker.

Below is my response to this troll.

I gotta admit, you are one piece of work. Your double speak, backstabbing, con is impressive. I have a suggestion for you. LEAVE. Im going to hound your ass to the end of the earth if necessary. You are a fraud. Prepare yourself.

Done.

-- MidWestMike_ (MidWestMike_@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

I cannot disagree with Mike. To Sysman: if my previous post was offensive to your thread, I apologise. The primary point I had attempted to make, was that a truce would have to be taken with a 'wait and see' approach by me. Some of these individuals have been far more disruptive and blindly ignorant of our intentions on this forum, than others. Some have had questionable motives by bouncing back and forth between our forum and forums of extremely opposing views. I can't complain about Flint and Decker's presentation other than to say that *I* personally find them to be sugar coated phoo- phoo most of the time, in light of the numerous indicators present. Pro, Doomersuck and several others have left decidedly bad tastes in my mouth, and if they in fact have intentions different from their all too many previous displays....wonderful. I shall wait and see.

I make no excuses for *my* presentation, nor do I apologise. It is simply the way I am. It differs from the other 'well mannered, well educated, well versed' around me. I do not feel this should exclude me from having opinions or presenting them. I, like many others, have invested a tremendous amount of time in studying this issue, I came away from it with a different view than the majority on this thread, that's all. It isn't necessary to be a COBOL programmer to see this thing coming. I too am sick of the labels and implications of both my IQ, hopeful intentions, level of cowardice and mental stability.... enough already. I shall wait and see.

I do find it ironic that anyone who would barrel into a forum of like- minded individuals, insulting, demeaning and generally abusing them, could have the guts to *suddenly* whine about the treatment they recieved. The logic behind this act, is 'unusual' to say the least. I shall wait and see!:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Mike,

I know that you and DS have been going at it for quite a few days now. (s)he did come to this forum with quite an attitude. and many times I did find myself in the middle of an FU reply, but I backed off to keep the "noise" down.

Please do me a favor. Based on the last three or so posts by DS, it seems that he is willing to make peace here. Let's give him the chance to do so. However, if he should go back on his word, I will join you full force to drive him from this forum! If he wants to express an optimists point of view, I don't have a problem with that. If he does return to troll mode, well, lock and load...

Will,

I didn't mean to single you out. Actually, I should have mentioned Outings instead of you. My point is that the GIs in many cases are just as guilty of fanning the flames.

Everyone,

We may have a real chance here to keep this forum on the topic of Y2K, and stop the crap. I'm tired of spending half of my reading time here looking at crap. I want real opinions. I want real information. What do you want? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

"GI's are just as guilty of fanning flames"

Indeed sir, and I have the smokin' fanny to prove it! LOL I've always felt that if you can't take it, don't dish it out. I dish when needed and am more than willing to dish less. Perhaps I won't need to change the battery in my smoke detector as often, eh? I'll continue to call it like I see it, however. So don't hold me entirely to civil silence and turning the other cheek.....it might give me a cerebral hemorrhage!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Sysman,

I appreciate your noble charge here.

The problem IMO is that some feel there is a shill element among the *poly/trolls* and some feel there is a revolutionary/greed element among the *doomers*. Each side sees danger in the other and each is probably right to some extent. Civility? Hope so. Trust? Naw.

Y2KPRO,Suck,WOlv et al,

Much has been made of the moderators here being on the pessimistic side and how that limits the forum's objectivity. How? Have posts been deleted or edited? Examples please. Where would we find a moderator with no y2k opinion?

Y2K,Suck, et al,

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 24, 1999.

I hear ya Will.

Believe me, I'm not going polly here. I've seen too many computers to do that!!! We will always have the true troll, that will never give an inch. Those that just hold the salt shaker above the open wound for their entire time on the forum. Nothing much we can do about that.

I'm not asking anyone to turn the other cheek. Who was it, FDR maybe, that said walk softly, but carry a big stick? I'm not asking anyone to give up their stick. I am asking everyone to walk softly... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

Hi Carlos,

I'm not out to change the world here, but we do have at least one person that says they are willing to cut out the kindergarten level stuff, and keep the discussion on an intelligent level. That's all I'm asking for, civility. Maybe we can get another one tomorrow.

And I do agree with you about "deleted" posts. I've been pretty busy for the last month or so, and haven't had alot of time to post much, but I have been lurking a fair amount. Except for the very obvious, I can't recall anything being deleted.

"W0lv3r1n3" feels that he is the underdog, and I agree with him. This forum, including the moderators, and including myself, feel that Y2K is going to cause problems. It's the nature of the beast here. But, I would still like to hear W0lv3r1n3's point of view, and I want to know why he feels the way that he does. It's not easy to see that, having to look thru all the sticks and stones... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

Wolferine or however you spell it, (It's too late for me to look it up and I'll admit to being lazy). In MY OWN opinion, the flames and ugliness have come from both camps. If you will remember, I attempted to float a Compact, a while back, which was remarkably unsuccessful in taming things down. Why was it unsuccessful, one might ask. The apparent reason for the lack of success, again in my opinion, was the lack of effort put in by the people who espouse the BITR (or less) philosophy and outlook, in terms of refraining from messenger attacks. On need only to mentally scroll back to that period, and see that the attacks came from folks of this persuasion first, in terms of the "Meme" and the "cultishness" of the folks who see a darker possibility.

Having your position denigrated by calling it the result of contracting a psychological virus, could be considered, in many places to be an attack on the poster. While this "attack" may be phrased in a "civil" way, it is in no way "civil". The claim that it is, is tantamount to saying that wishing one an ultimate trip in a handbasket is polite. Or indicating that one is embarking on an attempt to prevent the "contamination" or "spread of contaigion" of the "psychological virus" is hardly going to engender a civil discourse.

Unfortunately, not all of the posters here have recourse to the vocabulary that Mr. Decker, or I may have. While it is said that a person who has to resort to Anglo-saxonisms to express his/her point may not have one, this is not the forum to debate that. MANY of the posters DO get incensed when they are disagreed with in a denigratory fashion. I share that emotion, I just express it with $2 US words. (I once suggested that I hadn't EVER met a $2 or $3 word I didn't like, but that is MY pedantry cross to bear).

I suggest that a TRUE, CRITICAL evaluation over the past month would show that BOTH sides have been given, if not License, or Carte Blanche in their posting language, and demeanor, then at least, free (or virtually unfettered) rein. I, for one, disagree with and dislike this approach. If it were ME with the keys to the RED BUTTON for DELETES on this forum, it would look and sound a LOT MORE like the Preparations forum. I would be deleting MANY posts, and be collecting accusations from ALL SIDES on infringement of free speech, unlevel playing field, etc.

This looks very like the kind of situation which has NO satisfactory conclusion for all concerned. I STRONGLY suspect that the doctrine of "If EVERYONE is UNHAPPY with the moderator's actions, then He/She/They MUST be doing something RIGHT!" is holding sway here. I would be MUCH happier with the folks who hold that there is a non- Zero robability of a sub-optimal outcome (or whatever reason they hold this position) if they would not react as they do. I would be EQUALLY more happy with the folks who hold that there is NO CHANCE of a sub-optimal outcome (for whatever reason they hold this position) if they would not attempt to incite the very responses they decry. BOTH groups need to go back to work on HOW one PERSUADES someone. BOTH need to go back and consider what they wish to try to say, and what they are going to use as supporting documentation. The documentation is OUT THERE! Unfortunately, it is about evenly split, so what has to be done is critical evaluation of sources, and agendas. BUT we need this evaluation to occur without the barbs, which doomers@suck has agreed to try to belay, and the knee jerk reactions which Will Continue has given evidence of.

[It should be said here that I am NOT SINGLING OUT EITHER OF YOU, as there are much greater offenders, you just happen to be the ones at the top of my regrettably small push-down-pop-up-stack memory tonight (this Morning)]

In short, the "WE were only responding" position felt REALLY GOOD at the age of 8 (and even worked a couple times in MY family), it does NOT mark us as adults. We've ALL got to try to behave more like adults than 3rd graders. Try NOT to incite each other. It is WAY too hot to get hot. I KNOW this is going to be difficult, but if it were going to be easy, the Lord would have found an other group of people to do it.

Chuck, who doesn't really care how you spell his name after being the favorite person on the swimming bus when the Name Song got going, but WOULD like it speled right if you are planning a press release (ROFL)!

.

.(Name Song?? For those who missed puberty:

"Jim, Jim, Bo Bim, Fee Fie Fo Fim... Chuck, Chuck, Bo Buck, Fee Fie Fo .........")

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 24, 1999.

Dear W0lv3r1n3:

While looking it up looks like a trivial effort (as it is just above the previous post, I assure you that that post and several above it were submitted as I hunt-n-pecked my way through that tortuous post above.

My appologies.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 24, 1999.

Hi Chuck.

" It is WAY too hot to get hot."

You got that right!

Thanks for your input, and have a nice weekend. I'm going to bed! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

As long as posters say one thing on one thread and something very different somewhere else, OutingsR will continue to point out the discrepancy -- http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 31878848&P=Yes&TL=931816329 I guess that its about methodologies (again)

Tuesday, 13-Jul-1999 11:14:08

193.243.244.12 writes:

CPR,

youve been at this Y2K lark a long long time, and I respect your opinion. In essence, I think that the crux of this is methodology.... However, my dislike of the hijacking of the forum by extremists, and their attempts to recruit passers-by into ever more extreme groups is akin to yours. But, my preferred modus operandi when confronted by such things as prejudice and bias, are to expose it by contrast to my own behaviour. At least that way they cant credibly use the "youre just as bad" device. Witness OutingsR's sad attempt to discredit me over my current question. The best they can do is to say that I post here, and compare me to others. Thats nothing that a newbie cant see through.

Im not interested in trying to "convert" anyone. Im not even very interested in debating with the extremists. I am however interested in ensuring that someone is there, with a calm voice, and the ability to reason with logic, so that those same extremists are not able to pretend that they are in fact rational and tolerant. By giving them the opportunity to reveal themselves as hooting, pop-eyed radicals, I think the moderate and the newbie are better able to see with whom they are dealing.

Its just my personal opinion, and I wouldnt for one second claim a monopoly on truth or correctness. Far be it.

Kind Regards

W

W0lv3r1n3

[In the middle of all the peace, love, flowers verbiage, you DID notice --]

"However, my dislike of the hijacking of the forum by extremists, and their attempts to recruit passers-by into ever more extreme groups is akin to yours"

[Another enlightening snip from the same thread at Bonkers --]

"My point, (and I mean no offence to anyone on either side of the debate), is simply that the removal of vitriol from the conversation, and its replacement by calm, logical, courteous exchange, would benefit our cause equally well."

["Benefit our cause"??? This person has a good vocabulary -- why choose that particular phrase? Why not "persuade to a more optimistic view"? Why not "show the other sign of the coin"? "Benefit our cause" sounds ominously like a crusade. Then there is this --]

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 29450295&P=Yes&TL=929359048

Debunking Y2k webboard

Re: Re: But,of course, you can understand the "Grand Concepts" of Y2k RIGHT??

Mental disturbance illustrated

Tuesday, 15-Jun-1999 08:38:15

193.243.244.8 writes:

Mr Decker had your kind beaten a long time ago, but lets recap.

Try this test to see if your logical thinking can get you past the first hurdle.

You espouse the "Im not sure, but Id rather be safe so I'm taking precautions, and whats the harm" line. Therefore please answer the following compound question.

1) Do you regularly drive a motor vehicle (car) on public roads, or ride as a passenger in same ?

and

2) Are you now, as a matter of course, wearing a crash helmet while partaking in the above activity ?

If not, why not ?

Thanks

W0lv3r1n3

[Note that he heads his post, which is addressed to someone who is making prudent preparations, "Mental disturbance illlustrated." This is NOT a reasonable moderate speaking, this is a pollyanna zealot.]

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 24, 1999.

"I make no excuses for *my* presentation, nor do I apologise. It is simply the way I am. It differs from the other 'well mannered, well educated, well versed' around me. I do not feel this should exclude me from having opinions or presenting them. I, like many others, have invested a tremendous amount of time in studying this issue, I came away from it with a different view than the majority on this thread, that's all. It isn't necessary to be a COBOL programmer to see this thing coming. I too am sick of the labels and implications of both my IQ, hopeful intentions, level of cowardice and mental stability.... enough already. I shall wait and see. " Will Continue

This sounds like a remix of the classic tune, "It's just the way I am, baby, (you knew I had a temper)" by the Violent Husbands. I utterly reject the argument, "My poor behavior is justified because 'it's just the way I am.'" Education has little to do with manners. I grew up around country folks with little formal "schoolin'" and wonderful graces. If you have invested all this time in investgating Y2K, "Will," then present your views. In my memory, to date the only posts you have written have been personal attacks. If you are tired of personal attacks... stop them. Condemn your cohorts for engaging in them. Set a standard for civility on this forum.

If the "way you are" is attacking and ill mannered... I respectfully suggest you find a new "way" if you plan to have company.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 24, 1999.

Still, the entire y2k issue is being modeled as an adversary proceeding rather than an investigative proceeding. I contend that this is the wrong model. Attacking, ridiculing, or trying to discredit the *people* who disagree with you doesn't change the issue.

This thread is instructive. Midwest Mike uses it to attack 'suck' for past offenses (using foul language to do so). Will continue implies it's OK to attack people because 'just feeling like it' is sufficient justification. Outings specializes in trying to discredit people who post opinions on 'enemy' forums, simply because they do so. All three of them imply that this sort of personal focus is OK because those with different opinions are wrong. At best, this is the "He hit me first" school of discussion.

Outings is especially interesting, since (s)he makes *no* attempt to address y2k at all. OutingsR's sole purpose for existence here is explicitly to discredit other posters (and *only* optimistic posters). You could hardly create a better example of disruption purely for the sake of disruption, with *no* other purpose at all.

All of this makes it increasingly difficult to find any opportunity to do serious evaluation of the available material. Evaluation has been slowly replaced by the desire to win arguments, turning the forum into a shouting match instead of a resource.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

MidLife Mike Says:

"I gotta admit, you are one piece of work. Your double speak, backstabbing, con is impressive. I have a suggestion for you. LEAVE. Im going to hound your ass to the end of the earth if necessary. You are a fraud. Prepare yourself."

In an earlier thread you gave us your wimpering, tearful goodbye, only to announce the next day your triumphant return to battle the evil polly empire. You come accross as a lonely little loser looking for some missing recognition in your life. I am a long-time GI but you are starting to annoy me with your self-enriching postulations. Get on with your unfulfilled life and leave the word battles to the pros, which sir you are most assuredly not.

BTW, your comments can't be far behind, Will.

-- Eat (s**t@die.now), July 24, 1999.

A well-deserved spanking has been delivered by Mr. Decker. Three cheers for corporal e-punishment (I know, it's an oxymoron)!

A great big thank you to Sysman & CD for your efforts. Perhaps, miracle of miracles, those posters who routinely embarrass themselves (though they know it not) by spewing thoughtless, semi-illiterate venom will finally GET IT!

Yeah. And Israeli's & Palestinians will be klinking glasses in peace at rollover. Same odds IMO.

One more item - the OutingsR posters would benefit from stepping back from the fray. Time & again your cut & paste jobs work against you & your agenda. LOL!!!

Peace to All,

P.S. Just read your latest Flint. On the mark once again.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), July 24, 1999.

Hey Midwest Mike,

I didn't mean I was calling a truce with you, obviously your not worth it and neither is your little toadie Will Continue. You want to pick fights with Pollies? Go do it over at the debunking sites if have the guts. It's not a bad idea to keep it off the TB2000 forum so that this place doesn't get impoverished like Flint said. I'm willing to agree to it, but obviously you too busy trying to Champion the Cataclysm to notice a good idea when it hits you on the side of the head.

-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 24, 1999.

PS: I'm sincere about not trolling here anymore. I just had to give a quick rebutal to Mikey there because he said he was going to hound me to the End Of The Earth and I just wanted to nip that in the bud before the poor guy has a seizure or something. Carry on.

-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 24, 1999.

My first instinct was to tell DoomerSuck, Wolfie, Deck and Flint to go screw themselves, but then I began to understand the need for boardroom decorum. So, gee guys, I'm sorry for all the insults! Please continue to post your non-y2k related ramblings here and distract the readers of this forum. After all, you've proven to us beyond a shadow of a doubt with your carefully reasoned posts and scores of evidence that y2k will only offer minor complications.

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

I must admit, I feel as if I've just agreed to car pool with the Brady Bunch in the front seat and Charles Manson and his followers sitting behind me in the back seat! ROTF!

This should be fascinating, to say the least.......

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Excuse me, once again, as I should respectfully like to ask Mr. Decker if he has never read any of the threads that I have begun? I believe I can say in all honesty, that I am unable to recall the last thread presented by Mr. Flint. Perhaps I simply missed them, as apparently Mr. Decker has done with mine. I do not participate at the 'hit and run' level ONLY that you and Mr. Flint enjoy implying I do.

Also note, Mr. Decker, that the country isn't filled with Jeffersonian living individuals. The country contains truck stops, diners, bars, feedlots, etc. I have seldom run across people who present themselves as you would have us believe you are....out in the real world. Maybe that is why we have more like you on an Internet forum and less like me. People like me are more generally found out in the real world as opposed to being found in the print and submit cyber-space world. Just a thought, no stab intended. I have never once made the presumption that I should be considered an intellectual equal to you, Flint or any other. I am not. This fact has no bearing upon our abilities to absorb, analyze and form conclusions about Y2K. Our opinions differ greatly and has nothing at all to do with our differing backgrounds....this has NEVER been the impression given to ME by anyone in your camp, however, and I find that fact to be both sad and naive. I am continuing to hear superior 'tones' and implications of grandure coming from you all, and as such, you place some of us in a position of defense. This is nothing new, just exasperating. The fact that you 'gentelmen' have the admirable ability to mask this within such literary superiority means little to those of us on the recieving end. You then experience a less polished version of 'back atcha....bucko', at which point you all begin to whine about having to deal with unsightly words and inferior attitudes. Please attempt to be a bit more aware of this in the future. PA-LEASSSSSSE?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

When I began this thread I had included the following comments.

"It is my opinion that those questions go right to the heart of a moderators responsibility. It is also my opinion that, for the sake of this forum's members, at least one moderator here should step to the plate and honestly answer these tough questions. I use the word "tough" only in the sense that a lot of soul-searching would be required if it were to be *honestly* answered. I'll say again, in light of the potential involved for improving this forum, is any moderator willing to step to the plate and address wolv's comments? Thank you". This thread has now grown to a length of 27 "answers" and not one moderator has yet "stepped to the plate". [Soliciting opinions here...] Would you tend to believe it's possible that no moderator has "seen" this thread (and consequently it should be reposted to a new thread entitled "Attention Moderators")? -OR- Would you tend to believe that the question has been answered in so far as; No, there is no moderator willing to step to the plate?

A "thanks" to all who have responded to this thread to this point. Lots of thought provoking stuff so far.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 24, 1999.

Will continue:

The complaint has never been with your vocabulary or locution. Everyone expresses themselves differently. I know I sound no different on this forum than I do in real life, anymore than you do, because I write as I think, just as you do. And your opinion about y2k deserves great respect, since sufficient evidence exists that the future you envision cannot be ruled out entirely.

The criticism you receive is NOT from college professors demeaning your diction. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of the language being used. Before you press the submit button, you might ask yourself -- Have I addressed the y2k issue here, or have I simply lashed out at people I disagree with? If I feel this poster has failed to address this issue properly, have I shown *why* the analysis is faulty, or have I simply attempted to discredit the messenger?

Understand that unsupported claims about the future, no matter how firmly believed, are not persuasive to those who disagree. People who use big words aren't wrong or bad solely because they express themselves differently than truck drivers and hairdressers. Arguing that "You disagree with me and I think you sound funny, therefore I will mock you for sounding funny" adds noise without signal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

[sending to the top of "new answers"]

-- CD (not@here.com), July 24, 1999.

If I were a newbie coming onto this forum for the first time, and had no opinion about y2k one way or another, and was just trying to make up my mind by reading the posters opinions, I can tell you this. I would be so turned off by the in your face, *you are stupid if you don't believe y2k will be horrible, and you're an ignorant polly,* slurs thrown at those who don't immediately fall in line with the end of the world mindset that I would immediately decided I had fallen in with a bunch of fanatical nuts and leave.

I would also probably decide that y2k didn't amount to a hoot because everyone who had taken it up as their religion was so fanatical. Fortunately I had already been on two or three other forums before I came here, and had decided that y2k was probably something that would, or could happen, and most of my preparations were already done.

But I still can't get over how those who are so sure that y2k is going to be a serious disruption, simply can't keep from beating anyone over the head with it who dares to disagree.

Also it seems that the same people who constantly bring up Clinton and his sins, are the same people who want the government to do something *now* and yet on the other hand they want the govt., to stay totally out of our lives.

-- gilda (jes@listbot.com), July 24, 1999.

Actually gilda, I wanted Billy-Bop to do *anything* last year. This is *JULY 1999*. Nada....zip. The man is a complete waste of flesh. The government need not control anyone's lives, to simply take responsibilty for allowing those who have given them this honor to serve, some knowledge and understanding of Y2K and the potential for disaster it possesses. It appears you have jumped to an incorrect assumption. This IS the fight you were hoping to fuel, right?

Well done, innocent, neutral, non-extreme, sensitive, middle ground (?) person, well done!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Flint....please attempt a bit more honesty about your feelings towards my mental capacity. You act as if there have been no witnesses.

Don't go there friend.....not even!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Will:

Your mental capacity cannot be disputed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

Wanna bet!!!

-- Eat (s**t@die.now), July 24, 1999.

Ahhhhh. Now THAT'S more like the Flint I've known! Honesty has a way of cleansing the soul, wouldn't you agree Mr. Flint?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 25, 1999.

"MidLife Mike Says:

In an earlier thread you gave us your wimpering, tearful goodbye, only to announce the next day your triumphant return to battle the evil polly empire. You come accross as a lonely little loser looking for some missing recognition in your life. I am a long-time GI but you are starting to annoy me with your self-enriching postulations. Get on with your unfulfilled life and leave the word battles to the pros, which sir you are most assuredly not.

BTW, your comments can't be far behind, Will."

-- Eat (s**t@die.now), July 24, 1999.

You have been out of the loup. I have made clear my motivations and the reasons for my return. I don't know you, and I'm not feeling overly hostile today. If you feel this way after you have reviewed my posts and thoughts, I would be happy to continue this conversation. Untill then, well, good life to you.

-- MidWestMike_ (MidWestMike_@hotmail.com), July 25, 1999.

Flint says -- "Outings specializes in trying to discredit people who post opinions on 'enemy' forums, simply because they do so."

Nonsense!!! You're once again clearly demonstrating your lack of comprehension of plain, simple facts, Sparkless. It's WHAT they post elsewhere that we post. Anyway, as you know from Drecker, OutingsR do not have any opinions or thoughts, we only cut and paste. When someone posts on this forum, murmuring with scented breath, "Come let us all reason together, dear friends," and we know they've just shrilled on Bonkers, "Hey the pigs at the swamp are farting again!" well, we feel compelled to show they're not quite such dear friends after all. They also serve who only cut and paste.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 25, 1999.

May I assume that there are atleast hundreds if not thosands of people like myself who have been following this site for info? I and my wife along with my children and their families have all been forced to do this because the info is not in the normal media chain. We are trying to get info to protect ourselves if that is the way it turns out. There has been enough info from both sides to indicate possible problems coming at all people. How can we(the non-techie's) make sense of your info if you all spend so much time in inane and childish sibling rivalries! We need you and your info. We have no other place to go. If the moderators cannot control the responses any better than they have then both they and the people seeking info from both points of view will lose.

-- Neil G. Lewis (pnglewis@yahoo.com), July 25, 1999.

I thought profanity was strictly forbidden on this forum. Are Midwest Mike and Will Continue's posts considered so valuable that this rule does not apply to them? If so, I must have completely missed their intellignet posts.

-- selective forum rules (Im@Potty.Mouth), July 25, 1999.

Outings:

Your purpose here is to discredit *people*, not ideas. You are saying "don't listen to those who disagree with me, regardless of what they say." This is like arguing that relativity is wrong because Einstein was a Jew, and you hate Jews. Your 'contributions' are purposely off- topic, and constitute pure noise.

Will continue:

You will notice that I didn't *assess* your mental capacity, I simply said it cannot be disputed. The mental capacity of a slug cannot be disputed either. The fact that you missed the careful ambiguity speaks volumes.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Leave Will alone, Mr. Poopy Pants

-- Stop The Insanity (Susan@low.ratings), July 25, 1999.

Decker and many of the other pollys still don't get it (pun intended). Note this statement from Decker.

Unfortunately, the moderators selected all seem firm pessimists. In short, the umpires play for one of the teams.

The Time Bomb 2000 forum is intended for a team with the following interests.

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

The forum here is an information source for a certain team -- a team willing to discuss Y2k fallback contingency plans. Pollys for the most part do not discuss their fallback contingency plans even if they've made such plans in a modest way themselves. They're afraid that newcomers reading about contingency planning will cause bank runs.

No wonder the 'pollys' feel so uncomfortable here!

-- (what@its.about), July 25, 1999.

what:

Not quite. y2k encompasses some unknown number of future events of undefinable nature and severity. The statement of purpose for this forum is not "Junior Woodchuck's Guide to inappropriate overreactions." As one tiny item in this vast mosaic, will you be better off going, say $500 to $5000 in debt to purchase a generator, or would it be better to have that money in cash, or in the bank, or use it to get out of debt? The best allocation of those funds *might* be any of the above, depending on what y2k brings. Discussions devoted to "How to shop for and hook up a generator", however useful in themselves, presuppose an answer to the allocation issue. Do you really think we'd be better off if those who point out such suppositions would go away?

Like going to any school, the question "what should I major in" needs to come before the question "how *do* I weave baskets". You need to pick the right tree first, *then* start barking.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 1999.

Response here...

ATTENTION MODERATORS

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0018TP

Nuf said. Again. Back to Y2K.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 25, 1999.

Will collywobbles Continue, I was not hoping to fuel a fight. I was just stating my opinion, sorry I stepped on your chain. I don't blame you for not making "apologies for your presentation," as you make a first class dolt, chewing gum and all. Perhaps you need a dose of stavesacre; it couldn't hurt.

Niel, there are hundres of other places "to go" for y2k information. But if you like this site, then go to "About," at the top of the forum, and click on the preps only forum. It's a storehouse of information. This part of the forum is for general discussion by most of us who have finished our preps and feel like discussing other issues, thoughts and do a little "mud wrestling."

And Mr. Selective Potty Mouth, profanity is *not* strictly forbidden on this forum, but profanity just for the sake of talking dirty is restricted. If the worst you ever hear is from Will continue and Midwest Mike, in the context of a post, then you haven't much to gripe about.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 25, 1999.

You must be having another one of your recent bad days, Flint. Deciding on 'what to major in' is part of contingency planning too. My comments were about those who say we do not have to 'major' in this, this and this without saying what they think we should 'be majoring in.'

I personally am not buying a generator because their noise attracts attention and they're expensive. I think I'll have electricity on 01/01/2000 and if not I'm hoping it'll be back on within a month. My money is going towards water, sanitation, food and other items that could be a problem even if we do have electricity.

My comments were about those who seemingly have no position on planning for Y2k except to say that it can't be as bad as we think it might possibly be. My comments were about those unwilling to discuss their own contingency planning. You've had the guts to say you're worried about water and are taking your money out of the bank.

Pollys are bound to feel uncomfortable on the Time Bomb 2000 forum if they're not concerned about Y2k's impact and are not willing to discuss -- and let other discuss -- fallback contingency planning for fear that our concern about Y2k's impact will cause banks runs.

-- (what@its.about), July 25, 1999.

Possibly beating a dead horse here -- but --

As already noted in some posts above, this forum is inherently biased. This is no secret, it's openly acknowledged.

"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."

It would be bizarre indeed to choose a moderator for this forum who was even neutral on the subject. It's not a ball game or the Tour de France, it's a specific and identifiable interest group.

Clearly many don't share that interest. What brings them here? (The perennial "Unanswered Question.")

There are other fora, I'm sure (without even looking for them) focused (say) on the virtues of psychogenic botanical extracts, the novels of Charles Williams, the influence of Sephardic Jews in the Diaspora, etc., etc. Do opponents of these interests post there so intensively to scold the use of psychogenics, deride the fiction of Charles Williams, ridicule any attention given to the Sephardim?

What is it about an expressed concern for the consequences of Y2K that so irresistibly compels its rebuttal?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 26, 1999.