Forums have different rhythms to them. A year ago, the culture at large was trying to understand what Y2K "was" and what it "meant". Because there was enough time to prepare for problems, relatively few panic and denial reactions surfaced at that time among the public. The discussions here reflected that (I'm generalizing, of course).

Today, it's too late to prepare for serious Y2K disruptions. The choice made by TPTB to spin the problem have been reflected throughout the media and throughout the culture -- including on this forum, of course. The pollies are panicking.

If Diane had chosen to moderate the forum with a firm hand, those of us expecting disruptions could have discussed their likely intensity and nature (as well as our response to them) among ourselves. The loss of the so-called other side wouldn't have bothered me a bit: it's nearly a total distraction from the task at hand, whether Y2K is (as we pray) a BITR or TEOTWAWKI. Diane chose not to do that, as was her right.

Consequently, the forum is now tracking the culture on Y2K, which means, badly. And it will probably get worse over the next month or two.

I'm considering opening up a private Greenspun forum for some of us who would like to discuss Y2K impacts and the effort to aid in Y2K recovery after rollover without these distractions. If you're interested, email me. Quantity of response is not relevant to me but quality. I'll probably go forward if I get responses from more than 15 people. It will be moderated in the same fashion as the prep forum.

Meanwhile, "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 28, 1999

Answers

I think you hit the nail on the head with the timing BigDog. On the Naval War College site they predict the real eye opening events to wax somewhere in mid August to mid October (wow, is it that late in the year already?), but like you said, in another month or two.

From there the general alarm will drop off sharply at the end of October (presumably because of the holiday season) and not pick up again until the end of the first month in January when the event horizon is at the apex.

I truly think that if your planning on creating a new forum based on impact and recpvery you should closely monitor and take notes from the Naval War College. Maybe you could call it the "Civillian War College". But I really think those guys are on the ball and they obviously have spent alot of time and resources on the subject of Y2K and figure you could use that to your advantage.

Again I'd like to reiterate my own opinion of Y2K is that of a BITR. Personally I see alot of problems in the world but the mismanagement of this Y2K project won't be the straw that broke the camel's back. Even though I'm a Polly I'd like to contribute to your new forum and I promise I'll be good.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 28, 1999.

I'd go for that, not that I could contribute much. But very sick of troll remarks that don't even make sense. I never thought I was for censorship of any kind, but I guess I've changed my mind at least on these forums. A little levity is fine but it's gone way beyond that here. A difference of opinion is fine but why is so much bandwidth given over to name calling and very inane comments. We can skip the threads but it's it's pretty nigh impossible to skip the posts. Go for it, BigDog !

-- sue (deco100@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

You are right, BigDog, "the forum is now tracking the culture on Y2K... And it will probably get worse over the next month or two."

Personally, I think this is EXTREMELY important, which is why I encouraged Diane not to delete ANYTHING. (except personal info, and the occasional OBVIOUS bit of profanity.) Whether it's unfortunate or not, this forum became the "anything goes" place for Y2K discussion. I think that starting a new, highly monitored "Prep Only" forum, rather than trying to turn this one into that purpose was the way to go. And, I applaud its apparent success.

If you feel it's important to start another forum specifically for discussing the intensity and nature of disruptions, I think that's a beautiful thing! However, I also believe that as OT and nutty as this place gets at times, it's important to have this highly popular glimpse into unmoderated (or barely moderated) attitudes.

This will tell us much as far as what to expect from people if there are disruptions. Understanding the wide range of attitudes is part of being prepared...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), July 28, 1999.

BigDog:

A great idea!!

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Let me know where and when.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 28, 1999.

See what I mean about being caught between a "rock and a hard place?"

Been thinking about doing the same thing Big Dog. Go for it. (Rick Cowles leads the way in this reactive tactic).

Also, it depends on the "regular" posters (not trolls) but I'm more than willing to exercise a firmer delete "hand." But, it needs to be with the support of many... not against it.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

See also Hardliners request...

The "Doomers" are losing. . .

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0019PA

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

I would support "a firmer delete hand."

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

Count me in.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), July 28, 1999.

Go for it BD

-- Daryll (twinck@wfeca.net), July 28, 1999.

While I understand and agree, I can't help thinking that if this is done, it would appear that 'they have won.'

Do what you think best, but remember, what you propose is what this forum is about.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), July 28, 1999.

Starting the new forum is an excellent idea.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Big Dog and All,

Thanks for raising this important issue.

You mentioned discussing the effort to aid in Y2K recovery. Among those truly convinced that y2k will have consequences, this is very important.

I truly cannot think of another time in my (short) life when the choices we make as a people will be so crucial to our survival as an intact nation.

'Events' have a way of changing our nation in the blink of an eye. We who see this potential shift approaching have much to think about.

I for one am very interested in discussing this with others of a like mind, it doesn't really matter to me which forum is used to accomplish this purpose.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

me too..........

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

Give it a go.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Can we start, in, like, 10 minutes?

The recent trolls are irritating me no end....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 28, 1999.

BD

It would be interesting to try such a forum. Although who gets on and who does not will make for a challange in it's own right.

What if everyone used a REAL name and Email addy. This will help clear some of the crap. Nothing I hate more than having to figure out who is who when "discussing" an issue such as with Andy - Ray. We know he - she is a regular troll.

Have you contacted Rick C. to get any overview on how such a forum will work? He may have some interesting insights.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 28, 1999.

lol Lisa : )

I'm in!

Mike

====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

"Today, it's too late to prepare for serious Y2K disruptions." It should be too late -- I sure would have thought that by this late date, it would be impossible. But, thanks to the sleeping John Q. Public at large, it is not to late to personally prepare. You can still buy rural property, cheap -- today. Nothing is preventing you from taking your money out of the banking system, in cash -- today. Food is dirt cheap. Gold is dirt cheap. Generators are available. You can prepare for Y2K. Today.

(BigDog: Of course, if you meant that its too late to prepare at the level of a society, well of course you are right. In fact, its been too late there for about, oh, probably three years or more. Think local, act personal.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 28, 1999.

I dunno BD- this forum- frustrating as it can get- is where i go to for info on what's up- the prep forum is good fro preps- but kinda tame......I wouldn't mind seeing a bit firmer hand here though- obvious troll/troll/doomer baiting posts should go. No need to have whole threadfs devoted to your momma wears army boots and that sorta thing. would hate to see this forum weakened more- think a new forum would do that. why not just strengthen this one??

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), July 28, 1999.

I would participate in the new forum. Thanks

-- Jean (jmacmanu@bellsouth.net), July 28, 1999.

BigDog, your efforts along with those of Diane's and all of the other forum moderators are much appreciated. I believe that without the organized agenda of many Polly/Trolls (not all) this and any other forum regarding y2k would be an a place to learn and contribute.

Count me in.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 28, 1999.

I certainly understand the desire for a low-noise discussion forum. I may be interested in monitoring it, if only to keep my fingers on the pulse, so to speak. I'm undecided at this time.

My initial reaction to your proposal was one of great sadness. TB2000 is...well...I'm unable to adequately describe this forum. It has been - & once TPTB decide to address Y2K in a big way PUBLICLY - probably will be THE place to be for the latest news, speculation, discussion & debate.

By all means do create a more sanitary environment for those people, moderates & beyond, who wish to pound their keyboards in the relative absence of vile, venomous, irrelevant personal attacks.

My guess is those of us who flee to the "higher ground" of a heavily- moderated forum will return, full-time, to the "nest" at the appropriate time. :)

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), July 28, 1999.

If you're right, Bingo, then a new impacts/recovery forum will at least provide "safekeeping" for those who would otherwise have fled to quieter pastures. There is no reason why posters cannot post on all three fora, as people now post on the two existing fora. I hope we can carry on the TB2K name, as was done with the preps forum.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 28, 1999.

sounds like you want to create another private club where only like-minded individuals can post.

Would your new forum allow people to challenge you thoughts that y2k WILL be bad, or would all such posts be deleted?

Diane: I think if you displayed an even hand in the deletion of troll posts (both doomer and polly) everyone would be ok with that. In other words, make sure you delete the imposter POLLY posts (and perhaps chide the individual who is doing it) as well as worthless doomer posts (rants, OT, personal attacks). Keep the discussion on y2k pro or con.

the Mad Satyrist had a good idea on the y2k satire forum. started a seperate thread entitled "doomer rants" or something. You could move all such posts to a new catagory called "worthless posts"

-- Just Asking (a question@TB.2000), July 28, 1999.

Exactly, OG. Safekeeping is a good description of what I was thinking.

As to monitoring & posting on three forums, I believe time constraints would prohibit most folks from doing so.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), July 28, 1999.

BD- Absolutely. I was tempted today to post my complete astonishment at people responding to polly/troll gibberish. JUST DON'T RESPOND! If you proceed with a new forum- I'll be there.

-- Steve Felling (sfelling@compuserve.com), July 28, 1999.

I should add that Diane HAS been between a rock and a hard place here. This forum has its own "history" and culture -- nothing wrong with that. And, though it might seem so, my suggestion won't necessarily kill THIS forum by a long shot (and that wasn't/isn't my intention anyway).

Different strokes for different folks at different times.

Bingo --- IF (big if) TB2K IS outliving its original usefulness, "no harm, no foul." The Net is one big petri dish that morphs into a variety of shapes as need dictates. The prep forum IS TB2K. And, heck, any "new" forum, if it has the same folks, IS TB2K too. Really.

I'll be honest and say I know I am NOT aiming to support the same-old "doomer-polly wars" on another forum, even if it is in a more "polite" fashion. Yes, any forum I open will take as its core "mission" that Y2K is going to be 5 or more. Regrettably.

Does that mean everyone has to have MY opinion on Y2K ("8")? If you think so, you are a troll. People who have watched my posts know I don't assume "I'm right, you're wrong." Sure, I kid at times and, yes, I hold a definite opinion (remember my humorous tagline recently about "being right"?) but I know darn well that a wide variety of outcomes are possible.

My take on "a's" thread even included a 5% chance of BITR and that's the scenario I fervently desire.

Still, unlike the prep forum, which is relatively easy to mod, it is unquestionable that I will delete threads and/or posts that will have some even well-behaved posters livid. I mean, it won't be "on purpose", it's just that one individual won't do everything "right."

So, though it might surprise some, I have no objection to doomers@suck.com getting the "password" to the forum providing s/he is contributing to the discussion rationally. I also have no objection to deleting hundreds of posts a day when I'm having a migraine. I am quite capable of deleting a Milne, whom I RESPECT highly. And there will be NO threads debating why something has been deleted.

But a new forum, while tough talking is fine, isn't going to be nasty. Period. CSY2K has its place. So does TB2K. So does TB2K Prep. And, so (possibly, I'm still debating this) might another smaller, passworded forum.

Sorry this is disjointed. Doing, uh, "real work" today and had to rush.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 28, 1999.

maybe you could kill-off all the fake al-d. posts.especially about the lawsuit.& the cornmeal.--but i doubt it.[i admit i like cornbread.] but i don,t sit in it.HEERE WE GO.

-- yippee. (dogs@zianet.com), July 28, 1999.

BigDog... I sent you an email (with real address, pls protect privacy) about this but I noticed someone mentioned that they would support no alias'... I've never used an alias before now, but feel it's in everyone's best interest to protect what little privacy they have left... leave the agitators and name-callers behind, but please preserve our right to privacy and to be free to offer cognitive thoughts about this most serious and dangerous period of our most important lives, our own, and not be subject to harrasment of any kind...

waiting... not patiently... really...

-- booann (cantsay@lovemyjob.edu), July 28, 1999.

Just Asking, Diane: I think if you displayed an even hand in the deletion of troll posts (both doomer and polly) everyone would be ok with that. In other words, make sure you delete the imposter POLLY posts (and perhaps chide the individual who is doing it) as well as worthless doomer posts (rants, OT, personal attacks). Keep the discussion on y2k pro or con.

I DO delete... when asked... by a group of forum regulars... or by the person slandered against IF THEY ASK IT. They have asked at times (as Cherri knows) and I have deleted the offense. Leave a message at: y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com

I DO NOT have the time to read every thread, and I often ignore the known polly/trolls but, not always.

The TBY2K DELETE criteria has tended to be... profane/obscene language not the occasional f*ck you, etc. Also the really nasty stuff (and there is some). If a poster asks for a post to be deleted because someone posted using their name/handle (but they need to ask because none of us have the time, nor care to watch the forum 24/7). If a group of regular identifiable posters request something be deleted, that is *clearly* worthless trash (BTW, not all delete requests merit a delete). And quite often deletes involve cleaning up HTML goofs and in a few instances intentional HTML problems that interfere with the ability of participants to post contributions to a thread. Oh, also some unknown plug-ins (there have been some). Lets see. Sometimes posters just goof and want to repost, and in one case Y2K Pro posted something of Peter De Jagers that his lawyer got really upset about, and they were phoning Phil Greenspun at MIT on his cell phone, and he contacted me and I deleted the specific post. Theres lots of little stuffy-whats-its that come up daily.

Big Dog,

If you come up with categories, Id be happy to set-up the new private forum for you, the way I set-up the Prep Forum for the team. It would take a couple hours. Could do it tomorrow.

See...

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

5 months and counting. Then there is next year.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

Ok folks. The trolls have driven me to it. Any who have noticed my occasional posts I believe found them to be sincere, containing content (often anecdotal), and, above all, civil. I think a forum with a recovery angle is, in principle, of value, but there is a downside here. The downside is that it further splinters the participants. If so, the trolls win. Big Dog, does it bother you that "doomers@suck.com" is being civil, acts like a mild GI, and supports the idea and wants to "contribute to your forum"? How are you going to keep the trolls off? If you have a method, tell Diane. (Diane; nobody said this forum had to be so democratic.) It is time to start kicking the goddamned trolls off the site. They are dangerous obstructionists. If they are PAID obstructionists (which I sincerely believe), they should be taken out behind the barn and shot. I'd do it personally.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), July 28, 1999.

Diane --- Your post says more about your spirit (that is, not ego-driven) than anything else could. Truth is, we are all working together. Give me, um, a few days to get my act together and think about "policies". Making haste slowly.

I have no objections to aliases or anonymity. The Web is going to need MORE of that in coming years, not less, as we stand up for reasonable rights to priacy. The one question in my mind will be whether I will have to deal with spam-like floods of trolling to try to destroy such a forum if aliases are supported. My instinct is to give aliases a shot and tighten if (alas) need be.

If anyone would like to volunteer to help with the blatant troll clean-up (profanity, sheer disruption), let me know.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 28, 1999.

I am of at least two minds on the subject of new forum v. stronger moderation on TB2K Classic. Please bear with me as I argue this one out amongst myself. First, it is NOT too late to start moderating this forum with a stronger hand. it WILL generate squeals and groans of protest. So? There are a number of posting TYPES of which Andy ray's "Does GI =====_______" is an example that do NOT belong. After the first one it was a losing technique. Second, as I said elsewhere here, I would support MUCH stronger deletion of post responses and threads. responses such as "Of Course you are wrong and kiss my @@@" or even more graphic language have no place here and I would delete them. Would this deletion "policy" engender charges of censorship? Yup. So?

OT threads might give a bit more of a problem, as I FIRMLY believe that Y2K will NOT occur in a vaccuum (no spell checker, live with it). As I think it was Hoffmeister said about a year ago, if this forum were to go to usenet or deja news it would have to be called alt.everything or alt.world.everything, and I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. I'd like to believe we can behave like responsible adults. We USED to be able to. The current available evidence suggests that we, as a group, have regressed in intelligence, social skills, and socialization. Whether this is because the MEMBERS of the GROUP have regressed, or whather the MEMBERSHIP of the group has changed, and the newer mwmbers are deficient in social skills, is open to conjecture. I KNOW I miss some of the people who were active posters here in the summer of 98.

i don't post as much as I used to here because the Prep forum has taken a bit of my time, and the mail listserv's I am on have become 100 or so messages a day nightmares. They are filled with good info, and some not so good stuff so you have to filter it before saving it. This takes time, and Mrs. Driver suggests, about once a week tha I spend too much time here as it is. Though,even SHE is interested in the Prep forum.

A long time ago she suggested that what we were doing here was simply reading entrails. Each of us with his/her own set of entrails spread out in front of us, trying to divine some information about the future. I have come to the conclusion that she is more right than wrong. The only problem is that, unlike the (fill in your choice of civilization) WE don't just burn the damn things when we're done, we aren't happy unless we've tied them around the throat of someone who disagrees with us, and then we brand them as an entrail-wearer!!

In fairness to some of my cyber-friends, the regulars here did NOT start this practice, they simply decided that entrails didn't go with their particular outfit and started throwing (and tieing) back.

Is there an answer to the problem? I suspect tht there is NOT a SINGLE answer to this. I suspect that a separate forum for the discussion of impacts, imports, and entrails might be a part of the answer. Along with a stronger deletion policy here. The deletion policy here sould be one of, not exactly "OT you're GONE" "Polly you're GONE" but more "Inconsiderate SOB you're OUTTA here" "Nobody calls ANYBODY on THIS forum that, you're outta here". Paul Milne, I suspect that he can force himself to conform, as he has in the past.

In conclusion (thank God!) I think that I haven't been able to wiin the discussion with myself (not a good sign when you lose discussions with yourself....LOL) over which is the beter track to take. I guess my internal consensus says that I'll VOCALLY support a MUCH firmer deletion policy, POSTED OR NOT, and also support a new forum. I HATE wearing a new fence-groove, but that's the way it goes.

chuck, a night driver and part time moderator of the Prep forum.

PS BD we'll chat this weekend about this.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 28, 1999.

BD: Was it something I wrote? I do not post to offend. Although I due have that urge from time to time! :)

I didn't realize you would allow optimists on your proposed forum. When I consider the reactions here to ANY post from Ken Decker, Flint, Maria, Hoff, etc....I chuckle a bit at the thought of you deleting all the flames from pessimists. I would pay to see it!

In all seriousness, I would be very interested to see, if the above scenario plays out, whether the habitual flamers would chill their jets & contribute positively, or simply discontinue logging into your forum. Petri dish indeed!

Best Wishes with your new endeavor,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), July 28, 1999.

BigDog - As regard policies, I think that any post that contains content would be kept. By content, I mean a point which can be discussed. A good example would be a post with a link to a relevant article. I think both Milne and Flint bring up points that can be discussed, as well as many others. Once you trail off from discussing a point into discussing the characteristics of the people involved, the thread becomes worthless.

I think a harder question is do you allow all postings through, and then later go back and clean up, or do you review each post before posting? Either way, it's a big job.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Count me in on new forum. I don't think that a firmer hand on the current TB2000 will do it. Have a forum for just we who get it and want to discuss it. That does not necessarily delete from the free for all TB200. This way we have "something for everyone" and we are not in competition or putting our fists through the monitor screen. I don't think any of us mind a difference in opinion, but rather welcome it. But not this inane babble. New forum should be constrained to 1 to 10 "get its". I really like Rick Cowles password forum. I don't have to sort through the BS to get to the real stuff. There certainly are differences of opinion on his forum. Go for it BD.

Taz...who is getting darned tired of having to wear hip boots in her office.!!

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Big Dog,

I would very much like to contribute ideas into a recovery forum, if I ever have any. I would also like to see what kind of ideas other people have. I would probably even consider using my real e-mail address, since the forum would be about positive action and not negative reaction.

DJ

-- DJ (reality@check.com), July 28, 1999.

Just Asking said, "Would your new forum allow people to challenge your thoughts that y2k WILL be bad, or would all such posts be deleted?"

For the record, this has been an absolutely invaluable foray of information for me and others I know. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading threads that actually contain intelligent, articulate discussions from both sides, and therefore ask the question above again. However, continual non-sensical postings by "corrine" and others like "her", certainly wore on my patience as I know it did for many others.

Please count me in for the new forum; however, perhaps with heavier moderation, this site too can be at its best.

-- Dina McCullough (DinaLM11@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Big Dog, I have been learning from and contributing small helps to others on this site for about four months now. I do not have the past history with the site that the "old-timers" do, but perhaps speaking as a relative newcomer has some insight to add about what they think.

I have watched in just this period of time the deterioration of the site from the ugly and often obscene postings of pollys and trolls. They are very distracting and waste valuable time if one opens them. To me, as to others preparing belatedly (was out of work for 9 months, so am playing "catch-up") the spectrum of thought on one forum is quite valuable. However, to sort through the garbage being dumped here is not pleasant or constructive. Yet if still a third forum is opened, I tend to agree with those who believe that it will be too many divisions.

I also agree with those who say that they fervently wish this one to be cleaned up, and for Diane to be tougher. Why should anyone be permitted to use a legitimate forum for destructive or perverse purposes? I recently replied regarding doomers@suck that I would not invite him/her into my living room to defecate on the carpet, and I didn't think this person should be permitted to do so on this forum.

However, should you decide upon a separate forum, I would wish to be included. This is my correct address, although I have used aliases for those times when I needed privacy in order to respond. And I agree that in future these will become more important.

What I would hope not to see is its being limited to 1-10 posters, as Taz suggested. Guess much of what I'm saying is what Chuck, night driver suggests.

And may I thank you, Diane, and all those who have made this a lifeline to me during these unusual, stressful, and most important months of our lives. God bless each of you who contributes to helping us all through this. It is greatly appreciated, in a way which is rather inexpressible, but I have tears in my eyes as I write this part.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Big Dog,

Scan the thread "Let's move on, your opinion, please", and the two subsequent threads, part 2 and 3. I started this this thread last week, and managed to keep it alive for several days. It was expressly a discussion of recovery scenario issues. I was amazed that there was absolutely no trolling, no argument, no personal attacts or name calling. We had a very enlightning dialog, and I believe everyone who participated enjoyed it.

The only problem, is that we had a very small number of posters, considerating the population of this forum lately. Be prepared to challange people's minds if you should start a new forum for impact/ recovery only. It seems at times that all of us would rather argue than dicuss, react rather than respond.

Should you persue the new forum, I'll certainly be around.

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), July 28, 1999.

This is a hard call. TB2000, as it was about 6 months ago, was an enrgizing place to be. I've always enjoyed the free-wheeling, sometimes rough and tumble thought processes of most of the regulars here. I like the range from silly to serious, and do learn from disagreement. Even some of the seemingly off topic posts have, on occasion, produced "ah hah's" for me that later caused me to view some aspect of the Y2K potentials in a different light.

What I've become very tired of, and frustrated with, are the persistent trolls. If it is possible, I would like to see this forum return to its former style, rather than feel forced to "flee" to escape polly trolls. It appears that, if there were any hope of it, slightly heavier moderation would be required. I honestly believe that there may only be 2, at most 3, posters here who are creating the majority of the havoc, both directly and indirectly.

I understand Diane's "rock and a hard place". Still, I would like to see Diane attempt a little more clean up here, even against protests. It would probably entail the additional deletion of posts intended to endlessly debate her reasoning. What about the idea of a specified trial period of housecleaning, with a thread begun by the sysop at a later time to solicit feedback about how it's going? Mid-course corrections can always be made. Like Y2K, it can be fluid, need not be engraved in stone, and no one really knows where we might be headed.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 28, 1999.

What I don't understand- is why posts that relate to serious disclosures of y2k info- ie; overseas status, travel guidelines, etc- get few or no responses- but stupid troll/doomer baiting posts get tons. Check it out- look above at some of the recent "newsworthy posts"- hardly any comments. Best way, although not always, to get a long thread going is to insult someone! I vote again- for cleaning up THIS forum- going to 3 forums is too divisive- can barely pay attention to two now. And remember- if you don't enjoy troll/doomer baiting- don't engage in it. If you don't feed the trolls- they'll be starved for attention.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), July 28, 1999.

I feel like I'm going to sound like a voice in the wilderness. I do not agree that this is a good Idea. What will you do next month, start another forum for what ever reason because some people don't like whats going on on the "new forum"? I suggested many many months ago in a thread labelled "Please Mr Greenspun Please" that if the posters name was at the top of the post rather than at the bottom, the reader who was familar with the forum could instantly deside if they wanted to read that individuals post. Thats the kind of sensorship I like to see. Personal sensorship. Make that personal sensorship a little easier for all of us by posting the poster name at the top of each post

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), July 28, 1999.

Count me in ;-) Just the thought of serious discussion without distractions makes me happy!

-- Sammie Davis (sammie0@hotmail.com), July 29, 1999.

We need a new forum or a firm hand on this one. With Y2K comming so soon, we just don't have time to deal with pollys and trolls. I have three grandaughters to care for and a husband in poor health. I need information to help me make decisions that could mean life or death to my loved ones.

-- Homeschooling Grandma (mlaymon@glenn-co.k12.ca.us), July 29, 1999.

Amen homeschooling grandma. I'm in. Just wish we could clean and keep this forum and not move.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), July 29, 1999.

"I would support "a firmer delete hand." " Second that, Diane.

I understand the work involved, but hundreds of people read this forum and their time and life energy is wasted by people who have come here to DIS-serve the readers.

Too much of this forum's space is devoted to: this forum. "It's still about y2k, stupids." (And we will indeed be STUPID if we let this one-time event be sidetracked by disrupters.)

One explanatory fact: For most of us, this is the first Internet forum we have participated heavily in. We are learning this communication form. This learning coincides with learning about y2k onset. For the moment, Diane, we must focus on the second topic more than the first. Got that? It's not about our "enlightened" status as INTERNET USERS -- "It's still about y2k stupids."

And, as we get closer to December, the monitoring ought to be stronger.

Here, the ideal of a cross-section of society's views conflicts with the need to LEARN ABOUT Y2K. We can, and ought to, learn about society somewhere else, some other time. NOT here and now, on the best forum devoted to -- what else? "Y2K, Stupids!"

To even have this topic debated means the disrupters have seized the agenda. We are a specialized topic of wide societal interest. This doesn't mean that ALL OF SOCIETY may participate right here in discussing it!!! Stronger moderating is MORE indicated for this topic than for your average newsgroup!

(You may carry a weekly thread for "Polly/troll complaints", however, which will not take up much bandwidth. Optional reading, of course.)

I suggest the condensation of FRT (Frequently Repeated Topics) into FAQ-like threads, which begin with the best words of forum participants compiled into one post.

Delete posts which take threads off-topic, unless they IMPROVE on the original. (I know -- a lot of editorial discretion required.)

The whole question of doomers vs. pollies:

"Doomers" are here to maintain/improve their awareness of a topic which threatens the life, health, safety of themselves and their families, as stated in the mission of this forum. This logically carries into their reading at the Prep forum.

"Pollies" are here to state the obvious "It might not be so bad" and to stick around to say "I told you so." That is irrelevant and deleterious to the former group's valid purpose in being here. The clutter they engender wastes precious time and drives away those who need the awareness offered here.

Again, this forum presents a CONTRARY VIEW to the general governmental/media/corporate orthodoxy. That orthodoxy does not need to be granted "EQUAL TIME" here merely in order to rebut cries of "censorship".

A thread entitled (tee-hee) "Polly Views on Why You Should Not Prepare As Much As It Sounds Like We're Advising You To Do." might be a fair compromise.

At a minimum, we need:

(1) "a firmer delete hand" , and

(2)

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), July 29, 1999.

[Oops! -- Does TAB equal "Submit" on this system?]

(2) A thread and/or category entitled: "DiEtER, pLeASe COmE hOMe!"

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), July 29, 1999.

Jor-el, you put it beautifully! I add my "amen" to your posts. Thank you.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

Let me add a vote for a 'firmer delete "hand"'. We can have a very wide spectrum of views without trolling, insults, or other forms of disruption. However, we may need to take up a collection to keep Diane in coffee so she can stay up all night taking out the trash. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 29, 1999.

Big Dog;

Execellent idea, there is no reason why birds of a feather should not flock together.

Sincerely,

Will

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999.

As a newbie, it is just what I want and need. Please start this going. Pete

-- Pete (Phytorx@lanset.com), July 31, 1999.

doomers suck mentioned

**** I truly think that if your planning on creating a new forum based on impact and recpvery you should closely monitor and take notes from the Naval War College. Maybe you could call it the "Civillian War College". But I really think those guys are on the ball and they obviously have spent alot of time and resources on the subject of Y2K and figure you could use that to your advantage.

Again I'd like to reiterate my own opinion of Y2K is that of a BITR. Personally I see alot of problems in the world but the mismanagement of this Y2K project won't be the straw that broke the camel's back. Even though I'm a Polly I'd like to contribute to your new forum and I promise I'll be good.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 28, 1999

That was my first impression on reading the Naval Project. What a handy referance document.

Critt has been the most active in looking to that document as relevent.

I went and created a site that smoothed out the links

Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project Links (Long)

It is alot easier to get where you want to go.

If you thought this is a good idea why didn't you mention it before? That document could be looked at for alot of clues. Good idea.

BD

I think that this forum needs to be split again. S/N of real events is getting harder to find. Good luck in the venture.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 10, 1999.

Wow, Brian, thanks for digging up this "ancient" history, summer 1999!

I still have ideas (or is it delusions) that we have barely begun to understand and learn from the lessons of this singularity -- yeah, I know, Y2K is already "over", I'm just a slow learner.

To wit --

1. Interactions between gov, media and citizenry.

2. Organizational competence and incompetence.

3. "Panic"

4. The primacy of markets in shaping global policy

5. Absence of "rosetta stones" (standards) for common speech about our systems and rational evaluation of their states.

6. ... and many more

Sigh. In between full-time work, raising five children, Christian ministry, moderating the prep forum, PREPPING for Y2K and, of course, playing golf, I'll fit this in. ;-)

Seriously, thanks for reminding me and I'll bookmark this thread. The real issue is intellectual and moral courage: not sure I have enough of it to risk my career and maybe my life in standing up for and to it all. Though if I could get "doomers@suck" to contribute positively with me, surely world peace COULD not but be close at hand.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 11, 1999.