Steve?? Need More Time??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Just checking in, and don't see that much enthusiasm for this debate, judging by the volunteers for Steve's moderator.

Need more time? Let me know.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 09, 1999

Answers

Get off your ego. No one cares.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 09, 1999.

You two can hash this stuff out via e-mail. This post is absolutely unnessary.

Delete.

Mike ===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 09, 1999.


Sounds all too normal for this place. Heller issues the challenge, sets the conditions, can't meet his own conditions while Hoff can and does, and so Hoff gets attacked!

The entertainment value is wearing thin, I'm afraid.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 09, 1999.


Flint:

While I don't agree that it was Heller's fault that the moderator hasn't yet been agreed upon, I certainly do agree that the above responses to Hoff were uncalled for. He left over the weekend after they'd agreed to begin a debate on Monday evening at 8pm. Hoff needs to know the moderator to whom to send the E-mail. His question was reasonable.

Personally, I agree with the opinion that this whole debate thing is a waste of time, but my opinion doesn't matter.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 09, 1999.


Hey Flint, you still hanging around?? You must love wasting your time on TRIVIAL stuff. Oh well !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 09, 1999.



Hoff:

So far, I haven't been able to find someone to act as moderator, although I've asked a few people whom I thought might be qualified. I'm still perfectly willing to undertake the debate, whether anyone else is interested or not. I'll let you know as soon as I have found someone to do it.

If we can't find anybody for "my side" and the "neutral" moderator, I might be willing to give it a try without the moderators, so long as we can exclude the "peanut gallery" (meaning nuisances on both sides) from tossing in stink bombs. I'm sure I can refrain from personal attacks, and I believe you could do the same. I believe Paul Davis has offered to set up a forum where we could have the debate without interruption from the bystanders, and that might work if nothing else can be arranged.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 09, 1999.


Alright by me.

The seperate forum would work, as well.

Let me know.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 09, 1999.


FWIW - I think you two (Hoff & SH) are capable of debating without the name-calling and cheap shots that sometimes prevail over here.

Undertake the debate on a private forum and then post a URL after you're done. That way you won't be accused of wasting bandwidth over a period of days and we can all read the debate in its entirity.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), August 09, 1999.


Hoff:

Johnny is probably right when he says, "Undertake the debate on a private forum and then post a URL after you're done. That way you won't be accused of wasting bandwidth over a period of days and we can all read the debate in its entirity."

I'm willing to give it a try if you are.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 09, 1999.


Flint and Anita,

I hope aren't saying that I attacked Hoff. If this is the case then please provide me with a little more of a clue as to what you can parse an attack in "You two can hash this stuff out via e-mail. This post is absolutely unnessary. Delete." Good luck.

What drove Hoff to post this here message here to one person, in an open forum? He could have sent this message in a private e-mail. It might be a better excercise to parse some subtle meaning in Hoff's post. Actually, it isn't that subtle, is it?

As for the "debate" details, you should consider that people may not know what is going on with regard to them. People may not be following every single little exchange that is occuring. Honestly, I had no clue a day and time were even agreed upon.

Steve and Hoff,

If you are truly interested in a "debate" you should consider setting up a room with Instant Messanger where only the two participants and the "moderators" are allowed in. Then, post the transcript.

Bottom line, there are a group of moderators here at TB2000 already and if you wanted to you could have started this "debate" already just by starting a thread. Or, you could do it over at deja news...

So I ask you this - is the spotlight the key or the content of the debate?

Regardless, just do it already.

Mike ======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 09, 1999.



Michael,

Bottom line, there are a group of moderators here at TB2000 already and if you wanted to you could have started this "debate" already just by starting a thread.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work, because of the interference by noisemakers from both sides, as is evident on most threads. However, we will arrive at a means of debating without such interference.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 10, 1999.


I don't get it (DGI) about this "debate". What is the intended purpose?

If Hoff wins, will the Doomers finally realize Y2K is not that serious and donate their rice and beans to the Food Bank?

If Heller wins, will the Polly's start a run on Petromax lanterns and beg for advice on the TB2000 prep forum?

Is the purpose to prove who is the better debater? (I once saw the captain of the debate team of a prestigious university win a debate wherein he argued that the Earth was flat. Now, that guy was good!)

Is it to prove who has a bigger brain? (As far as I know there is no empirical evidence for a direct correlation between I.Q. points and the ability to win an argument.)

Is the fossilization of contrary opinions that sometimes makes this forum a miserable place going to change because one of these guys is declared the "winner"?

Will the outcome of the debate effect the outcome of Y2K?

-- DWGI (DWGI@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.


As I perceive it, and I wish I could guarantee a peanut gallery shot free arena but i can only do so much, the goal is what a part of this forum was about, in that the "debate" will further the understanding of Y2K and its affects and effects. Set it up however you want to guys, and let us read the results, but kindly handle it on an e-mail basis until you are done??

this thread pushes the envelope of necessary, and of civility (in tone), and i would rather NOT have to delete any subsequent threads, until the finished product.

Chuck, a bit testy, maybe, but....

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 10, 1999.


Of course, there is another option chuck.

Let the guys start their debate here,on a "PARTICIPANTS ONLY" thread.

Meaning that for THAT THREAD ONLY you delete on-sight any posting which is not from one of the two combatants. You can post a warning at the top which states that "This thread is provided for a debate between two people, please do not post to this thread or your comment will be immediately deleted" and check the IP signatures on any posts "supposedly" coming from both steve and hoff to check that nobody is playing the spoof game.

Hopefully, people would resist the urge to toss in their 2 cents in this case. If not, a quick hand on the delete button will serve a purpose.

As a one-off experiment, it could work.

Just a suggestion

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.


I think reading the debate will prove interesting. I congratulate Hoffmeister and Heller for agreeing upon the format with good will and civility.

I don't understand the mentality that denounces such an exercise as pointless egoism, save that it springs from fear of reading the other side (depending on how you stand) with an open mind. Many of the people who post here simply do not want to know the facts. If facts are presented, they are shouted down as "lies" and "PR spin." Compared to the casually tossed crude illogic that serves as normal fare here, a controlled debate would appear not only useful but extremely refreshing.

If Heller is having difficulty securing a moderator, I might suggest Don Florence. Though he appears to have taken a hiatus from the forum, he might be persuaded to return for such a debate.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.



Celia:

You are venturing dangerously close to the crux of the biscuit here. A debate based on all published material suffers from two potentially fatal problems:

1) The overwhelming majority of the paucity of actual published material on y2k is neutral or positive. Warnings are being overwhelmed by success stories, and even the warnings themselves are less forceful, changing from indications that failure *will* happen, to *lack* of indications that failure *won't* happen.

2) y2k really isn't much of a story at all -- you have to dig pretty hard to find anyone even mentioning it. This is a truly extraordinary situation if y2k indeed threatens so very much so very seriously. Indeed, even this forum is filling up with unrelated threads as paranoids wander off to grind their own axes about government, gold, and morality. The ringleaders of the doom cult are reduced to repeating the same insults as a substitute for substance.

As a result, the debate cannot be about the facts, lest it be as dull and uncontroversial as a grocery shopping list. Instead, the debate must hinge on trying to explain the overwhelming lack of coverage, and the optimism that (little bit of) coverage expresses. Already we have threads postulating a conspiracy of silence by the media, and a better indication of desperation you couldn't ask for.

Hoff and Heller may remain civil, but the debate itself can only consist of Hoff citing chapter and verse, while Heller claims that the Devil wrote the scripture. We already know this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 10, 1999.


Hey, I'm ready whenever they are. Just haven't heard anything final yet.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), August 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ