FLINT, will you be a gentleman and do this for the forum readers?

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

FromThinkIcan.........................................................Flint ---- Some people like to read you musings and some people don't. For those who do not like your writings will you do them a favor. At the top of each of your posts will you simple write "From Flint". If you would be polite enough to simple identify your posts at the "beginning", you make it easy for people to deside if they care to read it or not. I wish more posters would do the same. I never like to think I've missed any posts from Robert Cook, Diane, Syman, Gordon, Big Dog, Greybeard, and a few others. The forum as become so diluted with trivial bickering that I personally would like to see who's post I'm reading before I start to spend my time reading it.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999

Answers

Flint ---- I hope you are secure enough to honor this request for us who read this forum.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999.

From a Flint supporter:

I agree.

-- Flint scares me, he might be right! (Flint_supporters@club.com), September 27, 1999.


de Chuck:

I think this is a great idea for ALL of us, not just Flint. Now, will i remember to do so?? I'll TRY but as with everything else, YMMV, and there are no global warrantees for serviceability expressed or implied.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 27, 1999.


From LOL:

What's wrong? Are you afraid that you might read a post you agree with, only to discover that Flint wrote it?

If you or others find his posts so distasteful, wouldn't you realize that the post is distasteful before you found out who wrote it?

LOL

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), September 27, 1999.


The idea seems unworkable. Many people address a single individual when they begin their post, such as,

"Andy:"

or

"Stan,"

so if Flint writes

"Flint" at the top of his post, people will think someone is addressing Flint.

Why not simply begin reading the post and if you don't like it, skip onward? It's not *that* scary to read Flint!

-- Won't work (*@*.com), September 27, 1999.



From ThinkIcan----------------------------------------------------------- -To Won't work ------ Yes it would work, yes it did work.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999.

Oh, leave Flint alone. Now you want special rules for some people. I can spot a Flint post from the first few lines, and I quite enjoy them. Not that I agree, mind you, but I respect his well-written works.

And don't we all hope he is right?

-- semper paratus (almost@always .ready), September 27, 1999.


CENSORSHIP-RULES HERE.=DOUBLE-STANDARDS. the POLLY,S ARE RIGHT.

-- this forum is=UN-JUST. (dogs@zianet.com), September 27, 1999.

From ThinkIcan ---- This has nothing to do with "censorship" or "special rules for some people". It is simply a request for an individual to identify themselves at the beginning of a post. Not too hard to do.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999.

Al-d you said it.

thinkIcan,

Why don't you just SCROLL to see the posters name. It isn't that hard.

-- (scroll@scroll.scroll), September 27, 1999.



From ThinkIcan ----- Scrolling, yes scrolling, that is a good idea, but wouldn't it be nice to be polite enough to have some forum etiquette. It would seem to me that Flint, being the egotist that he is, would not mind this simple request. We havn't heard his disortation on this subject yet, which is also interesting. And then again I might be completely off in "left field" on this request. Scrolling, yes scrolling, that is a good idea, and yes I do "do" a lot of "scrolling" on this forum.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999.

Probably just me, but Netscape, up on the top level, shows the topic's titles and who originated the thread. Love to see a 'search by poster' but hey, I'd like a lot of things.....

-- harl (harlanquin@aol.hell), September 27, 1999.

OH *SIGH*-*SIGH*-*SIGH*---WHY DO THE DELETERS=*LIE*-*LIE*-*LIE*

-- we get it. (dogs@zianet.com), September 27, 1999.

Dogs,For Christ's sake please tone down the retoric,Who made you the Prophet of the last days? 1 JOHN 4---"Someone may say,"Iam a Christian; I am on my way to Heaven;I belong to Christ."But if he doesn't do what Christ tells him to is a liar.But those who do what Christ tells them to will learn to love God more and more. that is the way to know whether or not you are a Christian. Anyone who says he is a Christian should live as Christ did! Did you know that Dogs are unclean animals--that's where "going to the dogs" comes from! So PLEASE button it up, Your trying the patience of saints and casting the Christian community a terrible light! We are sick and tired of Redneck prophets interpreting the unknown for us.

-- thief in the night (dogsare@atastymeal.com), September 27, 1999.

Incoherent babbling from Flint. AVERT YOUR EYES!

thinkIcan:

Why make this request specifically of me? If you thought this was a good policy generally, why didn't you raise the issue long ago, rather than entitling this post with my name in all caps? Is it really necessary for me to be a "gentleman" and assist you in ignoring what I write, since you "waste" too much time reading my posts, only to discover when you're finished that you really should have skipped it? What an extraordinary confession!

I think LOL above hit the nail on the head, and I could not have said it better. You are asking that, in effect, you not even be given the chance to read them lest, what, that you be subverted? What tender sensibilities you must have!

My own experience (for those masochists who've read this far) is to sample a post to see if it says anything interesting, finishing it (and often responding) if so, and skipping to the next post if not. So I end up reading the poster's handle only of those posts that hold my attention all the way to the end. You don't have to eat the whole egg to realize it's rotten, you know. And there are few if any posters here who have NEVER said anything worth reading.

I can honestly say that the poster's name at the top would never have prevented me from at least *starting* to read any post.

In a larger sense, I've been saying for a long time here that the conclusions people have arrived at about y2k are based on highly selective reading and rules of evidence. Your request skirts dangerously close to an admission that you simply do not wish to be exposed to views contrary to your own. And now you're saying that the onus falls on *them* to help you avoid anything close to a balanced mix of viewpoints.

Sorry, you'll have to do your own filtering. But I'm confident you can do it. And maybe Phil Greenspun will modify his software to put names at the time as well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.



Bravo, Flint.

Nicely done. You just keep doing what you are doing. We need you here.

-- semper paratus (llmcl@usa.net), September 27, 1999.


From ThinkIcan----To Flint[and others who might be interested in this issue].-------- As Paul Milne has said over and over again, you seem to lack the ability to read the written word, or maybe comprehend what has been written. You, as sonetimes you do, have twisted this again. Read over my post,never at any time have I suggested that "I" ignore what you write, and never have I said that I "waste" too much time reading your posts, and yes I have skipped over many of you posts, as I have of other posters here. Why did I ask you to do it, with your name in "CAPS"? Because you seem to be a individual who would argue black is white, or up is down, fill x number of pages "trying" to prove your point, and when all is said and done, you have accomplished nothing except massaging your ego that you are so clever. You are clever Flint, but for me, enough is enough. I,ve scrolled down more times than I can account for, on the unusually long posts you do some well, and say to myself "not again". I have posted several "Please Mr Greenspun" posts suggesting that he change the format to the posters name at the top, but he has choosen to remain with the current format. Your "Incoherent babblings from Flint, AVERT YOUR EYES" might have been a little childish, but you are getting the idea. As I said earlier,I could be way out in "left field" on this one. Even if the forum voted, suggested, or recommended that you follow a policy such as this, the final action would be up to you. [Period]

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), September 27, 1999.

thinkIcan:

No, you never actually said that I wasted your time. You very specificaly asked me to put my name at the top of my posts because you "personally would like to see who's post I'm reading before I start to spend my time reading it." It was you who was complaining directly, in your own words, about the TIME you spend. Not wasted, right, just, uh, wasted. Oops, sorry, "spent" when you'd prefer not to spend any.

And now, you write "never have I said that I "waste" too much time reading your posts". Not in so many words, but finding ANY other interpretation is pretty damn difficult. Otherwise, you are splitting hairs fine indeed. Take it from me, I'm an expert hair-splitter!

If that's twisting your intent, it's insignificant compared to the "filtering" of y2k information that goes on here normally.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.


I would be the first to agree that Flint is trying to monopolize this forum. However, I believe the only way to deal with such a person is to simply ignore them. The more we object to his methods, the more he will post.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), September 27, 1999.

Flint -whoever you are - you do not care about people.

The few people who read this Forum that are preparing or starting to now, need to be focused and undistracted. Were you not able to be on a debate team in High School?

The time for debates has long passed, and NO ONE know what will happen, but the consequences of not preparing, if Y2K turns out to be bad, are probably DEATH. The consequences of preparing are a chance at LIFE. There is no HARM in preparing, even if it is needless.

SHUT UP!!!!!! After Jan. 1, 2000, I will argue with you about anything you like.

Better yet, I have a friend who is just like you and I will put you in touch with him - maybe you can have kids.

Gregg

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), September 27, 1999.


Gregg:

If you read my posts because you just can't help yourself, don't blame me. If you read this (as Bokonon pointed out) worldview free- for-all forum rather than the preparation forum, don't blame me. If your mind is too made up to even consider anything else, don't blame me. Because you're right -- I don't care for people who blame others for their own shortcomings.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.


Flint- I just found out about the Prep Forum. I have been coming here fow a couple of weeks and didn't realize there was a special place for that. Maybe others don't either. I have just read some of your early posts - You clearly think things will be very different from present conditions.

So when you say,

"Because you're right -- I don't care for people who blame others for their own shortcomings. "

Are you saying that if people get distracted by your musings, and don't prepare, that it's just their tough luck?

Gregg

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), September 27, 1999.


LOL You really did hit the nail on the head! Flint, I enjoy your posts. Sometimes I agree, Sometimes I don't, and I DO like your "I don't lay down, and I don't play dead" personality. Without you, I would be reading only the posts of people ' with like minds ' BORING!!! (and dangerous)

-- Smiling (Lurking@the.edge), September 27, 1999.

[snort!] So people won't prepare because they're too distracted from doing so by reading all my posts that they wish I'd shut up and go away and not write? If so, I'm *definitely* in the wrong profession.

Compared to Media Inc, I'm a doomie.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 27, 1999.


I think I can('t understand what this fuss is all about) Police your own minds folks.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Oh yeah, one more thing

Are you saying that if people get distracted by your musings, and don't prepare, that it's just their tough luck?

I don't see Flint saying that, but I will. Tough tities on weak minded fools. It's a by-product of a free society.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.


Scroll down. If it's someone who's work you like to read, scroll up. If it's not, scroll on.

You know, if I wasn't the sort of person who snickered at such theories, I'd say there's a conspiracy afoot to garner sympathy for Flint and another one to get the same for al-d. Some of us who realize that there is more to the constitution, than the 2nd admendment, are starting to get just a little ticked at the recent spate of attacks on certain posters. There are other frequent posters who are every bit as arrogant as Flint can sometimes be, even more so. And al-d is hardly the only person who has problems with making a coherent post. I think each has angered a particular group, and they're paying the consequence.

It's one thing, if you are in the heat of a debate, lose your temper and start slamming someone. It's quite another, to initiate a thread, soley for the purpose of making personal attacks. If you don't like Flint, or you don't like al-d, read around them. It's not that hard.

For the record, I'd rather read Flint, than al-d, but the latter has just as much right to attempt to be heard as any other. If there are forum rules (everyplace has it's rules) that make certain types of posts verboten, then those rules need to be clearly posted, and applied equally.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 27, 1999.


I read every post and am often surprised to reach the end to find it was posted by an individual I had 'assumed' would have felt differently. It's called keeping an open mind about people.

Naturally, I have made it as far as the third sentence and wondered, "Who is *this* idiot?". It's the mystery of the written word. I've also played a personal guessing game attempting to identify the individual prior to reaching their signiture.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Why mess with a good thing? It would be like reading the ingredients of a Hostess Ding-Dong before eating it. If we knew what was in it, we'd miss the experience of tasting it. I personally enjoy reading without being tainted by the knowledge of 'who' wrote it until it has been digested. In some cases, regurgitating is a natural act, and shouldn't be avoided. Those who have triggered my gag reflex on numerous occassions are usually known within the first paragraph. I can feel my mouth begin to fill with saliva. Why would anyone want to ruin that for me? Sheeese.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 27, 1999.


Well. I guess I'll crank my tongue back OUT of my cheek and point out that I don't have a problem with identifying who I'm reading, about 3 lines in, and I kind of enjoy most of Flint's contributions, as they ALMOST always add light to the discussion, course y'all might say the same of me, only I probably add less in some instances. Ever body's gots 2 highly developped sensors for the task. (OOOPS, I DO know a one-eyed poster so ALMOST ever body's gots 2). USE 'EM or LOOSE 'EM.

Chuck

Who really shouldn't post in the morning, he agrees with WAY too much junk.

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


From Somone

Flint doesn`t need to start with his name at the beginning of his posts for me to know it`s him. It`s the same with many people in this forum. After a while you get to know who`s posting, after 2-3 sentences. It`s not so much WHAT Flint is saying that annoys me, it`s the length he takes to say it. I would suggest to Flint instead, to work on getting to the point in tighter, shorter posts. That advice also goes for everyone one of us who tend to ramble on and on.

-- Someone (someone@outhere.here), September 28, 1999.


someone:

I do try to be concise, but I have three problems:

1) Short posts are close to slogans, and sloganeering is an enemy of thought.

2) Face it, there's a context in this forum -- that y2k is sure to be bad and very likely to be very bad. Short posts that *agree* with this context need only highlight some part of it, and all the necessary supporting arguments and understandings are implicitly filled in by your readers.

In contrast, since I don't accept this context I must provide my own. This takes substantial verbiage and *very* careful writing, since the underlying understandings and agreements aren't there. When you swim against the current, you exert a lot more effort.

Notice the glee with which 'a' plucks individual phrases out of my contexts and presents them in his (the background). This verbal jujitsu takes advantage of understandings he need not present, allowing him to create 'transparent' distortion. This is hard to counter with slogans. It takes time, effort and words.

3) I'm naturally gabby anyway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 28, 1999.


Everyone Else But Flint: Avert Your Eyes---------------

So Flint,

Who's right - lisa or me { Libra or Gemini? }

-- flora (***@__._), September 28, 1999.


flora:

I must have missed something. Are you asking about my astrological sign? Hang on, I'll look it up...

Aquarius.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 28, 1999.


Posted by: Flint

thinkIcan,

As repugnant as your request of me may have been as framed in its original context, I can appreciate how leading identification as a matter of forum policy might be to the convenience of a portion of our forum readership. At the same time, there seem to be strong constituencies both for permitting the reader to guess the poster's identity, and for wanting to preclude knowledge of that identity from impeding the objectivity of the reading process.

On balance, I think the idea of preidentification has merit, but only if it takes hold to the extent of becoming customary on this forum, and not just for targeted individuals.

Unlike yourself and many of the self proclaimed doomers, I am more than willing to recognize the validity of an idea that comes from someone whose ideas I nearly always disagree with.

One more thing...this isn't Flint, it's...

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 28, 1999.


Flint,

Sorry, my brain's on a shorter circiut than usual today. lisa & I were prognosticating on the 'western US' -AKA earthquake thread the other day. Thanks.

lisa - we were equally close, & equally wrong {hit the air thing, though }.

-- flora (***@__._), September 28, 1999.


wonder what 'a' is........ such cynicism could only come from another Capricorn.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ