Chuck, gimme the G^%&^%&*D keys!!!!!

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

Are we not a little over the top today??????

Diane, hello?????

#2 ??????

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

Answers

Lisa,

Couldn't agree more. On another thread, I saw a response from Sysop #2 saying that nothing would be deleted unless it contained a string of profanities or personal information about another poster. In the meantime, today we've been treated to trolls using the nicknames of regular posters, trolls posting bogus extremist doomer drivel threads, trolls using obsencities in a vicious attack on someone's religious beliefs, trolls acknowledging that they are here solely to disrupt the forum, etc. etc.

If this is considered acceptable to the moderators, we might as well pull the plug on TB2000 now. It will only get worse. I would vote for giving Lisa a delete key. Or, someone needs to start a chat room like Bokonon has, and password protect it. This forum is becoming increasingly unuseable.

There is a big difference between moderating and censorship. Am I idealistic in thinking that "pollies" and "doomers" alike might agree that the level of trollism seen here today is unacceptable?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 29, 1999.


Yes, we are a little over the top today, Lisa. So what? I personally don't care, and I find it to be of value to see how people react to it.

For whatever reason (and I don't have a clue as to what it is), emotions are running high today. We seem to have a new disrupter throwing turds into the soup, and there are other threads that contain flame wars among more "established" participants. It will probably just get crazier here over the weekend. To top it off, over DeBunker, they love it when we get nutty here. (though they never cite the disrupters as the cause of that nuttiness.)

So, Lisa, I think that the worst thing that could happen would be for someone to start deleting things based on their own emotional responses. That happened a while back when the usually graceful Diane got really pissed off about attacks, and I thought it was a mistake, because deleting stuff only increased the volume of the flame wars. I said it on one of the other threads today, that one can skip over or respond intelligently to the trolling, it's a choice, not an obligation.

Like it or not, there will always be disrupters around here. If you must know, with a few keystrokes, we could delete everything that .@... (for example) has posted, but personally, I think the consequences of that are too high. The other two Sysops may disagree with me, and may (and do) take different approaches. Personally, I find the disrupters to have value (some of it entertainment value) as far as seeing how people choose to respond. The people who get all huffy about it MUST realize that they are choosing their reaction. If they chose to, they could look at it as an opportunity to fine tune their arguements and responses.

It just too easy to say "delete please." You can't do that in the real world when you don't like someone.

(BTW - I will and do delete things on sight that include lots of profanity and unauthorized personal info. And there have been a few occasions where I've deleted new threads that were so totally irrelevant and disturbing that they didn't belong here at all. The one that comes to mind had to do with some guy raping a 12 year old. That kind of thing.)

-- Sysop #2 (Sysop #2@TB2000.forum), October 29, 1999.


LISA,

READING YOUR REACTION ABOVE BROUGHT ONE FROM ME:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH!!!!!!

P.S. IF YOU THINK NOW IS BAD, JUST WAIT UNTILL NEXT JANURARY WHEN Y2K TURNS OUT NOT !!! TO BE TEOTWAWKI!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

GO TROLLS GO!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAH!!!!!!!

-- GENIUS (CODESLINGER@WORK.NOW), October 29, 1999.


I for one find it makes many of the threads more "stimulating". I'm a newbie of course, and my vote shouldn't count for too much. But if these are really "polly" posts, then all they do is highlight the emptiness anymore of the "polly" position. In fact, the antagonistic diatribes, the slurs, slander, religious insults, blasphemies -- so grossly inappropriate -- have the effect of confirming that we must be on the right track. If the regulars can't persuade SYSOPS orthe moderators to delete a thread or post, perhaps regulars can reach a consensus "amongst ourselves" to disregard a given inflammatory post with a set response, like the usual "Don't Feed the Trolls" -- or simply TROLLPOST. And move on. The problem is not only the posts themselves, and their peurile ad hominem insults, but the way in which forum participants are regularly gulled into the taunts. It's so plain these guys (or THIS guy, operating under a half-dozen bogus addresses) finds hatred cathartic. E.g., I have it from a SYSOP, that he only drops over after spending the morning downloading homosexual porn.

-- SH (squirrel@hunter.com), October 29, 1999.

Sysop #2,

Here is an example of the "entertainment" you are enjoying today:

"Elaine -- [yes, that was worthy of deletion]"

Is this okay with you?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 29, 1999.



Yeah. That one. That's the only one that needs to go.

If it stays, it sends a message: all trolls in the pool!!!!!!

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


Sysop #2

The posts you want to delete are from "_@_._" - 3 spaces and only 1 dot. Not the .@...

@ . is the one making all the trouble today.

-- (just me@here.com), October 29, 1999.


Hey guys look at the bright side - at least Al-D hauled ass.

-- a (a@a.a), October 29, 1999.

a,

I think Al-d had a little assist getting himself TOS-sed out of here. There's at least one little sociopath around here today who needs the same kind of help.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 29, 1999.


Folks, make your way over to csy2k on the usenet - that is comp.software.year-2000

completely unmoderated & no it doesn't have threads per se but you can use one of the big newsreaders to track threads.

come on, feeding the de bunkers just makes it worse.

if you react emotionally when someone trashes your cherished belief, the belief owns you not you the belief.

post on the de bunking sites and just don't bother ever reading the responses. just post and post and post and post.

none of this makes any difference at this point anyway in terms of y2k. we are all, all of us across the y2k spectrum just junkies feeding our habits if we are still tracking y2k as if it will make a difference, imho. gi's, dgi's, debunkies all alike.

mitch

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), October 29, 1999.



ah yes---

a moment of silence--for Al-d!

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), October 29, 1999.


Mr. Barnes.

You commented:

" none of this makes any difference at this point anyway in terms of y2k. we are all, all of us across the y2k spectrum just junkies feeding our habits if we are still tracking y2k as if it will make a difference, imho. gi's, dgi's, debunkies all alike".

My purpose in utilizing this forum is to be inside a loop of individuals that are in different parts of North america and are sharing Actual and anecdotal information on an hourly basis.

I don't know about you but I appreciate knowing things as they come out and are happening. My take on problems and the masses is that this forum is going to possibly supply us with a degree of time to react to things that others that are not JUNKIES would not other wise be able to.

An example would be the Canadian bank story a couple days ago. Gary North just got around to posting it today.

I don't know the extent of your plans-when and if bank runs start or pillaging,chemical plants etc. But Mine are to stay on top of the story of the millenium that could effect our lives.

Why would you consider staying vigilant with this forum as an addiction. I guess if I watch cnbc all day long getting stock information than I am an addict?

Or if I spend hours learning to play the piano then I am addicted to playing the piano.

Maybe this forum will not give me the hedging of time that I think it will but under the potential circumstances that may be coming our way--according to gartner group over the next few months I cant possibley think of any place I'd rather get my FIX.

Please accept my apologies if this seemed harsh!! I am addicted and addicts are illogical sometimes.

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), October 29, 1999.


Quote 1:

"So, Lisa, I think that the worst thing that could happen would be for someone to start deleting things based on their own emotional responses."

Quote 2:

"Like it or not, there will always be disrupters around here."

One of these things is not like the other.

It's one thing to delete things based on "emotional responses". It's something entirely different to sweep the disrupters out the door.

The purpose of a "disruptor" is to *disrupt*. Given free reign, it's exactly what they'll do, and they'll destroy any useful purpose for this forum in the process.

Is this place some sort of social experiment, to see how people react to having sociopaths piss in their dinner, or is it a place for people to discuss a topic?

Locking out the disruptors from a *conversation* is not "censorship", any more than shooting a home invader is "inhospitality".

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), October 29, 1999.


Quote 1:

"Yes, we are a little over the top today, Lisa. So what? I personally don't care, and I find it to be of value to see how people react to it."

Quote 2:

"Personally, I find the disrupters to have value (some of it entertainment value)as far as seeing how people choose to respond."

Ron,

At least these two things are like one another. I think Diane was on the right track when she applied a stronger hand in moderating the forum. But, it seemed like she was shouted down by a few very vocal posters (some of whom now appear here infrequently). I remember her post finally saying that the forum would continue in its disruptive state until enough regulars were sick of it. So, do you think we've reached that point? If so, will we be told, "So what? I personally don't care..."? I dislike censorship, but I trust that most of the forum posters (at least those who are not trolls)can tell the difference between censorship and moderation. I expect someone will say that, if I don't like it here, I'm free to go somewhere else. Actually, I have been doing more of that lately, and finding myself in the company of both "doomers" and "pollies" complaining about the disruption of this forum.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 29, 1999.


I know who the disrupters area, and they know who I am.

Please, arm me. It's only gonna get worse. Trust me, I know these people.

-- lisa (lisa@back.from_home_back_to_work), October 29, 1999.



C'mon people get with the program.

If ya wanna shut up anybody ya gotta prove your case.

Let's say your standing on a soapbox in Lafayette Park (in front of the White House) and you're trying to tell people about your cause. If you start saying stuff that the passersby don't agree with, I guarantee you're gonna get hecklers. Happens at least once a week.

So, the only solution to "trolls" (read hecklers, an American tradition) is to argue your case or shut up. Arguing about the existence of the hecklers will get you nowhere. In a real, live situation it will get you in an argument, which could escalate into a fight, resulting in the arrest of all parties in front of the White House and maybe making it on to CNN.

So, argue your case or

Shut up!

-- there's (politics@all.forums), October 29, 1999.


Lisa,

I've been taking a Y2K time-out which is perhaps a reason for the "invasion."

The Sysops and Moderators will discuss what needs to be done. Meanwhile I may just do a bit of housecleaning.

Lisa, do e-mail me URL or thread names to the worst of it.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.


Thanks, Diane............

Some terrible content, but the problem was there was no authority to smack the adolescent creatures on the nose before they got warmed up.

Sorry you had to return to a melee, ma'am.. hope your vacation was restful.

GIMME A SPARE KEY!!!! [please]

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


mitch wrote

"if you react emotionally when someone trashes your cherished belief, the belief owns you not you the belief."

Well done. Both sides of the fence are going to have to be ready for "real time" Y2K.

2 months left and the reality will present itself. What folks can say will mean little, but can you deal with change? We may see alot of that around here.

Beliefs are only for those that don't know. And right now know one knows.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 29, 1999.


" But, it seemed like she was shouted down by a few very vocal posters (some of whom now appear here infrequently)."

RUOK, I've been one who was vocal against deletion (other than for mechanicaly disruptive posts.) Many old timers don't post much anymore, but still lurk.

My stand is that if a flaming/trollish post or thread bother you ("you" used in general), ignore it completely. It's like bully kids, if you respond emotionally to them, they'll be rewarded and spured on. There's no worse punishment for human beings than to be ignored completely.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), October 29, 1999.


Just got through watching the Blair Witch Project. Hey are you alright Lisa? I guess when I suggested Lunch in your attempt to connect in the Bwahahaha thread, things have never been the same. Just let me know when you need someone to talk to. Moohahaha.....hear the cows in that nearby pasture....just kidding.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), October 30, 1999.

Folks this is gonna be rather disjointed as the xanax has landed and I should ber on the way to bed..

I have been working sort of hard lately and haven't been on top of much, not even myself (flaming row with the boss today etc....)

I have pretty much not had as much problem up till last night and now with stuff on the posts. i WILL be a bit more diligent later.

I do NOT hold the reins on the keys...... Di has em.

gnihgt

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 30, 1999.


Lafayette Park?

This place is no more Lafayette Park than is my living room.

Why is it that spamboyz always assert their "right" to be in *other* people's faces, on *other* people's turf?

Why do spamboyz always feign shock over the hatred they receive for their abuse of *other* people's property?

This is not a "public forum". It's owned by someone, and that person has every right in the world to decide who posts here, and who does not, as well as the right to establish rules as to *what* is appropriate.

You want a "public forum"? Go back to Lafayette Park. But when you're here, you're a guest. Behave as a guest, and I suspect you'll be accepted as a guest. Behave as a disruptive intruder, and you'll be treated ... as you're treated.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), October 30, 1999.


Interesting discussion.

While I don't much cotton to the idea of censorship, posts full of profanity or generally repulsive ideas such as 'raping 12-year-olds' should certainly be file-13'd ASAP. Free speech is a basic principle in America, but community standards have to overrule that sometimes.

People who use other people's handles should be spanked, their posts deleted. While I totally disagree with the Doomer point of view, I'm still all for being honest about it, whatever the disagreement. Anyone who feels they have to win an argument by lying, didn't have much of an argument to begin with, is my view. State the facts as you see 'em, and let that be it.

But how to detect that? The sysops can pretty well tell who I am by the current IP address they pick up, but what if I use Anonymizer? Or something like a brand-new NetZero account? Hard to tell.

Now. Beyond all that, there's the question of people disagreeing vehemently with a given point of view. It's no secret that I'm just about the opposite of a Doomer, and at times in the past have been less than civil about it. Am trying to be better behaved in that regard. After all, if I don't think the end of civilization will occur come January, might as well be civilized about stating that belief, huh.

I pointed out a long time ago, that anytime anyone puts a forum up on the internet that deals with an issue about which there are divided opinions, the operator of that forum has to expect some dissension. Same as newspaper editors who express their opinions and have to expect 'letters to the editor' that disagree with the editor's point of view. Comes with the territory. BUT the editor of that paper is not bound to print letters filled with profanity, or those written by people who claim to be who they are not. A bit of 'censorship' is indicated in such cases.

BUT when those who put forth an opinion start wanting to delete 'letters' from people only because those letters disagree (as Michael Hyatt and Rick Cowles have done in the past), then the 'editor' is really only showing that they're afraid of any criticism, i.e. that they're really not very secure in their beliefs.

That's my 'opinion'.

And I'm the real CL, not someone using the handle surreptitiously.

=====

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), October 30, 1999.


freedom of speech only exists when it protects the opinions of people you despise.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 30, 1999.

better to remain silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.-Abraham Lincoln

-- Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln@dead presidents.g.o.p.), October 30, 1999.

Well said, CL.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), October 30, 1999.

Thank you CL, for trying to behave better.

(Hug a NC cat 'n dog for me at your shelter work).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 30, 1999.


Actually Chicken Little has become a valuable poster. A little frayed on the temper, a little scratchy with those claws, but one of the gang nonetheless. Yes, good points, and one thing we agree about totally: panic IS for the birds. That's why prudent preparation beforehand is much better than crisis-lurching-reactionary pollicies.

A Polly is somebody who plans to pick up a battery at 7-11 on 12/31/99 :-)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 30, 1999.


A&L:

That seems clear, but inconsistent with what you've written elsewhere. So a polly is someone who doesn't prepare? Hey, I get called a polly all the time, yet I've prepared extensively. And many haven't given y2k a second thought (and I agree that they haven't been goven much of a *reason* to give it a second thought either).

Perhaps a polly is some who thinks about all of this, AND rejects it as largely fabricated, AND decides not to prepare, AND writes in to say so?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 30, 1999.


"Perhaps a polly is some who thinks about all of this, AND rejects it as largely fabricated, AND decides not to prepare, AND writes in to say so?"

We don't know of a word in the English language for somebody like that. *looking for dictionary/thesaurous*

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 30, 1999.


"freedom of speech only exists when it protects the opinions of people you despise."

That was *never* the issue.

I have no problem whatsoever defending your right to *disagree* with me.

But I'll be damned if I'll *ever* defend your right to *attack* me.

And make *no* mistake -- the disruption assualt *is* an attack. And left to its own devices, it'll be a *successful* attack.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), October 30, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ