Hello Ken;

We have already addressed Hoff's problems. I have answered him and apologized to him for baiting him (with his own tactics). How is it that you are the only one who was willing to jump to his defense, given that you have been such a reasonable voice for such a long time on this forum?

I have asked Hokie, who is the only truly qualified person to check that thread and give me his professional opinion. No doubt he will either do that or decline as he see's fit.

What I can not fathom is how you will support the anonymous insult of a gentleman's character on the one hand and decry it on the other. Perhaps I misunderstand, enlighten me.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000

Answers

Birds of an arrogant feather etc.

-- I promise to quit aggrivating this situation (real@soon.now), January 06, 2000.

Michael:

You don't seem to notice that Hoff is now using his real name, and Yourdon's integrity is just as questionable as ever. Even Gary North looks a lot better right now. In fact, I've been impressed with North, and disgusted with Yourdon, and I never thought I'd say that!

Your petty vendetta against Hoff is irrelevant.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

Flint; I did not realize you were acting on Ken's behalf. I guess he is offline. So I will ask you, do you feel that Hoff was mistreated? Do you believe that he got as much as he gave?

What upsets you Flint is that Hoff simply could not get a grip on what he was doing. Can you get a grip on what he was doing?

Search real hard... you'll find it.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Erskine, according to the Debunkers, you outed Hoff. Are you really "a?" Just curious.

-- (I'm@pol.ly), January 06, 2000.

Well I don't know. 'a' am I 'a' or do I only owe you a debit of gratitude... Actually Huffie OUTED himself and then managed to make complete fool of himself by not being able to say, "I am sorry."

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Michael:

I really don't care about your grudges. I *do* care about Yourdon's behavior, because I really admired him.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

Mr Erksine,

Sorry, but I also think that Hoffmeister should have been allowed to hide his identity on the internet, until he saw fit. This is the internet where it is okay to do that-duh! I feel that taking to task someone that was well known on the net does not invalidate his argument.

What about your various aliases? What other handles have you used to post here? Any confessions to make?

In regard to the "anonymous" insult, Mr. Yourdon always knew how to connect Mr. Hoffmeister, as they have conversed before.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Steve; Not a problem. Are you the fellow (or do you know the person who forged the E-Mail asking me to use only one of alias).

...@....... You DO need to count the dots to ensure you have the correct one.

Michael Erskine

osiris@urbanna.net

-m-

I think that is all of them.

I don't recall any others. While you are 'grepping' thru the database of messages seeking any little tidbits you might find. I will take satisfaction in the fact that you have to do that to find ammunition to support your specious argument. Don't bother trying to discuss the REAL issue, whether one has the right to insult another's integrity while hiding behind a veil.

If on the off chance you find such a tidbit of "terribly incriminating evidence" I invite you (as if I need to) to bring it to my attention so that I make the appropriate apology... which WILL STILL BE MORE THAN THE FELLOW YOU ARE DEFENDING WAS ABLE TO DO.

As time wears on you folks impress me more and more. Jeeze...

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Better yet Steve... just dig up the earlier postings of mine. You know the ones where I made DIRE predictions about what would happen to Christians and post those... Do post a LINK to the thread though so that others may read the whole argument in context... You will do that much won't you?

I'd like to re-read that one anyway. It was fun. Good debate there as I recall. Might find a few choice bits to use in my own argument against the misuse of anonymity caused by a lack of backbone.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Im@polly: no, I'm not him. You guys are getting as paranoid as FactLoser.

Maybe one of the 'censoring sysops' could confirm this, to allay your fears, hmmm?

-- a (a@a.a), January 06, 2000.

Flint; Then go read his latest piece. Perhaps you will find something worth admiring... I did.

Steve; nothing to confess but if you want to grep the database try these:

siris ...@....... -m- rskin

That should get just about anything I ever put up on the forum. If you quote... Kindly just drop a link. I tend to get verbose.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Hmmm.... I seem to be repeating myself... :) If you will be so kind as to leave your responses in the inbox, I shall try to get to them in the morning. Meanwhile, I believe Mr. Yourdon had given Huffie (because I ride him like a bike) Hoffman the only response he has earned.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Michael,

This is a silly thread. Any public figure is subject to an intense level of scrutiny. Ed Yourdon wrote arguably the most successful book on Y2K. He also launched a video and MLM venture. Ted Hoffman obviously Yourdon's commercial interest interfered with his role as Y2K "reporter." While I may not agree with Hoff's conclusion, I think he has the right to question Yourdon. He also has the right to question John Koskinen, or Michael Hyatt, or any other public figure involved in the Y2K debate. As compared to the venomous personal attacks so often found on this forum, I find Ted's critique rather "middle-of-the-road," far less than both he and I have routinely weathered. I think the reason people become so bent out of shape is because Yourdon has "sainthood" status on this forum. I see few people running to the defense of Koskinen... a man who may be every bit as decent as Yourdon.

If Ed is bothered by Ted's views... they are both adults and can settle this matter without your assistance or mine. Move on.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 2000.

No, de Jager wrote the most wildly successful 'book' on Y2K.

Plus the sale of his domain name: add it up; he's the dude that suckered everybody.

Add it up.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 07, 2000.

Ken; In all sincerety you are correct it is time move on. This will PROBABLY be my last day of posting on this topic. The question to you , Ken, was clear. The answer ignored the point of the question. I will drop the matter. Most everyone, including even obcessive self, has become boring. The point was made, was clear, indeed appears to have been moot before a tiny segment of the audience.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 07, 2000.