Posting guidelines -- have you read them?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Below are the guidelines published in the forms page for adding a "question" starting a thread.
I think many skip past and have never read them. Also, they are not posted for "replies."
Here they are for your convenience:TimeBomb 2000 Forum Posting Guidelines:
Y2K--preparation and related issues--are recommended discussion topics
We ask that vendors refrain from posting direct information about their products and services
Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames
If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post
Post using your own name or handle--stealing may result in deletion
Once 3-5 regular posters request DELETE--pointless threads may be removed
Refrain from using profane/obscene language--or post will be deleted
Dont feed the trolls--please
Delete assessment of TBY2K SYSOP(s)--is final
This is NOT a forum for continued religious rantings (occasional on-topic discussions are permitted).
Posters abusing this guideline will be asked to cease and desist, and/or their ISP provider will be contacted with a complaint notice.
Sysops here are some comments:The first one about preparation is a bit out of date with the opening of the prep forum and should be revised.
The last one includes the phrase "occasional on-topic discussions are permitted".
Is this typo or a Freudian slip with all the posts about McCain, chemtrails, TWA800, etc being permitted? And the one "If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post"
Shouldn't Carl Jenkins be required to establish some kind of Y2k link for all the news articles he posts?Then the one "Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames". I do try to follow this, although when someone flames me they're fair game.
A bit more about this one "Refrain from using profane/obscene language--or post will be deleted"
I have been involved in a discussion with a certain other poster. It has gotten a bit heated and some name calling has gone on. But the night before last he posted a message on this thread that is profane.
Then, last night he posted another message that is definitely obscene
If you don't consider the used of the f-word obscene, then nothing is.Before a number of other posters who share the offender's side in this debate flame me (let me help you out "poor Mikey runs to the teacher when his feelings are hurt"), let me say this.
I don't care if the sysops leave these postings up and part of me hopes that they are left up. When someone of this mental caliber resorts to obscenities in an argument, it tells me that they are admitting that their position is indefensible with logic. I do think that it reflects poorly on this forum to those lurkers and thousands of news people monitoring this forum.This other poster has suggested that I be banned for my vigorous arguments against him, but I am not returning the suggestion.
If there are going to be guidelines they should be followed and enforced. The sysops are tasked with a difficult job and I imagine that the profane language was left up not because they approved but because they didn't see it. Best thing is if everyone respects them.
Perhaps it is time to revamp the guidelines -- more than just a tweak such as the typo I pointed out and the bit about preparation. Perhaps collectively the forum should officially admit that Y2k is over and rename the forum to something else, prehaps not "Oilbomb 2000" or "Chemtrail 2000" as this forum's detractors have not without basis called it. Perhaps the sysops could open a topic to discuss a name change for the forum. If this forum is no longer about Y2k then it should be up-front about it.
-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000
Shouldn't Carl Jenkins be required to establish some kind of Y2k link for all the news articles he posts?Please leave Carl Jenkins' posts out of this. There may or may not ultimately be Y2K issues responsible for the breakdowns he posts about, but without the stories here for us to see, we'd be limiting our discussions.
As for your problems with Hawk, I respectfully submit that both of you should CALM DOWN. You both sound like high school students who are badly in need of naps. After you wake up, apologize, and work on disagreeing with the *issues.* Avoid name-calling. You both have good points to make, but they're getting lost in the noise.
Harrison
-- (harri5@aol.com), February 13, 2000.
I agree with Harrison. It takes two to tango. It seems that there is a personal issue between you two that had nothing to do with the subject. Very unfortunate, but also very common here.
-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 13, 2000.
2000 will be with us for 1,000 years and the real millineum doesn't begin until 2001. Each day that goes by in this world is a timebomb ticking away. War, threat of war, financial collapse, scandals, chemical accidents, oil gluts or oil rationing, etc...it's news. I see this forum as an information network, faster than clicking onto CNN to find out what is going on. It's a network made up of people who share information and comments. This forum was originally about the impending computer problem and in some ways there are still glitches and problems happening.I do agree with you Mike that profanity and needless flaming isn't necessary. If people can't state their point in a rational factual way, then don't answer the thread. And I do agree with you that maybe the "guidelines," need to be revisited and changed to meet what's going on today on this forum. I don't know of any forum around that allows people to use profanity, threats, etc., and I have visited many forums that enforce the rules. I think the Sysops have done a good job in keeping disruptors out. The trolls were given many chances to clean up their act and they refused to act in a rational way. For some of the trolls, it was their goal to close down this forum and they failed. I've been here over 2 years and have experienced a lot of tolerance from the sysops on people who intentionally set out to disrupt. There's always room for improvement and I'm all for that.
-- bardou (bardou@baloneeyy.com), February 13, 2000.
Need a little EXTRA attention today Mikey2k ???Remember Mikey Mouse, there are many other places for you to go, please don't IMPOSE your wishes on this forum. It's GREAT just the way it is.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 13, 2000.
In response to Ray's comment about "imposing my wishes on the whole forum", I say reread my question.Harrison, you're probably right. I shouldn't have been drawn into the name calling when Hawk started. But I refuse to be drawn further and across the line that he has crossed.
I'll be generous and say that 5% of Carl Jenkins' posts could possibly be caused by a Y2k computer problem. Perhaps we should just call this "Glitch 2000" and encourage him to continue to post even more.
-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000.
Mikey2k:I have read this thread and then took the time to go back and read each thread to which you gave a hot link. If all the posts are there, and I think they are, in each instance you started the name calling in reply to Hawk's posts by referring to him in a derogatory manner.
He then replied and in your next post you escalated the confrontation by more rude references. True you did not use profanity but you provoked him into using it. This appears to me to be deliberate on your part. Remember - "Attack the message, not the messenger".
-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), February 13, 2000.
Nadine commented:"True you did not use profanity but you provoked him into using it."
Mikey2k, please read this 10 times.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 13, 2000.
How about "ThoughtBomb 2000" ??That way it's still TB2000, yet that leaves room for interpretation, and a wide range of topics...
-- (pshannon@naturesnews.org), February 13, 2000.
Why don't you not print some of Hawk's little ranting's. If I may remind you in print that he has used Fuck, piss, Jack Off, turd and a few others so are you going to be selective about this or what.
-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 13, 2000.
"True you did not use profanity but you provoked him into using it."Is this anything like luring burglars to rob you with a lovely window display, or how about... asking to be raped by wearing revealing clothing?? Absolutely ludicrous! Adults should take responsibility for their actions, and not blame the person whom they think "asked for it". Another sad example of why this world is so f@#%* up.
-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), February 13, 2000.
Nadine, the discussion between Hawk and myself has encompassed a few more threads than the one I hotlinked, and has crossed back quite a few times. You can also see that he has abused others such as Gordon who has had more restraint than I and as far as I can see has not called Hawk names. Yet Hawk calls him a liar.As far as provoking him to profanity, I guess you're right. All it took was asking him questions he couldn't answer. And no, I don't feel it necessary to repeat each and every potty-mouth word that he said. A hotlink to the thread where he said it is good enough.
-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000.
Thanks for posting the rules Mikey,Y2k is not yet over. We still have no idea ho much is held together with coat hangers and duct tape. As INFOMAGIC said, its going to be a couple more months before the bullet hits the target. Its the nature of business and government to say whatever to keep the sheeple calm in their pens; every problem needs to be reported and examined in the search for truth.
Carl is doing us a great service with his postings. You may choose to ignore them, many of us are grateful.
-- John (LITTMANNJ@AOL.COM), February 13, 2000.
Nadine, thank you for taking the time to discern the truth in this matter. It seems that Mikey has a problem because he is a pathological liar, and I have had to prove time and time again that everything out of his mouth is untrue. No more. This is the last time, and from now on I will simply ignore him.
To all who seek the truth, please feel free to follow the conversation as it unfolds in any of the following threads, dating back to Feb. 8 and 9 when the problem started. If you don't have time, below are just a few samples of what Mikey results to when he is proven wrong. In each case you will find that these insults were totally unprovoked by me, and only after being insulted did I reflect his rudeness back in his face.
"No, Chicken-not-a-Hawk, I had the trim actuator figured out long ago. What I'm trying to figure out is the reason for your idiocy -- maybe your mother shoved you out the the roost when you were just a chick and you fell on your head."
"Hey birdbrain, you've been asked for specifics. Do you give them?"
"Tell us about YOUR aviation background. Hah! The only hawk about you is the phlehm you've spewed on this forum."
My name is Hawk, and I do not appreciate being referred to as "Chicken", "Chicken-not-a-Hawk", "Birdbrain", "Phlegm-hawker", "paranoid doomer idiot", "Hawker", and many other derogatory remarks.
I should be allowed to post my thoughts without being insulted, but the way that Mikey is aggresively trying to discredit my information by mocking me suggests that he is a paid government shill, who is trying to dispel the credibility of my ideas because they are very likely possible. From this point forward he will be ignored, but he will not stop me from practicing my right to freedom of speech. I think it is clear to everyone where he is coming from.
link 5
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 13, 2000.
Oh, there are lots more, but here's one from yesterday where I even asked him to stop this childish game, and he refused. Before I made a single negative comment toward him he insisted on continuing his game of insulting me.link 6
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 13, 2000.
Mikey2k:May I respectfully suggest that you haven't been here long enough to tell the rest of us what to do! These have always been guidelines. They have never been rules. And I might add, they have seldom been followed.
Establish some credibility first. This comes with time. After that, we can all discuss your desire to convert these to hard and fast rules.
Best wishes,,,,
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 13, 2000.
Hawk, this sort of "fact gathering" (i.e., posting *six* links) simply adds more fuel to the fire. We intelligent readers can see that there is a problem. You need not tell us anything further, and the unintelligent readers lack the patience to follow your "evidence."You will get across your excellent points much better if you will stick to the issue and not revert to name calling.
Harrison
-- (harri5@aol.com), February 13, 2000.