Correcting Ed Yourdon about this forum : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Ed has made the following comment on his new EZboard forum on this post

"Several of the other sysops had warned me that Mr. Polly was probably Y2K Pro ...

Y2K Pro, along with Flint and a few others, was on the list of people that we had decided to ban from this forum. Anyone who visited the old Greenspun TimeBomb forum may have observed Y2K Pro's "spam bombs" on several occasions.

Hence, Y2K Pro's new moniker, Mr. Polly, is now banned from further postings on this forum.

Having said that, I encourage those who are curious to visit the new forum that he and his colleagues have created on the old Greenspun site. It may well have benefits and features that this forum does not have, and will never have; and there's nothing to prevent people from visiting both forums, along with a thousand others.


Ed, hopefully you will read this post. I respect your choices, and wish you the best with the new forum. I appreciate your word of encouragement for this TB2K Spinoff forum, however I must inform you that it was not started by Y2K Pro "and his colleagues", nor by Flint or anyone on your banlist.

I am someone who greatly respect you, but simply disagree with your decision to move from Lusenet and ban people for their views, no matter which side of the fence they were.

You started a great forum over 2 years ago, and many of us don't want to see it die. Censorship killed our old home, I'm trying to revive it.

I hope that you can find the time to contribute on here also, it's your home too afterall, because you've built it. I only made some repairs.


-- Old TB2K forum regular (, March 04, 2000


This is organic. The first reaction to the claustrophobic atmosphere over there (someone should do a study on emotions radiating thru websites..aren't allpixels equal, but i digress) was for SEVERAL people to try and arrange alternative continuations of TB2000. One will "catch on", not ncessarily because it was someone's creation. Perhaps that egotism is part of the problem (here and everywhere)...

-- INever (, March 04, 2000.

I applaud free speech. I also applaud and appreciate the efforts that Ed Yourdon and all the sysops and moderators provided over time to keep the forum up and running. People whom I have met on both sides of the fence, at Time Bomb, have added to my life. I am glad to see that the efforts continue.

-- Normally (, March 04, 2000.

We were posting at the same time before, Old Regular. I guess this would explain why folks think you're Y2kPro/Mr. Polly, et al:

Alternative to EZBOARD

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 04, 2000.

OK, this may sound like a silly question, but...did Y2K Pro really fire off a load of "spam bombs" on the old TB2000, as Ed says? The thing is, I never noticed them. I would see Y2K Pro make a post, which would be deleted, and then some time later (s)he'd repost it, and so on and so on. I was never much more than an occasional visitor to the old TB2000, though, so I understand that I may have missed a few things.

-- Richard Dymond (, March 04, 2000.

It's important to be accurate, even when there is a temptation to fudge due to like/dislike of a particular person:

Y2K Pro was never a spammer, that I ever saw anyway, not a spammer in the LL sense. What I saw was that he'd post his list of horrible sayings, it would be up for a bit, it would get deleted, and he'd post it again. No real DOS.

It is an appalling injustice to Y2K Pro to get him confused with Mr. Polly. I am so indignant on Y2K Pro's behalf that I fear that I cannot continue.

-- Peter Errington (, March 04, 2000.

What Y2KPro did was go through the archive, find some less-than nice things that others had said (ususally about pollys) and repost it. With a few pithy comments, of course! Since we all, at one time or another, have said things we later wished we hadn't, his reposts were not popular with some. So...* zip* *zing* his post would get deleted.

So much for freedom of speech and thought.

*Deep breath* Ahhh...doesn't all this fresh, free air smell delicious? Isn't it nice to be where one can disagree?!

And for the record, I'm no Polly either....but Y2KPro does have a right to speak (type) his mind!

-- blu (, March 04, 2000.

I never thought Y2K PRO was that bad. I thought some of the doomers were the most hateful bunch I'd ever met. I was neither a doomer nor a polly--simply afraid Not to prepare. I waffled back and forth. But for pollies to be treated like lepers really turned me off.

-- gilda (, March 04, 2000.

There seemed to have been about 3 types of "disapproved" posters on the original forum. I can't speak authoritatively, because I couldn't spend 24 hours a day watching things appear and vanish, and the moderators were VERY busy "disappearing" anyone they didn't like. But in general there were:

1) The clear DOS/spam people. LL was obviously one, and there may have been others I didn't see. While I personally strongly disapprove of such tactics, there was always the question of WHY such tactics were adopted. Perhaps (for all I know) some were initiated in an attempt to functionally disable the forum, out of a misguided attempt at censorship by those without the "keys" to censor more effectively. But for the most part, such attacks came across as a childish venting of frustration at being "disappeared" and not permitted even to post within the published guidelines. The censorship was always aimed against *people*, and NOT against improper behavior except insofar as the "enemy" people also behaved improperly.

2) Impolite posters of the "wrong" persuasion, who never attempted to deny service or spam but whose "contributions" consisted almost entirely of personal attacks. Y2K Pro fits this category. Of course, there were quite a few posters (Andy, Brett, Ray, 'a', KOS, INVAR, etc.) whose posts ALSO consisted almost entirely of personal attacks, but directed against those the censors saw as "the enemy", which was OK, of course. It was always obvious that the posting guidelines were NOT applied against those in the Right, as defined by the censors. MinnesotaSmith could hawk his wares on every post, and he was *encouraged* to do so because he had the "right" opinion.

3) Those who never violated any of the rules, guidelines or even suggestions, but who (1) Clearly didn't accept Church Doctrine; and (2) Presented the case for reality clearly and logically. I think Hoffmeister, Jonathan Latimer, Ken Decker and I fit in this category. And clearly most of the concern on Yourdon's new ghetto involved those in this category.

And to me, that was most chilling. When the punishment is severe and the crime is undefined, you damn well better stay in line.

What's ironic, I think, is that most of the "problems" the moderators faced on the original TB2K was of their OWN MAKING. When you make disagreement, especially *effective* disagreement, a criminal act, you create a LOT of criminals in an open forum. When the majority of posters disagreed with this criminalization, they in turn became criminals for disagreeing. Yourdon and his hand puppets couldn't seem to figure out that when you've dug yourself into a hole, the solution is NOT to dig all the harder.

But power corrupts, and the corrupt seek power. The new forum allowed even more power, and Yourdon decided to abuse it, and violate his OWN rules, before even getting started. With predictable results.

So Hoffmeister is right -- Yourdon has decided to use FORCE to set himself up as God of his diminishing Remnant. He has demonstrated that if you ask why, the answer is SHUT UP! If you ask again, your question is deleted without comment. Ask a third time, you're banned. By such means, his forum can be reduced to those who are *properly* "open minded".

-- Flint (, March 04, 2000.

>> And to me, that was most chilling. When the punishment is severe and the crime is undefined, you damn well better stay in line. <<

Flint, I can understand your bitterness at the treatment you sometimes received in the old TB2000 forum. The scorn heaped on you was immoderate and unmerited. You have every right to resent it.

But please do not let that bitterness infect your reason. The only "punishment" you ever received at the hands of Mr. Yourdon's "hand puppets" could hardly be called "severe". You were excluded from posting on one small part of one server on the Internet. I am glad you did not slash your wrists in despair.

Just remember, Perikles was nominated for ostacism several times in ancient Athens and came very close to being kicked out of the city. So, my well-meant advice is to count yourself in good company and fuggedaboutit.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, March 04, 2000.

I understand Flint's post. I always felt like an outcast because I did not march lockstep with the God Squad. I consider myself a spiritual person, but I do not care for organized religion, and I hate having it shoved at me constantly. I think all religions are important to that believer, but it doesn't give him/her the right to push it on me.

I was called all kinds of names, and treated like a pariah or worse. Invar talked to me like I was a cretin. Was he censored? Hell no, and furthermore I would have never wanted him, or anyone else to be censored. But I admit, sometimes their pettiness brought out the pettiness in me. But never to the extent that they threw the flames.

So as that old cliche' goes, I understand where Flint's coming from, and I don't think he is bitter. But if he is bitter, I'm sure it will not affect his reason. I'm not bitter either, but I will not forget the insults.

-- gilda (, March 04, 2000.

Gilda, of all the wonderful people that post on this forum I am most impressed with youre levelheaded outlook and measured responses. I am certain that you would be a great friend to have in the real world.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 04, 2000.

Gee Ra, I'm such a pushover for compliments. How nice of you. I'm squirming like a happy puppy.

-- gilda (, March 04, 2000.


How are you doing?


I realize that you had problems on the old board. Not with everyone but with some people [o.k., many people]. Mostly of your own making. Let's analyze your problem. No, too many; let's just deal with the four big ones!

1. You consistantly used facts. Facts, facts and facts. Of course anyone can be right if they use facts. That is not nice.

2. You presented logical arguments. Now why did you do that? In addition, you kept pointing this out to people who countered you with illogical responses. Once again, not very nice.

3. You persistently debunked stupid statements. Over and over; Thricely, not nice.

4. and finally, you know nothing about salmon ;<)......

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, March 04, 2000.

Z and Brian:

Yes, I recognize that my overall approach unquestionably represented a minority opinion and my techniques were abnormal. But when you put in that kind of time and effort, and the population turnover is fairly slow, you feel you are surrounded by friends, or at least acquaintences. There's an *investment* there that distinguishes that particular group of people from any old random bunch of strangers. So there is a sting to such an arbitrary punishment. Hey, if I minded all the spitwads thrown at me while I made that investment, I certainly wouldn't have spent the time and thought on it.

And technically, the most severe penalty available to the thought police is to silence you. The overnight vitality of this forum, at least to me, suggests a certain discomfort people have when faced with a clear abuse of power that you get deleted for even asking about.

I must say that even though I wasn't permitted to speak, I got a great rush out of conversations that went:

Poster: What rule did these people break?

Yourdon: SHUT UP!

Poster: If we don't know, HOW will we know not to break it?

Yourdon (deletes thread).

Interesting also that y2k pro wasn't responsible for spam bombs, and isn't Mr. Polly either, and didn't create this forum. The truth doesn't seem to be Yourdon's strong point very often, eh?

-- Flint (, March 04, 2000.

Flint, you know nothing about salmon? Well...this is a suprising revelation! I don't know what to say. I'm shocked!

-- kritter (, March 04, 2000.


I only deal with verifiable facts; not opinions. Based on what I know, you are correct.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, March 04, 2000.


"So there is a sting to such an arbitrary punishment. "

Perhaps some of that sting is now gone. You have friends [may not agree with you on many subjects] but friends none the less.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, March 04, 2000.


That's a vile lie. Z is trying to smear me. The Truth is that I know *almost* nothing about salmon. Not to mention lox.

-- Flint (, March 04, 2000.

salmon? That's that guy who the Iranians want dead, right?


-- Jimmy Splinters (, March 06, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ