Saw this on the new Y2K board. Anyone else think this is a little strange? I am personally interested in the last comment in the message: " Finally, any INDIVIDUAL posts that accuse persons or sysops on this forum of engaging in "censorship", "dictatorship" or the like will subject that poster to being banned, either immediately or at the later discretion of the sysops."

Just an observation. EH

*************************************

Subject: ATTENTION: Announcing The End Of Posts On The "Banning" Issue Posted By: RussBigDog (Administrator) Posted At: 3/5/00 8:52:04 pm From IP: While there never was a requirement on the sysops here to discuss any administrative policies we have defined for this forum, we have both permitted and engaged in some discussion over the past few days about the subject of who was/is banned and why.

At this point, we believe that no useful purpose will be served by continuing to discuss either the reasons behind such decisions with respect to who may post (or not) or the people on such a list.

Those who want to debate this issue further should do so outside this forum.

In general, POSTING ON THIS FORUM IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

Both now and in the future, we may restrict the access of anyone whether or not warnings or reasons have been provided to them or others. Those who know us realize we consider that a "last resort".

This thread is not open to further discussion about the issue. I will also close other threads that touch on this matter.

Finally, any INDIVIDUAL posts that accuse persons or sysops on this forum of engaging in "censorship", "dictatorship" or the like will subject that poster to being banned, either immediately or at the later discretion of the sysops.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 05, 2000

Answers

Amazing.

So, after these "discussions", they never identified who was banned, and never said why they were banned.

Discussion of the subject is no longer allowed.

They have served notice that anyone may be arbitrarily banned, with neither warning nor reason given.

And that questioning the decisions will result in bannings.

Truly, they deserve what they get.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), March 05, 2000.

Yeah, Whuts' rwong wit them dopes? wha don they know abot th LAW that EVERYBODY HAS TO BE ALLOWd to post on a FORuM!? EVBdy knows that!!!!!?! The s hould be in jal for brekxsing that law!@!!!!

-- Right On! (master@bait.xxx), March 05, 2000.

Well I had a post deleted here so look like they are a little cranky also. Please read a few posts before you post you stupid shit.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), March 05, 2000.

You VILL show only zee SMILEYFACE...izz that cleeer!?

Has anyone ever read the book "Friendly Facism"?

-- INever (IN@onebox.com), March 05, 2000.

I thought that was kind of ironic too. Sort of like, "next jerk who accuses me of having a short fuse gets a black eye".

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 05, 2000.

Never bite the hand that deletes you. Once you have established that you are running a closed door forum, all forms of opposition must be silenced lest you start engaging in free speech. Russ is a good person caught up in the ugliness of a censored society. They will now be forced to monitor the thoughts of their posters very carefully and the end result will be a tightly contained, police state like atmosphere. Once they feel safely barricaded from the outside world, the infighting will start and that will get ugly I promise you. They have a few self-proclaimed bullies that will scheme to take over the show. Might be a good idea to avoid that area as it is highly contaminated. Oh yeah, keep all of this in mind the next time you are tempted to ask for someone to be deleted on this forum.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 05, 2000.

"manny":

While I personally think deleting your post was a mistake, surely you recognize that here as well as there, explicit posting rules were promulgated, and you deliberately and explicitly broke one to see what would happen. The law was published, you read it, you broke it.

As I understand it (see Hoff above), the problem Yourdon faces on the censored forum is that they *cannot explain* why people who have broken NONE of their rules are still not permitted to post, without admitting something they know better than to put into writing.

When what a majority of your own forum finds both a reasonable and extremely important question is answered with SHUT UP, you have some fundamental problems. Maybe with your connections, you can provide a reasonable answer?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

oh hell - I hope they don't come over here when they implode. Was kind of enjoying the peace and quiet.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 05, 2000.

Ration 11 -- yup, I watched exactly that process consume a small Baptist church many years ago.

The two bullies who took it over -- after driving me and several others out (including ultimately the pastor) then drove it into the ground, and left for greener pastures.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 05, 2000.

Charles,

Huggggggggg~~~~~~Kissssssssss

Don't anybody worry about "Manny". I know who he is and I know who his employer is.

-- (ladylogic@.......), March 05, 2000.

I wouldn't be so sure of myself on that one you ugly stupid bitch.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), March 05, 2000.

Manny, You haven't had squat delted, you're just an EY troll for the new Big Brother 2000 forum coming here to disrupt this one.

-- david (david@bzn.com), March 05, 2000.

I don't know of any moderated forum that permits continued criticism of the moderators. That should have been stopped two days ago.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), March 05, 2000.

Hey, it's better than being subjected to a bunch of psychotic retards like this forum.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

Well I guess you can't read. Check out the answers above before you let your ass over ride your brain.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), March 05, 2000.

I thought the reply from Chuck a Night Driver was pretty direct, saying that aside from obvious spammers, whom else gets banned is up to the collective judgment of the administrators.

Given that the policy seems to be arbitrary, it's not clear what could be accomplished by badgering them for a precise definition of "arbitrary," and I could understand their finding that irritating. This is not to say that I agree with their policy (I don't) or that I approve of all of their choices of whom to ban (I don't).

Hawk, surely your above reply isn't merely kicking an anthill. On the other hand, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 05, 2000.

Hey, it's better than being subjected to a bunch of psychotic retards like this forum.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

Yeah, but Hawk, where else can you go to find people that you can call "a bunch of psychotic retards?"

LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 05, 2000.

Good analysis here:

While there never was a requirement on the sysops here to discuss any administrative policies we have defined for this forum, we have both permitted and engaged in some discussion over the past few days about the subject of who was/is banned and why.

[How generous of them.]

At this point, we believe that no useful purpose will be served by continuing to discuss either the reasons behind such decisions with respect to who may post (or not) or the people on such a list.

[In other words, we've been embarassed enough.]

Those who want to debate this issue further should do so outside this forum.

[ ... where there are no Nazi Mind Control types.]

In general, POSTING ON THIS FORUM IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

[It is on ANY forum. No one questions their RIGHT to act as Nazis. But is it RIGHT to do so?]

Both now and in the future, we may restrict the access of anyone whether or not warnings or reasons have been provided to them or others. Those who know us realize we consider that a "last resort".

["We" obviously doesn't include Old Git, who cannot tolerate the slightest disagreement of any form. She wants to be able to babble about tomatoes and Evil Empires without being bothered with annoying facts.]

This thread is not open to further discussion about the issue. I will also close other threads that touch on this matter.

[By all means. That way, Lurkers will think that they've chanced upon one big happy family -- never realizing that half the members have been aborted into the nether regions by mind-controlling Nazis.]

Finally, any INDIVIDUAL posts that accuse persons or sysops on this forum of engaging in "censorship", "dictatorship" or the like may subject that poster to being banned, either immediately or at the later discretion of the sysops.

[Translation: we don't believe in free speech.]

-- The Chaplain (clean@handkerchief.com), March 05, 2000.

David L.,

Did you see how nasty and totalitarian "Chuck the Night Driver" became when further questioned (reasonably) by Charles? He tries to come across as Mr. Nice Guy, but underneath it all lurks a jackbooted asshole.

Censorship stinks by any analysis. The moderators are getting hit on because they practice censorship. They don't want to take criticism but they deserve all the public criticism they can get.

Something about totalitarianism makes most people want to bring it down. I don't know what that is ... American spirit maybe?

-- The Chaplain (clean@handkerchief.com), March 05, 2000.

Did Laura just threaten to "out" someone to their employer? Plus ca chage, plus ca meme chose.

" "

-- (Gawd@how.fun!), March 05, 2000.

Did you see how nasty and totalitarian "Chuck the Night Driver" became when further questioned (reasonably) by Charles? He tries to come across as Mr. Nice Guy, but underneath it all lurks a jackbooted asshole.

The Chaplain (that seems awkward, may I call you Chap?),
Being an administrator, Chuck is obliged to uphold what his group of peers decides, whether he agrees or not. Charles's questions, though reasonable in the abstract, forced Chuck to publicly defend something he might well have mixed feelings about. Not the ideal conditions for civil discourse.

Censorship stinks by any analysis. The moderators are getting hit on because they practice censorship. They don't want to take criticism but they deserve all the public criticism they can get.

I think it stinks too, but the bottom line is that they have the right to run their forum as they see fit. How would we feel about their pestering our administrator about why he doesn't delete more posts.

Something about totalitarianism makes most people want to bring it down. I don't know what that is ... American spirit maybe?

I am afraid that this spirit is becoming scarcer every day.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 05, 2000.

Gawd@howfun--Go over to Debunker's if you want to read some threats by Ladyillogic, here's the kettle calling the kettle black:

Re: Ron, You're TOAST dude. You have a big ugly mouth, and you never should have opened it.

Posted by (216.93.115.123) Ron Schwarz on January 29, 2000 at 11:58:11:

In Reply to: Ron, You're TOAST dude. You have a big ugly mouth, and you never should have opened it. posted by Ladylogic on January 29, 2000 at 11:53:22:

PS: I accept your claim that I'm "toast" to be a death threat, in accord with common usage.

It's in my files.

-- Archiver (Archiver@archiverrr.xcom), March 06, 2000.

The above post was not by Laura, the IP is completely different. She has 3 imitator/imposters on her at the moment that I can see, some having conversations with themselves.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

Chaplain, I think you are being a bit unfair. I was the one who started the thread on the other forum that has caused all of this fuss, and in Chuck's defence, he was the only sysop on that board who has even attempted to give any sort of answer at all. he was not abusive, or insulting, but I believe he was merely passing on the feelings of the majority of the other sysops.

I have no intention of taking the issue any further as I believe that my repeated attempts to gain specific answers, and the sysops' specific refusal to even allow any more discussion tells all that we need to know.

In the past I have Chuck to be very fair and honest in all dealings with forum members, and I have no reason to change my mind on that matter. I am disappointed, but I understand that Chuck has a loyalty to the forum as a whole. It just means that I'll lurk occasionally over there, and post mainly here.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.nz.co), March 06, 2000.

They just changed the format again, this time breaking up the forum into a dozen or so different forums. You get there now by going to:

http://pub5.ezboard.com/byourd on

Prediction: they will suddenly find themselves awash in massive infighting over the restructuring. Fortunately I don't have a dog in that fight, I think it's gonna be a doozy.

It will be interesting, though, to see if some of the more vociferous taunters of the "it's the SYSOPS right to do ANYTHING they damn well choose" school will discover that a different ox has been gored -- and, how they react when they discover it's theirs.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 06, 2000.

"Great minds discuss ideas;

Average minds discuss events;

Small minds discuss people."

-- (fuck@u.charley), March 06, 2000.

Looks like you're discussing me, troll.

By the way, it's begun. There's a spate of "why are my posts being deleted" type threads going on there.

Of course, they're not deleted, they're just relocated to the different categories.

But isn't it INTERESTING how the FIRST thought that jumps into their minds is "hey, why did you delete my post?"

Think ice.

Eggshells.

Same story, different ox.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 06, 2000.

As doomstomper said, " I hope they don't come over here when they implode." A very nasty kettle of fish over there--very sanctimonius, very into control and thought policing.

David L, I always thought that once you broke the rules, or the law, you were entitled to a reason why, and a chance to face your accusers. If this takes up too much board space it could always be taken care of privately through email.

It seems in all groups that turn totalitarian, usuallly by the coercion of a few, it always becomes necessary to silence your critics.

Frankly, had I been Chuck, I would not have gone along with the group, * if* I did not genuinely agree with them. So he obviously agrees with them, or is too weak to stand up and protest their continuation of censorship.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 06, 2000.

gilda,

I can see that as long as your posting there will be little need for me to. Agree totally on points #1, #2, #3 and #4.

-- Debra (can'tseeit@otherwise.com), March 06, 2000.

As doomstomper said, " I hope they don't come over here when they implode."

Actually, I'm hoping they do. As long as they don't come over here to spam. The way I see it, the whole idea of this forum is to get all the different views, even the ones on the far end of the spectrum. ESPECIALLY those.

Don't forget, just because they come over here doesn't mean they can take over. Old Forum Regular still has the keys.

Ynott, BigDog, even Hawk are all welcome here as far as I'm concerned.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 06, 2000.

hmm,

To clarify...

I find some, but NOT ALL:

"...sanctimonius, very into control and thought policing."

I'm not sure but I think maybe doomstomper was making a funny (?).

Anyway, without the above tudes, ALL views are welcome and wanted here.

That's why TB2K Uncensured is going to be so successful.

-- Debra (allpeoples@voices.com), March 06, 2000.

OLD TBK--yes Laura posted that at DeBunker's, do you want the URL? She threatened several people over at DeBunker's, I'll get her posts together and let you see the whole enchilada, for it's historical value of course.

-- Archiver (Archiver@Archiverrr.xcom), March 06, 2000.

I have posted here. I don't feel unwelcome, just despised, which isn't the same thing - at least on the Internet ;-)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 06, 2000.

I went over and took a close look at the new forum layout. When you hunt around a bit, you find out just WHY it got rearranged.

They took out DOZENS of threads, most relating to the banning issue. Can't have any new sheep thinking there was ever any trouble in the pasture.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

Nice try, Paul, but you're wrong about motives as well as actions, as is almost always the case. They're all neatly archived with first- class status along with all the other threads so you can mock to your heart's content:

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdoncensorshipbanningdebates.html

Baaaaaaa ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 06, 2000.

Ok, then why aren't they in the proper place, under ADMIN questions?

You somehow think they were not questions to the adminstrators?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

BigDog,

I don't understand. Can people post in the "Censorship" forum?

-- Debra (??@??.com), March 06, 2000.

BigDog, you are not despised by all. Remember that.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

Yes BigDog...some are always glad to see you!

I'm not comfortable with what I perceive to be not fully principled banning of some on the other forum, but this does not alter my warm regard for you in the least.

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

OldTB2K,

Thanks for making it clear that I have people trollin' me. I realize it's nothing important to most people, but it is a big deal to me. It's really sad to be spending my day running around saying, "That's not me!", "That's not me!" My life has become sort of a of sick, twisted cyber-game consisting of surfing for my trolls. I'll never win! I can't possibly outrun three people.

Now I know how people who are misrepresented in the tabloids must feel. Hey, Frank Gifford! My plight is nothing compared to yours.

~*~
-- laura (Ladylogic@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

Archiver, Laura is not spamming here now, she has several trolls immitating her, and whatever she has said on Debunker forum does not concern me, as I don't give a flying squirrel about what anyone visiting this forum has said on thousands of other forums on the internet. I've never been on Debunker nor cisy2k, as the important ideas discussed there seemed to have always found there way on TB2K anyway.

If you (and your other names) have such a problem sharing the same forum as Laura or anyone else, you are invited to make Ed's new forum your home. Ed's new forum has its benefits.

Paul, the new topic categories on Ed's forum I find very useful. You can at one glance decide what you want to read/discuss; news, preps or shoot the breeze.

I REALLY wish that people on both sides, that is those who prefer Ed's forum and policies, and those who prefer this freely opened forum, settled down and accept and respect both sides' preferences. We can then move on and start debating issues.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

BigDog,

You certainly are not despised by me. What's more, this weekend has been an eye opener in the way this Lusenet forum works and on the frustration the moderators on old TB2K must have gone through.

However, I believe that there were too many moderators, leading to confusion, disagreements among themselves, leading to bans (delete on sight) which ultimately caused the degenarating and destruction of old TB2K.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

"However, I believe that there were too many moderators, leading to confusion, disagreements among themselves, leading to bans (delete on sight) which ultimately caused the degenarating and destruction of old TB2K."

I think there were two reasons for the destruction for the old TB2K.

1) Phil Greenspun could not possibly let Yourdon remain on an MIT server. He very clearly stated months ago that he wasn't interested in y2k but has probably been hosting him as a favor to an alum. The people at MIT aren't totally stupid. I'm sure they don't want to be associated with a manipulative, fool who was 99% wrong in his predictions. No one I know has any respect for him anymore. (I'm talking about people I know in the I.T. field, so I don't know how he's going to make a living in the future.)

2) Spam. There is no perfect way to run a bulletin board, but the way you're doing it is light years above the methods used at the TB's. When I get the time, I'm going to write an article on the relationship between spamming and censorship. I guarantee you they are interrelated. (I've noticed you've figured that out, can you see me smiling at you?)

~*~

-- laura (Ladylogic@.....), March 06, 2000.

I'm not in the business of despising anyone, I just think those questions should have been under ADMIN. That is what they were, questions to the administrators.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

BTW - did you notice that Flint's words have achieved immortality over there, in the description of their "Troll Postings" category:

________________

Troll Postings

Threads that, in the opinion of the sysops, are primarily intended to "kick the anthill" without making any useful contribution

_________________

Awaiting the issuance of a commemorative collectors' plate.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

Hey, Flint -- congratulations.

I thought that "kick the anthill" was what educated debate and discussion was supposed to do. Glad to see your contribution has been recognized.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 06, 2000.

We've always recognized Flint's .... contributions.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 06, 2000.

Well, if you're going to cut off your nose to spite your face, you might as well take good care of that nose. I'm reminded of Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper".

And a more private note to Big Dog -- still care to get together for a visit? I regret circumstances kept shooting holes in our earlier efforts, but it still seems like a good idea to me.

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

Old TB2K--You may not care what LL or anyone else had to say on any other forum (I see posts here referring to Ed's new site and what is being said there), but it is of historical value. I have not disrupted, I have not called anyone names, I'm posting their words. If those people that I am quoting are uncomfortable with seeing their words in print, I can't help that, they can simply scroll past them. Freedom of speech right?

-- Archiver (Archiverr@archiverr.xcom), March 06, 2000.

Gotta be where Flint is.

God knows what we can get him to cop to next, seeing as he was/is as prepared as any of we 'despicable' ones.

Also we need to know why Mrs. Flint has never posted, considering we've practically kidnapped him from his marriage over the last couple years.

Even DIETER'S wife had something to say on occasion.

What I'd really like to see is a massive Off-Topic tech discussion twixt former co-antagonists. Not debate: info sharing.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 06, 2000.

gilda, you typed:

David L, I always thought that once you broke the rules, or the law, you were entitled to a reason why, and a chance to face your accusers. If this takes up too much board space it could always be taken care of privately through email.

I think the problem is that with any law, one could construct a situation that is on the border between legal and illegal, at which point someone has to simply make a judgment call. The administrators at yourdontimebomb2000 seem to feel that Flint's banning fell into this category, hence it would be difficult to articulate their decision further.

Personally, I didn't think Flint was on the continent, let alone near the border, but if they felt that he was, I'm not sure what there is for them to elaborate.

Frankly, had I been Chuck, I would not have gone along with the group, * if* I did not genuinely agree with them. So he obviously agrees with them, or is too weak to stand up and protest their continuation of censorship.

Not everyone would be willing to risk their administrator role by publicly protesting their peers' decision. I would renounce it without second thoughts, and I surmise that you would do the same, but I'm not prepared to say that everyone should feel as we do.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 06, 2000.

Flint - On the one hand, I was one of the people who supported your "banishment", still do. On the other hand, as you know, I said last year that, were Y2K to be TEOTWAKI, I could certainly imagine you helping others heroically in such an event. And I still believe that. The problem with Occam's Razor is that, sometimes, life is not simple.

Of course, I would be delighted to get together sometime. I may be down in Atlanta doing some golf stuff in a month or so. If I do, you're on (Robert Cook, too). I'll expect some handgun lessons, providing you are careful to keep it pointed away from me.

Certainly, you're infuriating, unlike moi. I'm humble too. But I have never considered you personally (or anyone on TB2K) an enemy, to say the least. Now, once Decker gets hold of this and parses it, I'm toast. But that's the price you pay on this uncensored forum, eh?

Seriously, I will get in touch if I come down. Promise.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 06, 2000.

David:

You said: "Not everyone would be willing to risk their administrator role..."

This strikes me as REALLY funny. Once upon a time, I was room-mother for my oldest daughter's class at a VERY expensive private school. By the time my daughter got into that class, we had two other younger children. I'd worked on and off during the period before her enrollment, but private schools have a way of sucking you dry. I decided I needed to go back to work to help pay the bills.

To make a long story short, I talked to a few of the other mothers with whom I'd become acquainted, and some were willing to sub for me on days I couldn't do the "onsite" duties. I would supply them with the juice, snacks, fulfill the Christmas stocking requirements for the Christmas tree, etc., but I simply couldn't be there full-time.

Whoever was in charge of ROOM-MOTHERS found out about this and called me. I explained it to my husband and he said, "So you were fired from your volunteer job?" Um...yeah...I WAS. They never found a replacement, and the mothers with whom I'd spoken helped me out with the class party part of the whole thing, and I DID complete the Christmas stocking portion. AFTER the Christmas stockings were displayed on the tree at school, I received another call from the same woman. She was SO APOLOGETIC. She claimed she had NO IDEA that I would work so hard, blah, blah, blah....begging me to continue in that volunteer job. I told her I would NOT continue. In fact I took my kid out of that school at the end of the year.

Chuck and Diane have already stated that they DESIRE to spend their time on other pursuits. I was actually quite surprised to see their names included in the list of moderators on the new forum. They're NOT getting paid to do this, ya know. Please explain to me the RISK involved.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 06, 2000.

Anita,

Yeah, "risk" was too strong a word. I meant to say that if a person feels that his/her involvement (volunteer or otherwise) is having a positive impact, that person's willingness to make "small" compromises of their beliefs to remain in that role would not be surprising.

I don't personally know Chuck or any of the other administrators, I just believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 06, 2000.

Anita, your thoughts above have prompted me to share something with the forum. Am I the only one that found it more than ironic when Chuck and Diane landed at Eds new EZ board a scant few days after their emotional farewells? Chuck used many words to express his desire to return his life to his wonderful bride. I have always thought very well of Chuck but this just doesnt equate, as he had to know what the future held. Diane was equally deceptive but who cares. The whole deal came off as sneaky in my mind and somewhat beneath those involved. Oh well.go figure.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 06, 2000.

True Brian, that everyone shouldn't necessarily feel as we do, but I don't see a lot of risk involved, unless of course, you're more concerned about your image with your peers than you are personal integrity. And more often than not this is the case.

Anita, that was a very interesting situation you were in. I was in a similar one as a volunteer at a thrift shop whose donations went to the local animal shelter; a very worthy cause I might add.

But when I complained about the paid manager drawing a nice salary, and very seldom putting in 25 hours per week, and bringing her three kids to a very crowded place work place, I and another volunteer were fired. No explanation, just fired.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 06, 2000.

It's been said that those who lust for power are the last people who should get it. For some, it's addictive, however trivial or parochial. And faced with the choice of "abuse it or lose it", there really isn't any choice at all. As some old politician once said, "What's the USE of power if you can't line your pockets or punish your enemies?" And the censors are only helping to line Yourdon's pockets, so they only get the pleasure of punishing their enemies.

But they can't *say* that, of course. So they have to say things like "no useful purpose will be served" by further discussion of the abuse. Useful to whom? Spooky that nobody dares ask.

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

I'm wondering about Ed's other forum that nobody has mentioned on this forum yet. His Humpty-Dumpty forum on eGroups. Anyone here also post there? Have you noticed a single word mentioned about his Lusenet forum moving to EZboard?

I find it most troubling that not a single poster (unless I've missed it) said anything. I'm wondering if Ed has each post sent to his mailbox before OK-ing on that forum, as that is a feature that eGroups offers moderators. There's not much traffic on that forum either.

Although his Humpty-Dumpty forum is supposedly meant to discuss his new book chapters, the same topics are discussed as his other newer forum, minus the strong dissent and trolling.

-- Lurker (lurking@every.where), March 06, 2000.