I think the players are ready to put it back together, but we have one element that is preventing that.

One.

Takes too much energy to report/analyze rollover fallout (or even OT stuff) when you have the exact same essence present (that cannot be housetrained) that screwed up the dialogue in the first place, at the Classic TB....

Damned shame because it looked like a solidarity - yes, even a dichotomous solidarity - was taking wing.

Damned shame.

Trolls, you blew it for all of us, by both inclusion and instruction. And encouragement.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 08, 2000

Answers

Lisa,

I like your style. Smart Lady. Sharp as a whip. You're good for the forum. Need more like you.

Now, onto the news . . . .

-- I like it here (seeclearly@all.now), March 08, 2000.

Lisa, what are you talking about? I don't see why you can't just ignore the obvious bait. You're not really so weak that you can't move on, are you?

There will always be trolls. The question is simply how you choose to handle them.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

One person's Troll is another person's prophet.

The reason for free-wheeling discussion is to determine which is which.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 08, 2000.

Very profound, EH. Thanks.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

"One person's Troll is another person's prophet."

You got it, E. H.

-- (we need @ you.here), March 08, 2000.

Seems I remember the whole forum went to Hell in a Handbasket, along t the same time frame one was banned. "It" is one smart puter person to take out a whole forum. No wonder I was I "Doomer", when one of "you" can take "you others, out with key strokes". When true words put to font, can vanish in an eye blink. No I don't trust any of youse. Not only that, some of you are being untruthful and are acting very evil/mean to your fellow humans. Your Soul, Your Destiny.

-- Do I Dare (s@yLL.com), March 08, 2000.

Then no more fucking whining about 'where did all the intelligent doomers go?...

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 08, 2000.

Lisa -- And here I thought that the Doomers that were still here were the intelligent ones!

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 08, 2000.

Not only will there always be trolls, there will always be whiners also.

The key has never been to somehow "remove" the trolls, whiners, and everyone else that makes one unhappy. The key is to attempt to move on with your ideas regardless. It doesn't really take any more energy to report/analyze stuff with trolls and whiners around. It just takes the ability to move past them.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

Hmm -- that's certainly something I can agree with.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 08, 2000.

Seems that throughout my life, I've run into 2/3 people/decade with whom I shared an intense, immediate, mutual dislike.

Most of my instant-enemies turned out to be (again, mutually) incredibly enriching - and deeply emotional - friendships - that last to this day.

No, I'm no peace-maker. But many of the enemies I've made over this rollover thing I'll remember and ponder for the rest of my life.... and regret that I wasn't big enough to do whatever it took to plow down the hatred and mistrust, and bridge the gap.

I'm just saying..... looks like it ain't gonna happen here.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 08, 2000.

No where on the internet is there a perfect place to be. Many forums are moderated and people are tossed because of spamming or abusive language. As long as you have people communicating in one place, there will always be conflict. Some of the conflict I have seen here is done intentionally. This place will never be like the old forum because there's different conflicts of interests and opinions. We have "pollies and doomers," intertwined here and I doubt the hatchet will ever be buried. I have visited DeBunker's and Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot site to see what it was like, and I recognize names there that are posting here. I have seen forums like this one go down fast because people are people and it only takes one person to ruin it for everyone.

-- jmtcw (jmtcw@jmtcwww.xcom), March 08, 2000.

I'm just saying..... looks like it ain't gonna happen here.

Perhaps not. But that's a far cry from trolls blowing it for "all of us." If you don't get along with one, just move on and share your wisdom with the rest of us.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

I assume that when you are talking about "players are ready to put it back together, but we have one element that is preventing that," you are talking about recombining the old TB2000 (now Ed Yourden's EZBoard forum) and this one.

Have you considered, perhaps that Mr. Yourden has his own plans and desires, and that a free-wheeling (and self-defining) forum such as this one is becoming may not be what he considers appropriate or desirable? Personally, I don't like Yourden's new forum very much; the censorship issue is a major reason, but I really don't like the format as well either. But perhaps Mr. Yourdon does not (for whatever reason) like the format or lack of a strong moderator here either.

This is only my personal guess -- but I doubt that Mr. Yourdon's decision to move the forum was based in any significant part on "Trolls." If trolling and spamming were the only issue, he could have continued the forum at EZboard without banning people he didn't like and imposing a strongly moderated format.

But, more power to Mr. Yourdon. Issues like this are what the "competition of ideas" that underlies free speech principles is all about. He's now laid out what he things is a perferable structure to this forum -- and the participants will decide whether he was right or wrong.

I don't see this as being particularly tragic.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 08, 2000.

"and regret that I wasn't big enough to do whatever it took to plow down the hatred and mistrust, and bridge the gap.

I'm just saying..... looks like it ain't gonna happen here."

lisa, that was the most honest admission I've ever heard, and that's what it takes for progress.

Take my hand, we'll get through this together.

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@......), March 08, 2000.

No text:

-- Amen, Mr. Yourdon (to your@course.com), March 08, 2000.

Have you ever had 7 day old beef stew? Not too good for you but it sure is tasty. The trolls are on the ceiling. Rain is firing in Berlin. Went to Comdex, the 5 sided building has plans. Beware the little man with the strong arm. Excuse my while I kiss this fly.

-- codec (learn@fromMy.rhymes), March 08, 2000.

I have seen forums like this one go down fast because people are people and it only takes one person to ruin it for everyone.

Actually, unless the one person is actively trying to limit discussion via spam attacks or censorship, then I'd have to disagree with that statement. One person cannot ruin it for everyone merely by acting "trollish" or calling people names. Indeed, many people behaved this way on the original forum and caused no apparent damage, notably because they were trolling for "the correct side."

The only difference here, is that we may find ourselves with trolls from both sides. But neither can ruin it for everyone unless we choose to allow it.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

Oh, we can spot you anywhere, Butt-nugget....

:)

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 08, 2000.

The spamming attacks by a couple of people did ruin it for everyone and they were happy and joyous that they did it.

-- jmtcw (jmtcw@jmtcwww.xcom), March 08, 2000.

I certainly can't justify the spamming, but there's a bit more to the spamming story than you may realize, as I explain here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 08, 2000.

hmmm,

I just read that link you gave, and you're sucha smart mouth.

I'm not gonna spam, and I don't act like a troll,.... until I'm treated like a troll.

(lisa, let's see what we can figure out tomorrow. Ok? It's late for me.)

Nite, everybody.

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@.....), March 08, 2000.

I went to your link, and I disagree with this statement:

"I agree with Hmmmm. I've seen LL evolve, and I believe that were she left to express herself, as much as it annoyed the sysops and many people, she would not have resorted to the destructive spamming."

Diane never frequented Bok's chatroom, and no one provoked her there. However, she continually spammed, called people the foulest names imaginable and made a complete ass out of herself. It got so bad that Bok had to setup another "password" protected site just to get away from her. She often opened several windows logging in as different anonymous people at a time, and then she did her dirty deeds. She certainly expressed herself alright and when she was asked to stop, she continued on seven-fold. Anita and many others have testified to her behavior.

-- jmtcw (jmtcw@jmtcwww.xcom), March 08, 2000.

Only You,can take yourself out.

I myself chose to take me off of Yourdons board,because I lost all respect for him,the sysops and the members when they did not stand up for a basic American tenet.

Screw Y2k,the oil crisis and all the rest of it.If we ALL cannot speak our mind I do not want to belong to the club.

Bottom line is,If everyone on the ez board had any salt about them they all would have walked when the "C" word came up. Only a few took a stand,I think that says volumes about the whole.They would rather stay and suck up to yourdon and the "ites" than to do what was obviously the right thing to do.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 09, 2000.

Censorship will never be a tired topic for me. It deserves its own thread, again and again. It should never be ignored in a free society, on the lowest levels, in communities, on neighborhood blocks, in high school cliques, on internet bulletin boards (even boards that are private access and that do NOT fully explain fair across-the-board rules).

As a member of the working press in a free country, I am aware that people have died in order to protect freedom of expression.

Wherever there is fear to express, at whatever level, even at risk of friendship, then principle must stand first ... before friendship, before ease of access, before expediency of point, before access to additional audience.

There was a time in my life, as a reporter and mother of a three year old child, when because of the stories I chose to pursue, I was afraid to open my car door, or start my car engine. I could have picked different stories to look into. Nothing ever came of it; I am still here. But knowing I might never see my child again, and choosing to explore and write the stories anyway, gave me a queasy feeling in my stomach. I could have made it easier on myself.

Likewise, a fellow colleague of mine took a working vacation in South America to investigate a story and was tortured to death. Our publisher had to bring his body home. I know what the price of truth is.

So this year I sat there and looked at the registration at Yourdon's new board, knew the good traits of my friends there, missed them, wanted to add my points of view, but did not understand the banishment of Flint, and even more, did not understand what points to his banishment now would apply all of us -- and to me. The points have not been explained to my satisfaction.

And so that same funny feeling started in my stomach again, the same that started when I stood at my car and did not know whether to open it. Not knowing if what I would write would have consequences.

So this time, the principle is on the other side. Without the right answers, with sadness, it was time to walk away.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

capnfun, very well said. If ALL cannot speak our minds, I do not want to belong to the club either.

And Normally thanks for writing that. I too, as a member of the free press, take free speech very seriously, and my hackles begin to rise at censorship. Yes people have died for speaking the truth, and the least we can do is not shame them by keeping silent.

I've had the nasty phone calls after articles of mine appeared, but they were a nasty minority, so to hell with them. Long live FREE SPEECH! One person can't bring down a forum, but censorship sure can.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 09, 2000.

Gilda,Normally

Well spoken

Theres a quote by Jefferson along the lines of "trading rights for safety" that applies well to this part of the thread.I will find it in my files and post when I return.

But for now it's off to the salt mines.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 09, 2000.

Capnfun,

I believe the quote goes, "Anyone who would trade freedom for temporary safety, deserves neither".

I think it was Ben Franklin who said this, correct me if I'm wrong.

-- Scottsworth (NewEnglander@Ct.here), March 09, 2000.

I think this forum can grow and move forward. There always were and still are misconceptions or stereotypes regarding those who chose to follow Y2k. Bill has attempted to cover what he feels are significant traits of folks who saw Y2k unfolding one way or another in his 11.5 Doomer series. I'm disappointed that he didn't get more responses. It would help a great deal if we understood the phenomenon better. It certainly wouldn't help if the only folks who COULD contribute to this understanding weren't allowed to post.

I don't think one person can make or break a forum, and I don't think any forum needs a given philosophy to which all must adhere. The most beautiful quality of humans, IMO, lies in their diversity.

Beyond the optimistic/pessimistic tendencies in humans, however, are other personality traits that COULD interfere with dialogue. For instance, SOME people feel they must have the last word in a conversation. If more than one person in a given conversation has this personality trait, the conversation will deteriorate. SOME people won't tolerate an opposing opinion. For these folks there is no "agree to disagree" option. They consider the person behind the opposing opinion a "moron" and so state. Other folks feel that even the most minor variation from THEIR philosophy requires the "BIG GUN" approach. As someone with three mostly grown children, I've learned to save the big guns for the big issues. Failing to rinse your plate after dinner does NOT equate to shop-lifting or drinking and driving.

Other folks just can't forget the past. If their child took a crayon to the wall LAST year, that child should never again hold a crayon because history repeats itself. SOME folks don't know how to clearly state what they want to say. If they feel someone made a gross generalization in which they felt included, they tend to respond with "Kiss my Ass" or "You're just a windbag." Had they been able to clearly state that they felt a gross generalization had been made, the discourse could have continued with a correction of the generalization by the originator. Instead, the dialogue ends with ill feelings on both sides.

There are certainly other personality traits that will be seen on an open forum...narcissism, general hatred, etc. The two mentioned cannot thrive if ignored.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 09, 2000.

I thought Lisa was the arsehole warmonger who supported Klints annihilation of Yugo (not the cars)

-- frenchie (deadbeat@canada.com), March 09, 2000.

Normally, you just took my breath away.

I know I've battled with you on occasion, but now that you've shared that thought, and experience, I can't ever have any animosity towards you again.

What you said really hit home, because throughout this Y2k ordeal and my spamming, I have worried myself sick some nights thinking someone would find out who I really am, and sit-in-wait for me. (I really did receive three phone calls - one threatening - one cussing - and one called me a jerk!.)

However, it was only me I had to worry about. I don't think I could have kept my sanity if I had children to worry about too. I know how protective I am of my niece and nephew, so I can imagine how worried you were for your children.

We had a reporter killed here years back named Don Boles. I'll never forget his name. He was killed by a car bomb because he was investigating some sort of mob activity. I'll never forget him because it was the first time that I realized that people are killed trying to expose the truth, and trying to make this a better society. He left behind a family that are still asked questions sometimes....

Oh man, I can't even write/think about this anymore. I don't like putting myself in a place where I feel someone else's pain.

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@....), March 09, 2000.

I have worried myself sick some nights thinking someone would find out who I really am, and sit-in-wait for me. (

give me a fucking break

However, it was only me I had to worry about.

true and for good reason

We had a reporter killed here years back named Don Boles. I'll never forget his name. He was killed by a car bomb because he was investigating some sort of mob activity.

must have had something on Klint

Oh man, I can't even write/think about this anymore. I don't like putting myself in a place where I feel someone else's pain.

sanctmonious twaddle

-- saint lady (LLIII@sexy.com), March 09, 2000.

saint lady (NOT) Giver her a break.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 09, 2000.

Yes, Laura. It was Don Boles I thought of, every time I opened my car door.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

And lest this get blown out of proportion, I am not talking about a big deal here, not about prizes, or awards, or the Big Story. I am a little fish. The earlier post concerned my sharing about principle, and about risk and fear and uneasiness when pursuing leads that might have consequences. I was not in Boles' league, and never will be.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Scotsworth

Thanks,I think I were cofused this A.M, but that is exactly the quote I was searching for.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 09, 2000.

There is one reason that I decided to come out of "early retirment" and start posting here....

"TB2K spinoff UNCENSORED forum"

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Nice thread. To the top of new answers it goes.

-- semper paratus (back_here_with@my.pals), March 09, 2000.

I myself chose to take me off of Yourdons board,because I lost all respect for him,the sysops and the members when they did not stand up for a basic American tenet.

Thanks capnfun -- took the words out of my mouth. Maybe the real reason the twaine shall never meet is, free speech'rs won't be silenced by intimidation. There was definitely a spirit of intimidation on the old TB2000. The thought police are not welcome here anymore. Isn't that what it's really about?

Trolls are everywhere. Sometimes they add spice to the conversation, but more often than not they are a just a distraction. I'd rather sift through the distractions to enjoy the fruits of uncensored debate.

Everyone seems to respect one another here, regardless of their persuasion. The weight (heavy hand) that others carried on the old board, is no longer valid here.

So Lisa, if you want to pick up where the old TB left off, no it will never happen --- should never happen -- and most of all, should not be desired.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), March 09, 2000.

What strikes me is that the old forum had no spam problems until Yourdon turned it over to his petty censors. Then problems started. The more intensive the censorship, the worse the problems got. By the time the censorship was *really* heavy handed, cleanup became almost a 24-hour job.

Now the censorship here is completely lifted, and the forum regains interest and vitality, and is not spammed. Imagine that. And this despite announced efforts at deliberate disruption purely for spite (wasn't "deliberate disruption" the stated grounds for the banishment of some from the other board? Yet those doing it here now are welcomed there with open arms. A rather, um, "flexible" policy, eh?)

The 1:1 relationship between censorship and protest should be self- evident. Yet the "censorites" expect this forum to implode from spam attacks any day now! Unless, of course, it gets censored to protect it. How very strange.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

Hi Flint,

I've often thought about writing an article about why I spammed, what lead up to it, and why I intentionally wanted to pound it into the ground. Seems like I don't have to do that now, because most people here seem to understand why I, and others did it.

However, sometimes I wonder how you, a well-reasoned person who never spammed, feels about being banned (censored) from the new TB. Sometimes I wonder if we all go through the same thought processes, have the same feelings, and if that has made an impact in our r/t life.

(Of course, it's just a thought, and a curiosity. Don't feel compelled to write about it if you don't want to. If I wrote about my feelings it would be the length of a book.)

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@.......), March 09, 2000.

Hi semper peratus!

Puuleeeeeze tell me what your name stands for. I did an internship at the V. A. here, and it seems to me I heard that term there.

Come on, tell me. Tell me, tell me, tell me, now.

Please?? I don't know who else to ask.

Please, with sugar on top?

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@......), March 09, 2000.

Laura:

I can only speculate about this. It seems clear to me (and from my reading, to all that examined the circumstances rather than parroted what they were told) that the pretext for banning me was transparently flimsy, and made no sense. Nor did that pretext even apply to Hoff and others, who were also invariably polite (moreso than I), never spammed or broke any other rules.

However Hoff and I and some other bannees DO have a characteristic in common -- we raised (and supported!) serious questions about Yourdon's motivations, both for what he did and for what he could or should have done, but did not.

Briefly, it seems prima facie preposterous for a man in Yourdon's position to NOT notice the plethora of successful test results and the broad, calm lack of concern among those involved in the actual work. It seems very strange that Yourdon had *direct* knowledge that many of the extreme positions taken on this forum were groundless, yet chose to say nothing. It is a matter of record that Yourdon's book sold fear, and that a couple of his other moneymaking enterprises did the same. It's stretching coincidence a bit too far that Yourdon's activities (and INactivities) just happened to coincide with his business interests, which in turn did NOT coincide with the truth.

So the idea that Yourdon sincerely fell for the y2k hype along with a small fringe of rather paranoid people, and that the extra income that just happened to be associated with such a position was just one of those odd things, is most remarkably unlikely.

So I wasn't particularly surprised by be banned. Nor was I surprised that when a clear majority of people on the forum demanded an explanation, Yourdon spammed his own forum with SHUT UP! messages and closed the threads. What could he say? It was only icing on the cake for me when Yourdon said it wasn't HIS doing, he was only going along with the majority vote of his hand-picked censors, and meanwhile one of those censors (Wilferd) admitted "going along with Ed's decision to ban Flint."

However, having said all that, I should point out that Yourdon is entirely within his rights to do what he's done. It's a free country, anyone can start a forum if they wish, and ban anyone they choose. He is free to break his own rules, and free to refuse to explain why. And in my estimation, those who chose to remain with him are *relieved*, rather than disappointed, that they are no longer exposed to the most insightful and incisive thinkers from the prior forum. That kind of thinking is *challenging*, the last thing the "censorites" want.

Perhaps in the final analysis Yourdon is doing a good deed by carefully protecting those for whom the real world is frightening and overwhelming. I don't know. But I know that's not for me, thank you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

Flint:

However, having said all that, I should point out that Yourdon is entirely within his rights to do what he's done. It's a free country, anyone can start a forum if they wish, and ban anyone they choose/

What you say is true; BUT it depends on whether you want to be within your rights or be respected. Once you cross that line; so it goes.

By-the-way, the last time I left town, all of this occured. Glad to see things are intact on my return. Gone again soon.

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Uncle Deedah!

Whadaya you mean? Retire? Good to see you at the UNSINSORED board.Don't be a stranger.

DS

This is just the way it has to be,thought police will just not dooo!!! Thanks for the kudos but right is right and wrong is wrong,it's plain to see. Everybody here is a testament to that,it is it's own validation.At least we know were in good company.

Laura

I don't know about Flint but when they did it to him thay did it to me and everybody else and were rather cavalier with the threats. FUCK THAT!!!

Flint

The one thing that still puzzles me...The very people whom I assumed would be the first to call foul over a constitutional (ideal) breech ,doesn't hardly even flinch,I would have thought they would have raised more hell than pack of pet monkey's.

It's awful amazin'.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 09, 2000.

When Ed dropped off his own forum last year, leaving us all with his lame reasons for his departure, is when I lost any respect I may have developed for him. Ironically, I had never put him in the same box with Hyatt and North so he didnt enter my thoughts to any degree period. I am now convinced that all of these experts were and still are in collusion to deceive and spread fear for the sole purpose of producing income. You will never convince me that any of these bandits give a damn about anything but their own pocketbooks. Now we have Ed Yourdon running off to his gated community to avoid the scorn and scrutiny that he is so deserving of. I have no interest in soft shoeing my feelings for these clowns and the stench they left behind will linger long after they have slithered away. Ill save my positive remarks for those who are smart enough to see though the smoke screen and breath fresh air. Its not about Pollys and DoomersIts about Common Sense over Delusional Ignorance.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 09, 2000.

Capnfun:

"When they did it to him, they did it to me and everybody else."

yup. you are welcome in my bunker anytime capn. ditto for anyone else who can see the danger in that slippery slope.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Semper means "Always: "Paratus" As Paratus you seek change, travel, new opportunities, and new challenges. Your active, restless nature demands action and you dislike system and monotony. As you are versatile and capable, you could do any job well, although you would not like to do menial tasks. Having considerable vision, you could be adept at formulating new, more effective ways of doing things. You could organize the work of others, though in your impatience to see the job done efficiently, you would likely step right in and do it yourself. You could work well in sales and promotion, and would not be afraid to risk a gamble as the name gives you much self-confidence. You do not find contentment in the routine tasks and responsibilities that are associated with home and family or with administrative detail in the business world, so you have to guard against frustration and even moods of depression over your personal responsibilities. The restlessness this name creates could find an outlet in caustic, irritable expression. Also, the intensity of your nature could result in tension in the solar plexus causing stomach trouble and, because you take your responsibilities seriously you could experience much worry.

-- Name (g@me.com), March 09, 2000.

capnfun:

Are you serious or are you pulling my leg? Of COURSE censorship is a terrible idea and should be fought to the death -- unless, of course, you happen to agree with the censors and dislike those they exclude.

I did have to laugh when they submitted the idea of allowing some thought back into the forum to an impartial decision board -- themselves -- and "accepted" the verdict that it was the proper decision after all. And of course, no good purpose would be served by discussing WHY that decision was reached. Whose purpose? Guess. And Yourdon telling his puppets what to do and then blaming them for doing it was kinda comical too. I've heard of plausible deniability, but c'mon, it's gotta be more subtle than *that*.

Of course, Z is quite right, making such a decision has costs. What costs? Just go READ that forum for a while, and the answer is clear.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 09, 2000.

Flint

Sorry,but could you be more direct.I am usually more than upfront and was not pullin' your leg (about what?) I was and am surprised by the non-reaction/action especially in lieu of what I thought to be free thinkers.It's like they gave up their rights,not legaly but symbolicly and of free volition.This is my point.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 09, 2000.

capnfun:

I'm certainly not disagreeing you. It has been my observation that in general, people consider censorship to be a Very Bad Thing. If it's their *own* voices being silenced, censorship is a *terrible* thing.

However, when it comes to silencing the voices of those we disagree with then, sadly, circumstances become very hazy. This isn't "really" censorship, see, this is "moderating the discussion" or it's "justifiable punishment for past crimes" or it's "preventing deliberate disruption" or it's "within the rights of the administrator". Not censorship after all, so NOW it's OK. Amazing how flexible our "rigid principles" become when they work to our short- term disadvantage, isn't it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 10, 2000.

"Amazing how flexible our "rigid principles" become when they work to our short- term disadvantage, isn't it?"

Yes,and that statement says a mouthful.

Personaly, my rigid stance refuses to be flexible,especially regarding these type of issues.Sinsorship can be called many things and can be masked with all the best/worst intentions,I tend to reject the murkiness in favor of plain truth and/or the exercise of arriving at it.

This may be philosophical but it ain't rocket science.

I think we will see in time, many arriving to this conclusion and this net location.

Thanks.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 10, 2000.

I think you whiners about censorship are confused. There is also freedom of association. I agree with Groucho on this one.

-- - (x@xxx.com), March 10, 2000.

X

I'm glad you feel free to associate with us.

Who's whining?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 10, 2000.

Echo sentiments with Unc and Flint..... As for the censorship, I dont think we had a problem with it till they did put the 'censor police' on duty. I had a disagreement with one, i wont mention and life for me was never the same... I do feel that here it is more 'open' than ever, it IS ok to agree to disagree. TPTB IMHO were too serious. As for the petty squabbles, I LOVED THEM... Face it, where were they when someone was trying to 'off' their baby??? That was ok? NOT. I still cant believe that was ok, but Flint got the boot...??? I have been known to antagonize on occasion, so what? Its fun to see fur fly once in awhile, is that so wrong? To laugh, to quarrell and have a good time? I love this forum. BTW, will this one stay up? Who owns it?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 10, 2000.

For the gazzillionth time, semper paratus means always ready.

It is the motto of the U. S. Coast Guard, where I happily served.

It seemed like an appropriate handle for a Y2k forum.

My friends here call me semper.

-- semper paratus (back_here_with@my.pals), March 10, 2000.

Semper:

I like your explanation a lot better than the other. Reading the other, I got the impression that it meant "refuses to clean the toilet", and then the last few lines indicated "but is the one most likely to DIRTY the toilet."

Good to see you here myself.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 10, 2000.

'It is the motto of the U. S. Coast Guard, where I happily served.'

Thank you for serving. Even if you did nothing more than sit and wait, you were instrumental in helping to keep this the greatest country on earth.

~*~

-- Laura (LadyLogic@.........), March 10, 2000.

Flint, you said..."censorship is a terrible idea and should be fought to the death--unless, of course, you happen to agree with the censors and dislike those the exclude." That certainly describes most on the old forum.

But I have never had anyone talk to me as mean as INVAR, Spidey and Pot/Kettle/Black, but I still would have spoken out against censorship of them, just like I did about you, Y2K Pro and Hawk. The idea of censorship is so arrogant and petty, that I truly had rather be flamed and called names than have the person censored.

Here's drinkin' to freedom of speech.

RA, I think you're onto something concerning the "bandits."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 10, 2000.

Anita, you made me lol. Nice to see you too.

-- semper paratus (back_here_with@my.pals), March 10, 2000.

Raising the glass here, yes ... To freedom of speech, Gilda.

It IS worth defending to the death ... for everyone, whether they prize it or not. On behalf of Flint, and Decker, and Diane, and Chuck, and Ed, and Old Git, on behalf of friends and foes, and all the children who come after us.

-- Just another freedom fighter.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 10, 2000.

Semper:

A lot of talk on this forum about how the gov.com is not competent. I've even heard folks talk about the waste of money on the CG.

Well, most of those folks have never been in a situation where they needed the CG. I have. Not my fault, nature is just not that easy to predict. When the unpredicted storm is producing at least 30 ft swells, the CG doesn't seem to be wasted money. Way to go. Yea!!!

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 10, 2000.