Uncle Deedah started it. It got BIG. Too big, perhaps, to read through at one sitting. Here's the URL to copy and paste, however, should you choose to post there.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002tMa

At any rate, his original post is as follows:

"Rambling disertation to follow, ignore if you feel the need....

This forum seems to be slowing down a bit, and, as Stuart Smalley would say, that is OK. I like it, it's good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like it.

But I am curious purple as to why we get so few former regulars from the old original TB2K posting here. Is it the subject matter? Hatred of some posters here? Lady Illogic? Me? Is it my fault? Do I need to shoot anyone?

The format here is one which feels right, no clicking through multi-layered postings of answers to questions. It reads like what the old place read like, and has the wide open feel to it that the old place had back in 98, err 1998.

Another question:

Why did those of you who are posting at EZ feel that you needed to follow ED? "Ed is moving his board". So what? Why did you follow him to that clunky awkward board when this one runs so openly and easily? Who gives a crap which board has Ed's blessing? Hell, I must admit that I am surprised that so many folks who called others "sheeple" follow him blindly to a board that loads so SLOWLY!!!! Click to read each answer? Man, gimme a break! I would post this question to EZ board but I can't remember my frickin password! Like I said, clunky and awkward.

Am I clueless? (don't answer that one, answer the other better questions)

Anyone? Anyone at all?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000"

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 05, 2000

Answers

Well, Unc, my opinion (at this moment at least) has to do with what happened during the last six months of 1999.

When Peter de Jager published his "Doomsday Avoided" essay, in the spring of 1999, it may have started the polarization of the old TB2000 forum.

Having said that, communicating on the Internet bears one's soul. No photos, no squeaky voices, no accents. In short, no small talk. A further attraction--on some forums--the ability to post anonymously.

As for who went where and why--God only knows.

My big question is this: Where is the future "watering hole" for MODERATES who followed this amazing epic on the Internet, in print, via television, via radio, etc.?

Just wondering. Nice to read you again, Unc.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 05, 2000.

This forum seems like the best bet for moderates. However, the recent past has seen the entry of hotheads from both sides of the Y2K argument who seem to be mainly interested in continuing old grudge fights.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Some types of personal attack deserve to be censored. I have noticed two cases at BIFFY where in spite of the censor-free stance over there, vile posts have vanished. And I applaud BIFFY for this.

By the way, has BIFFY croaked?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), April 05, 2000.

Peter, I've always respected your posts and opinion. What were the two deleted posts about?

-- (Just @ curious. about BIFFY), April 05, 2000.

I don't know why you feel polarization is necessary. I look at both boards cause I want the news. I enjoy certain types of material that I find both places...

-- Mara (MW@aol.com), April 05, 2000.

Mara,

Who said polarization is necessary? Huh?

-- confused (at@your.response), April 06, 2000.

Simple answer...people got tired of spam. EZ has had more controversial topics and varied responses then we see here. I think part of it is that responses go to the head of the list rather than fading from view down the page.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), April 06, 2000.

Todd:

Uh-could you define "more controversial"? I have not seen any topic at the EZ which has not appeared here-except maybe bible studies and 800 opinions from non-doctors regarding vaccines.

And varied responses?? I do not get it-THe responses over there seem to be pretty homogenous to me-but, after all, it is all opinion, isn't it??

The listing of answers was never a problem for anybody on the old TB 2000, were they?? Oh well, just a bit of parochialism. Anyone, It is good to see you here, Todd.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 06, 2000.

Weeeelll, since the thread that FM/MM reposted here is still a very lively ongoing debate, did the thread really need to be reposted? More likely, FM/MM thought that her answer is what deserved a thread of its own, rather than being lost amidst the flotsom and jetsom of mere mortals.

-- (TPspam@narcissist.chronicles), April 06, 2000.

TPspam,

You read minds too?

-- TPspam is also (a@pompous.ass), April 06, 2000.