I glanced at EZB today, just the headlines and the authors. It seems the usual suspects have moved beyond Y2K and into new and different "threats."

I have written at length about the "doomer" predisposition. Many of the pessimists felt society was about to crumble. Y2K was simply a catalytic event, the proverbial "straw." Until the development of the Internet, these individuals would have peered out shaded windows, isolated by their fringe beliefs. With the advent of the Internet, every "movement," no matter how offbeat or bizarre, can become a micro-culture. In particular, fringe groups are aided by the anonymous nature of the Internet. Pedophiles can join an online "man-boy" club. Racists, anarchists and radicals can find like-minded individuals without revealing an identity.

Online subcultures provide support and reinforcement to members. As we saw during Y2K, these subcultures can extend to filtering and shaping outside information. Quasi-news sources like Y2Knewswire helped insulate the Y2K pessimists from the mainstream (and an objective analysis of the problem).

As we see with EZB and the neo-survivalist Yourdonites, there is a tendency to focus inwards. As with many cults, the members see themselves as separate (and more enlightened) than the rest of society. They "get it." We do not.

This is a dangerous aspect of the Internet. In short, the medium allows anonymous communities to gather, organize and group outside of the bounds of civil society. For the most parts, I imagine these groups (like the Yourdonites) to be harmless. If a small group of individuals want to form a social group while waiting for the mother ship from Alpha Centauri... what harm comes?

This is an interesting question. As a libertarian (of sorts) I think adults ought to enjoy a high degree of personal freedom. But I also wonder if we might pay a price as a society for Balkanized online communities, an artificial world increasingly fragmented and self contained.

I have the nagging feeling we'll see more EZBs... small, closed communities, cults of personality, closed loops. Perhaps I have some bias, having spent time in a university setting where open, civil discourse was the norm. In this environment, a position (or person) is respected insofar as they can make a sound, logical argument. The type of behavior that marked the old forum--personal attacks, faulty logic, skewed data, bias--are frowned upon.

What will become of our society when there is no place left to ask the difficult, challenging questions?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 08, 2000

Answers

Hi, Ken.

I posted several times to the EZBOARD forum. There are a few posters there that I wish would post here, but for the most I considered the experiences similar to "blowing in the wind."

I appreciate diversity and alternative opinions. I appreciate the different religious/non-religious viewpoints. I find this forum more heterogeneous and the EZBOARD forum more homogeneous. Like you, I scan the EZBOARD now, but when I think about posting, I ponder the point in so doing.

My opinions/conclusions are not based on group-thought. I smile no more often if someone agrees with my opinions on a BBS than I do when someone disagrees. I enjoy the discourse involved with disagreement, but my intentions are not to piss someone off. I guess I've grown to think that my posts on the EZBOARD forum do much more off the latter than encourage the former.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

My Dear Mr. Decker,

No....Even your inflamatory efforts at a sembulence of reasoning are not worth it. I find it rather amusing you know..... A liberal professing to be a liberterian! Making observations about radical conservitisum! Rather like the communist running a captalist business..And asking a preist to "bless' his efforts... I do believe that I have just described a democrat!!!!

And yes..Before you point it out to me.. I DO spell phonetically...

If there is such a concept as a "Doomer" phycology! It derives from people realizing that the world is run (by and large) by persons of your particular brand of "I know what is best for you" attitude. You "Big frontal lobe types are the primary reason why the world is in the shape it is in. After all...You have "colletively" spent years drawing up your blue prints for "your" ideal civlization. And your intellectual brother(s) in their "imperious dreams"! Would tear everything down to achive their concept of the ways the world ought to ( in their views) be. With them running said civilazation of course. After all...We "sheeple" are too dumb to run our lives with out their help.

Incidently...Have you "docked" your lambs yet? And is that where you get your literary skills and licence?

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), April 08, 2000.

Shakey,

I wish to compliment you on your abilities to see through a pile of liberal blather. Ken wrote "Perhaps I have some bias, having spent time in a university setting where open, civil discourse was the norm. In this environment, a position (or person) is respected insofar as they can make a sound, logical argument. The type of behavior that marked the old forum--personal attacks, faulty logic, skewed data, bias--are frowned upon."

"...spent some time in a university setting...." This obviously makes you a superior being having been indoctrinated with the brilliant doctrines of the typical socialist university. Tolerance of absolutely every abberant and wicked behaviour is the norm at colleges throughout the fruited plain. The only thing not tolerated is anyone who openly voices a Christian perspective.

Ever notice how liberals are the only ones suited to adequately judge faulty logic, skewed data, and bias?

Here's a difficult challenging question Ken. Why don't you get on your knees, admit you are a hell bound sinner, and trust in the Blood of Jesus Christ for your salvation?

It was and still is the best decision of my life.

-- trafficjam (road@construction.ahead), April 08, 2000.

Ken:

Shakey answered your question in part with:

If there is such a concept as a "Doomer" phycology! It derives from people realizing that the world is run (by and large) by persons of your particular brand of "I know what is best for you" attitude. You "Big frontal lobe types are the primary reason why the world is in the shape it is in. After all...You have "colletively" spent years drawing up your blue prints for "your" ideal civlization. And your intellectual brother(s) in their "imperious dreams"! Would tear everything down to achive their concept of the ways the world ought to ( in their views) be. With them running said civilazation of course. After all...We "sheeple" are too dumb to run our lives with out their help.

A world out of control. To understand the choices that need to me made you not only need experience and education but access to a large body of facts and access to experts. There was a time when everyone in the community had the experience and knowledge to make the important decisions on matters affecting them [eg, where to put a well that wouldnt go dry during a drought; where to build a road; where to build the fort; how to hunt for food]. Alternatively, they knew someone in the community who could answer the questions. As late as the 1960s, I had mentors who could explain the design and operation of every piece of equipment in a 2 mile long factory.

Things have changed Communities are now being asked to make decisions on such things as genetic engineering, weather models, ecological systems, economic models, electronic security, foreign policy issues in countries that they cant find on the map, etc. The decisions must be correct or there will be serious consequences. There are not only whole communities that have little or no knowledge about the details of these issues; there are whole communities that dont know anyone who does. Their only contact with those making decisions on the issues are faces on a TV. Faces of people they dont know. This problem is further exacerbated in communities that believe all problems have a fixed answer. As the data used to make decisions change, the answer changes. This is unsettling. They can find solace on web sites; sites that can give fixed answers.

Yes, Shakey may be correct. Technology has already balk

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Thank god for liberal blather.

-- Very (Grateful@still.here), April 08, 2000.

To finish: Technology has already balkanized us. I remember the old days, when I was smart enough to not end a post with an important statement and never a tag.

Best wishes,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

If Ken's post was liberal blather, then I too am grateful for blather.

Ken, you sinner you, hangin' out at universities, engagin' in civil discourse, and at a typical socialist university AT THAT! And to add insult to injury, you no doubt were engagin' in aberrant and wicked behavior, and you failed to voice the Christian perspective. Oh, my Gaawwwd! You're doomed! (grin)

Anita, I checked out EZ Board, but it's clunky, and the whistles, bells and stars remind me of romper room. But that doesn't matter, because most everyone there seems to know "what is right."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 08, 2000.

I think most here would agree that most universities today are havens for the PC crowd,I think trafficjam is overall correct in his assertations,but to think the PC is directed soley at the christians is not the case.Anyone who goes against the grain of those who know best is immediately discredited,reprimanded and branded as a know nothing scum.

The SLEZ board is indeed a true reflection of todays elitest mindset that congregate at the universities.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

The SLEZ board is indeed a true reflection of todays elitest mindset that congregate at the universities.

You will have to explain that one.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

As we see with EZB and the neo-survivalist Yourdonites, there is a tendency to focus inwards. As with many cults, the members see themselves as separate (and more enlightened) than the rest of society.

Was it really necessary to pepper the essay with words like "neo- survivalist" and "cults"? Political parties and various organized religions have long been examples of strong differences over what is acceptible public policy. That there were differences in opinion on whether the public needed to be more aware or less aware of Y2K risks should NOT be surprising.

This essay is based on a rather large underlying assumption. That assumption is that last year, one was able to know as fact that the outcome of Y2K would be as smooth as it has turned out to be been since Jan. 1.

Another assumption is that only one point of view about Y2K was presented on TB2000 last year. The opinions of Ken Decker, Flint, Hoffmeister, Peter de Jager, John Koskinen and other Y2K optimists were also there for all to see.

In my opinion, the willingness to look at what Ken Decker calls new and different "threats" is based on a growing realization of just how dependant on technology we have become.

-- Another (point@of.view), April 08, 2000.

Z,

I drew the analogy between the SLEZ board and the PC universities because in spite of their claims of free and unfettered discourse this is simply not the case.

Wheather censorship is used to quiet an opposing viewpoint or the discrediting of your opponent via slanderous personal attacks is used the result is the same.

Free unfettered discourse no longer survives and any knowledge that might have been gained is lost.

I see a paralell between the two entities and do not respect either.

Does this clear my point up?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

Not really, but it tells me that you haven't spent much time on a major university campus. Doesn't sound like anything that I've seen. Of course, the campus or more that you have visited on a regular basis may be different.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

Example of what I'm talking about.

Do you remember 7 or 8 years ago when a student at I think Georgetown who while studying was interupted by some fellow students yelling and screaming outside of the dormitory.The student raised his window and called the racous students "water buffalo" and told them to shut up.

The racous student(a female) the next day filed a complaint against the (guy) whom had called her a water buffalo.The school then suspended him and stated that he could come back if he apologized and took sensitivity training.

The last thing I remember hearing about this incident was that he would be leaving that college.

I realize this is only one example but am quite sure others can cite similar situations.

Does this clear it up?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Nope:

Shift happens. You still haven't answered the important question. What major university campus have you spent significant time on to justify your opinion.

Not urban legends. Just experience. I am not talking about Bob Jones U Simple question. You need to be there on a day to day basis.

I don't remember. You may be from NC. I have spent some time on the campuses of NC State, UNC and Duke. Your description doesn't describe them. Will need more details.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Wow:

I don't know about you but lime drives me nuts. I must quit using it.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Ah, I see a few of the usual suspects have appeared.

I often find those most critical of the university have never attended one. As for "political correctness," much of my time was spent at a Jesuit university. I can assure you many of the views held by the Jesuits are far from "PC." (chuckle)

And the "Doomer" psychology, Shakey, is mostly the product of people who do not understand the world... a mindset not dissimilar to natives who fear thunder is the wrath of an angry god. Personally, I have no desire to impose any particular political structure. I enjoy living in a society where I have a tremendous amount of personal freedom. My primary position is to oppose those who want to reduce my freedom... be they conservative or liberal.

You see, Shakey, the conservatives want to rule the world just as much as the liberals... they just have different ideas about how it ought to be run. They think they know better than you... and your arguments only strengthens theirs.

"Z," you describe a mythical world. Perhaps you remember a quote describing life as "nasty, brutish and short." Until rather recently, human societies still accepted evil institutions like slavery and human sacrifice. Perhaps you've confused "Little House on the Prairie" with "The History Channel."

The world is more complex now. The standard of living for many people is also far better than it has been during the entire course of human history. Technology always has been a two-edged sword. The same biotechnology that can create horrific weapons of mass destruction is also saving lives. We will not, however, solve the problems of our future by longing for the past.

"A," the serious pessimists were (and most stilll are) neo- survivalists. You may find this pejorative, but it is quite accurate. Some "doomers" rejected reason for faith, faith in a Y2K apocalypose. Were it a really large movement, we could call it a religion. As a small, rather zealous movement, it seems more a cult... at least to me.

My real assumption is that an objective analysis of Y2K in 1999 led reasonable people to believe there was a very, very small chance of catastrophe. The "doomer" view required a rejection of data based on unsupported assumptions of "conspiracy" and "propaganda." It required an active filtering of all positive information and a blatant exageration of negative speculation. It required one's head be placed squarely in the sand... though for a few of my old foes on TB 2000 I might suggest an alternative location.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 08, 2000.

We seem to be dodging an interesting question here. Was it mostly "right-wing Christian conservatives" who advocated increased Y2K public awareness last year, or was it "liberal, socialist activists"?

Or could it simply be that there were a wide variety of opinions about this issue from people at all points on the political spectrum?

-- (A@swing.voter), April 08, 2000.

Z,

University of Kentucky and Vanderbilt

The story I cited is not urban legend and must all conversation be governed by personal experience?

Let me see if I can dig that story up.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Decker:

I don't dream about these things:

The world is more complex now. The standard of living for many people is also far better than it has been during the entire course of human history. Technology always has been a two-edged sword. The same biotechnology that can create horrific weapons of mass destruction is also saving lives.

This is what I do. As a matter of fact, I have oversight responsibility for research at multiple institutions; in addition to my research. This is not some off topic interest to me.

What I tried to explain to you apparently without effect is that Shakey told us what the divide was. I deal with this on a regular basis. He may have not explained it well, but he is correct.

You will need to deal with it. You are presently out of your area of expertise. That's ok. We generally are on this forum.

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Ken,

I never implied anything or said anything in regards to where you went to school,I was speaking broadly at how I percieve higher education today.

BTW, I agree with you whole heartedly in that both the conservatives and the liberals are equally hellbent in forcing their agendas on us all.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Swing-voter:

The most vociferous opinions on Y2k stemmed from both extremes....left and right.

Capnfun:

*I* understand your comparison of EZBOARD to some campus discussions. The unwillingness to discuss opposing opinions is symbolic of a set mind. Set minds have no correlation to education. SOME scholars see their opinions cast in stone because they feel their superior intellect dictates their opinion correct. Others see their opinions cast in stone simply because they have pre-conceived notions that enforce this mindset.

Getting back to my preferences for this forum over the EZBOARD forum, I find this forum more open to discussion and more tolerant of differences of opinion. I had a discussion with Will Continue regarding Planned Parenthood on the EZBOARD forum. She and I will never agree on the benefits of Planned Parenthood. In her opinion, HER tax dollars are going to support information provided to young people that encourage outercourse versus intercourse. She disapproves of at least some variations of outercourse and doesn't want her tax money spent on such education. IMO, Planned Parenthood provides information to those who desire it. If one doesn't desire the information, one needn't click on the website. Would you rather pay to support children or abortions or pay to provide information on pregnancy prevention? In addition, Will wants to believe that fellatio was invented by Bill Clinton. She considers fellatio equivalent to a sexual relationship. IMO, a sexual relationship consists of intercourse, NOT mutual masturbation. This gets us into the whole "It depends on how you define 'is'" debate, and once THERE, I'm seen as a pinko commie liberal intent on defending Bill Clinton the person. I have no desire to defend Bill Clinton the person. He's certainly made some serious mistakes. However, if I point out that Newt Gingrich was the all-time fellatio master [even providing a link to testimonials in this regard], I get no response.

The same thing happens with regard to the constitutional amendments. I'm still undecided on the meaning of some. Others have the meaning set in stone and simply can't understand why I would consider thinking about something so damn obvious. Well, if it were obvious to ME, I WOULDN'T think about it. In that discussion, I was even lumped in with "Anita and her ilk."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

Good Universities. I know them well. You will get a good education there. When I said Major Universities, I meant Class I research universities. Where the overriding decisions are made. That is just the way it is.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

My real assumption is that an objective analysis of Y2K in 1999 led reasonable people to believe there was a very, very small chance of catastrophe. The "doomer" view required a rejection of data based on unsupported assumptions of "conspiracy" and "propaganda."

Decker had already admitted in Oct. 1999 that most concerns about Y2K had moved away from catastrophic scenarios.

But now it seems Ken is saying the typical forum participant held onto a TEOTWAWKI scenario until January 1, 2000, and that only since rollover have less immediate technology concerns been discussed.

-- The (changing@Y2K.argument), April 08, 2000.

Ken, for the most part I agree with your original post. I want to focus on and discuss your fears of the internet.

"But I also wonder if we might pay a price as a society for Balkanized online communities, an artificial world increasingly fragmented and self contained.

I have the nagging feeling we'll see more EZBs... small, closed communities, cults of personality, closed loops."

When I entered the internet for the first time, there were only academic and gov. people with internet access, i.e. the .edu and .gov and .org's. The discussions were more civilized as a whole on the Usenet groups, and certainly more intellectual, but still there were huge flaming fora, and those happened to be the ones that were not moderated and/or censored. Just like now, there were closed communities of all types, from cooking to phreaking moderated and underground groups. All with .edu, .gov and .org, mind you. The internet explosion into the masses in around 1995 (after the advant of graphic web browsers and hence easier accesse for the average layman, and consequently florishing .com's), I haven't noticed anymore/worse, in percentage-wise, of these types of closed communities you worry about. I'll concede what it has done though is make it easier for everyone of dark or bizzarre incline to find each other, and indulge into their own world or vice. What worries me the most is not the adult population using the internet, but the younger children, 18 and under, in ever so greater numbers. They are the ones who need guidance with the pitfalls and dark side of the internet. That is the dilema that wrenches me appart. I want badly the true democracy, free-flow of information and good opportunities the internet provides, but I'm not sure what can be done to help and protect the young impressionable crowd. Only strong and constant parental guidance with everyone of these kids would make me feel better about this situation, and it is ofcourse, wishful thinking.

"Perhaps I have some bias, having spent time in a university setting where open, civil discourse was the norm. In this environment, a position (or person) is respected insofar as they can make a sound, logical argument. The type of behavior that marked the old forum--personal attacks, faulty logic, skewed data, bias--are frowned upon."

And so it is here, in this forum Ken. The problem is that not everyone is of the same or near intellectual and maturity levels, as opposed to a university where not only everyone is more or less at same level, but also there is strong moderation from the faculty. There's no faculty here. A university is censored in that sense.

All in all on this forum and many other unmoderated/censored discussion forums, when you take everything into account, I'm surprised it works this well. Also, the people on EZB have the freedom to click on their bookmarks and lurk here. Some of that "reality" is bound to reach some people. IMHO.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

changing:

Not my reading. You're correct that from at least the time I started reading TB2K, the range of perceived threats was much wider than simply y2k -- why, there were chemtrails and illuminati and mendacious conspiracies among the military-industrial-media cabal aplenty.

Even beyond the rather silly paranoid fringe, there were serious people convinced society was in a state of advanced decay, getting worse before our very eyes. And y2k played into this general "every day in every way, things are getting worse and worse" mindset. Those who defended this mindset, IMO, didn't do so very honestly. A given source would be mocked as a sham for one sentence, and cited as gospel for the next sentence, depending on congruence between the sentences and the reader's fears. When challenged on this, the fearful replied that since Major Disaster was simply not avoidable IN FACT, anything that supported this "fact" was of course gospel, while anything contradicting it was of course foolish.

It's certainly no surprise that the EZB crowd has dropped y2k like a hot potato, and gone on to other fears and gloomy headlines. Getting it right was never paramount. Getting consensus that the world is bad and declining is where the satisfaction lies. And apparently that satisfaction is sweeter when no mirrors are allowed in the room.

I disagree with Ken that the internet permits infections to fester, much less reach critical mass. There are too many sites, and the paranoids don't dare tell even one another who or where they are.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 08, 2000.

Anita,

Your paralell with this discussion and the ammendment discussion is very well drawn.I guess there is something I should make clear,while I do have very adamant opinions concerning the Constitution etc.I am still wide open in listening and learning to all viewpoints and am not entirely of a "cast in stone" mindset on every caveat.

Z,

"Where the overriding decisions are made."

While I do accept that this is the way it is,it does not mean I agree or am comfortable with it.To give so few people such a large stake in determining public policy or whatever the topic is,is to me unsettling.

No matter how many letters or degrees come before or after my name it does not give me license to sit in a position of authority dictating my beliefs unto the masses.

The educational elite/politicians are all too ready to tell the common folk what is right,wrong,good,bad etc.just because they say it.If these are the types of institutions and people you refer to by"overriding decisions" I think it is sad,they have no more an idea of what is real than a man in the moon.

I will certainly never hand my decision power over to the likes of those clowns.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

I think that was what I was discussing in my original post. But how do we do that. The technology has become so complex that we are indeed balkanized. Your suggestions are welcomed.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

Off handedly and without much thought I would suggest that we have allways been balkanized.From house to house,block to block,quadrant of city to quadrant of city,town to town,state to state,country to country and hemisphere to hemisphere.

It is technology that allows for micro-balkinization.Like anything else it can be very bad or very good.

But in the end it should and will allways go back to the individual,unless we live in such a represive state that we are the collective and not the substanitive.It is up to us and for us to remain ever vigulant that this will never happen,IMHO.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

I want to make it perfectly clear that my reference was NOT to you in OUR discussion of the constitution and amendments. I feel as though both you and Mr. Pinochle expressed your opinions on my approach regarding the constitution, but neither of you expressed opinions on Anita the person in so doing. I know I'm weird in my methods, and now you know this as well. To be fair, I even shared some interesting conversations with Invar on this topic. He didn't understand my approach either, but I had this underlying feeling that my approach was WRONG when discussing this with him. Perhaps it's all in my mind.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

It is technology that allows for micro-balkinization.Like anything else it can be very bad or very good. But in the end it should and will allways go back to the individual,unless we live in such a represive state that we are the collective and not the substanitive.It is up to us and for us to remain ever vigulant that this will never happen,IMHO.

I think that is what I said before; if somewhat in a clumsy manner. I am at a class I University. I do make these decisions. I asked for specific information. Think about it for a while. These things don't come easy. I will put your response in my file for future action. You have now been given a chance to make a difference and not just complain. Do it!

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Anita,

I admire you for your methods and understand the approach.Your approach is NOT WRONG,it is YOUR approach,if we all have similar destinations our paths will be different with each one of us finding different methods to overcome the same obstacles.

I don't know if it's all in your mind or not but please NEVER get that feeling with little ol me.

In the end it's allright to agree to disagree even if we feel we personaly have came to a conclusion on said topic.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Did they ever decide who the best ant hill kicker was? Kenny gets my vote.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), April 08, 2000.

Z,

OK,but I feel we need to take this point by point and not by such a general brushstroke.It seems some of the topics you raised are more global in nature and not confined to communities,allthough communities do make up the whole.Sinking a good well is much easier than genetic engineering,can they really be compared?

Question:What type of decisions do you and your (group) make?

If this is my chance to "make a difference" I would like to know the playing field sota speak,But I do welcome the conversation and discourse.Thanks for the opportunity Z!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Apoligize for the "Name one." crack. Have enjoyed you all here.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

Can't tell you too much. After all I must make decisions in these areas. I must not give opinions. Let me say that I have sole signing authority in areas such as genetic treatment in humans, biohazards in research and release of recombinant organisms. Is that enough or do you want more? I am serious. I don't want a bunch of trivia from the web. You have responded in an intelligent way to the subject. I want your opinion on how we can solve this disconnect between the general public and technology. Your response will be used.

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

You must be the chem prof who found the economists lacking because they didn't have a snappy answer for Y2K. I bet they feel silly now. (laughter)

"Overseeing" research in the university setting may give you some insight into the potential problems of technology. Academics (like you) do not shape the marketplace. For better or worse, it is the market that drives technology... not college professors.

Therein lies the rub. All the academic hand-wringing in the world will not put the genie back into the bottle. Technology will rocket forward... with or without your personal oversight. And inevitably, the progress will be destructive. At the risk of suggesting you read economics, you might try Schumpeter and his discussion of the "creative destruction" of capitalism.

What is important is not the university per se, but the idea of a university... the idea that a free, unfettered discussion gives us our best chance to "ride the tiger" of technology. Did the Internet create "free, unfettered discussion about Y2K? Or did it become a carnival sideshow full of hucksters, con artists, malcontents and fringe characters?

Personally, I was disappointed in the quality of the Y2K debate. I was chagrined to see the online discussion dominated by a handful of extremists and profiteers. Y2K deserved better than TB 2000....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 08, 2000.

Woah there Mr. Decker. What a narrow view you have of the internet, LOL!

Don't you think perhaps there WERE forums a lot more academic than TB2K for y2k? Ofcourse there were, you just weren't invited perhaps.

Ken, the internet is as huge and diverse as society. As huge and diverse as all of the computers and servers that interconnect them, ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

I've committed the crime to spend way too much time on this one perticular forum during the hight of Y2K, because my mind was already made up that it was too late, way before the roll-over. In hindsight, I can see all my errors now. But what's your excuse Ken, for spending so much time on Yourdon's forums and even here?

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

No, I do not want more right now.But what I would like is for you to pick a topic,________,then lets examine the ramifications and the disconnect etc.No need for us to try and whiz through it,lets take it piece by piece on your and my side of the fence.I think the conversation should range from a laymen perspective to the esoteric,which I feel comfortable with both.

Any ideas from you?

Sincerely,

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Cap:

Will try to get back on Sun with a new thread. Must also get ready to teach electronic publishing to students. Note: you will be second priority.

Best wishes:

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

COOL!

Have a good night!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 08, 2000.

Z,

I don't think "socialist" is the correct word for universities, but each department DOES have things it finds more acceptable than others based on the whims of the faculty (who if the chairman has been there awhile can be reasonably homogenous on issues that concern him).

In other words, they can share the same prejudices and politics of anywhere else.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 08, 2000.

Z,

I probably won't be around Sun and maybe not till Mon night,after work.Catching up on stuff and remodeling house.So take your time and lets do it right.

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

My Dear Mr. Decker,

Sir it is said that an acomplished diplomat must have the ability to be able to tell another person to go to hell....And do so in a manner. That said party would actually be antisipating the trip.

You sir...Are a consumate diplomat!

I am but a poor striving student of life. I do not profess to being an Expert...Not even in my chosen profession. I have found, some years ago. That technology is progressing so swiftly. That I am "just a little" behind in the newest advances; and even though I still try and keep "current" on the latest developments.( And the internet surely helps in that endeavor). The advance of our "collective" technology is moving so swiftly now. That I doubt that there are a dozen persons in the world today, who are adiquately "up to date" about our current level of said technology.

Where is it all leading us? You asked! To the future my friend! At the speed of light, we are moving into a relm which has no comparison in history. Thusly we have no guage in the history of man kind's past. In which to judge, estimate, or even make a (so called) educated guess. But prepare for it you must...There can be no going back now. The Genie has been loosed from the bottle; Pandora's box has been opened. And we must all collectively, and indivigually. Keep a stiff upper lip, and face what ever it is that comes.

It was said, when President Reagan opened the information super hiway (the internet's orginal name) That we where condeming "Big Gov.Org" to history's ash heap! For the politicans' lies could not remain hidden from the internet...I am waiting to see just how that observation will work out! For the politicans are deffinately ill at ease with having their past words and deeds dreged up ( as a witness against their current stances; and positions).

Have we gone too far and too fast? With out a doubt! Can we maintain this pace with out a socialital collaspe? I seriously doubt it! But this is part and parcel to "Heligein's (sp) Dialectic. To build something! Means that something must be done away with (destroyed).

But, ironically! I am a Polly in that regard..I believe that the United States constitution will be the (blue print) guide lines by which the next level of civilization will be built upon.

Will we, as a nation be faced with a future war? Indeed we shall! Ours is the most hated nation in the world! And the lamb has as yet to lie down beside the Jackel, with out fear of being eaten! Will this possible future war, be a thermonuclear war? With a certainty! It WILL be a thermonuclear war! All the nations of the earth know that they would be doomed in a conventional war; with our hi tech weapons being deployed against them! This was proved quite nicely both in Desert Storm! And then in Kosovo last year.

IMHO...Said war could begin with in the next 10 months! But if not! With-in the next three years..

But please do keep up with your amusing anadotes about what it is that you think you are observing, as taking place in this endless font of information that is called the internet.

All the information known to mankind is at our finger tips here "old boy". ENJOY IT, while it lasts, this is a "dream land" for this "poor struggling student"

At times now..I am rather reminded of the charater in one of the old Twlight Zone (black and white era) episodes...He was the last man in the world (after a nuclear war had occured) and he had a whole libarary of books to read (untill the poor guy broke his eye glasses).He was estatic, for he had all the time in the world to read his books.

And untill they "break" the internet, I will continue my browsing through it's endless bounty of knowledge. And by doing so...I am sated in my thrist for learning. And perhaps, even a poor student as I; may just add some little something some day for some one else to benifit from. And that isn't too far out of the relm either. Because I think that the Static Charger has more than a passing merit of interest. And I am still researching it's improvements ( to see, if I can squeeze out still more amperage). From it's output. Though it's amperage is quite respectful now LOL

But I grow tired of this posting (typing) (two fingers are still my speed, I am afaird). Enjoy the ride! Mr. Decker! We all have paid for our tickets and there is no going back now.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), April 09, 2000.

The reason for & manner in which the Decker Unit keeps flogging the obviously dead horse is curious. He has seemed to be otherwise rational and intelligent in the past. Why do some pollies insist on pecking the dead carcass???

-- It's (TimeToMove@Along.com), April 09, 2000.

It's:

Over on EZB there was a recent thread about when people would finally decide y2k was officially over and not much happened. The consensus was that the time is not yet, because y2k is probably causing lots of hidden problems, which are getting worse and won't be able to be kept covered up much longer! And even Big Ed weighed in along these lines.

But when Ken Decker muses about these diehards, well, then of course it's the evil pollies picking over the carcass; it's the pollies who can't let this dead subject rest in peace. Do I detect a double standard here? Indeed, do I detect the same double standard used by these people to get y2k so wrong in the first place?

On another thread, there was discussion about WHY the EZB people so rarely mentioned y2k anymore. I still think it's because those like you who repeat the same basic error wouldn't do so if you could admit the error in the first place.

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

It's,

It was said several months ago that, just as the TB2000 posters were obsessed with Y2K, the Debunkers were obsessed with the TB2000 posters. It becomes more apparent with each passing day that the Debunkers were the more obsessed of the two.

-- It's over (I'm taking@my.leave now), April 09, 2000.

Geeee Anita,

What portion of, "will not be infringed" do you not understand? Dipshit. Perhaps a well written, big brained, well educated, lengthy dissertation and impending discussion of thoughtful views about what color a blue sky IS, is in order, eh?

You accused ME of thinking Clinton had invented blow-jobs, sister. (attacking the messenger?) You chose to ignore MY message, which was that Clinton made blow-jobs, in the 'privacy' of the Oval Office, 'acceptable' behavior to the children of our country (and the world?)

The obvious.....continued.....obsession.....is ongoing. Have at it. Even wrapped in silk, worms are still worms.

-- Will Continue (farming@home.com), April 09, 2000.

Will: You said, "You chose to ignore MY message, which was that Clinton made blow-jobs, in the 'privacy' of the Oval Office, 'acceptable' behavior to the children of our country (and the world?)"

Clinton didn't do that. Presidents have been engaging in promiscuous behavior in the White House for decades [if not longer.] HE certainly didn't start an investigation into what went on in the White House behind closed doors. HE didn't brandish it all over the newspapers and T.V. You might try looking up the sexual adventures of past presidents and politicians, Will. It's pretty enlightening. Why weren't THESE stories publicized at the time? I can think of a few reasons, one of which was that the press at the time was more willing to "protect" the people from these scandals.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.

As usual, YOU folks are the reason I visit this forum and EZ Board.

Still trying to understand the venom that exists between the two, but then again, I havent voiced my opinion in such a way as to get banned either. Enough said on that subject.

I dont want to digress, my response is mostly to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to post lucid, well thought out, intelligent statements reflecting YOUR point of view.

I often wonder if, somewhere down the road, many of the forums on the internet wont have university students doing an analysis of the posters. Wonder where we would all fit into that anaylsis?

Anyway, already looking forward to lurking back in again in the next few days and seeing where this discussion and the others that follow, go

Honestly, THANKS!!!

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), April 09, 2000.

No one seems to have followed up on one of CapnFun's posts, so I will fill in some of the blanks.

CFun>> Z, Example of what I'm talking about.

CFun>> Do you remember 7 or 8 years ago when a student at I think Georgetown who while studying was interupted by some fellow students yelling and screaming outside of the dormitory.The student raised his window and called the racous students "water buffalo" and told them to shut up.

I remember it. You have some details wrong/missing, but that's okay. The student's first name was Evan (can't recall the last name), and I believe he was either Israeli or a American who was a member of a conservative Jewish sect. I believe you are correct on the Georgetown claim, but I can't attest to that.

This Evan fellow apparently first shouted out the window in Hebrew at the women, calling them "Behama," which translates as "buffoon," "oaf," and, more literally, as "water buffalo." Some exchange of words ensued, and the female students, who were black, took their complaint to the university authorities, claiming racism.

CFun>> The school then suspended him and stated that he could come back if he apologized and took sensitivity training.

That's true, they did initially take that tack, stating that calling a black woman a "water buffalo" was racist.

Cfun>> The last thing I remember hearing about this incident was that he would be leaving that college.

You missed the fun parts, which came later. This Evan fellow's attorneys established that "behama" is a perfectly race-neutral insult in Evan's culture (this is why I think he was Israeli), but also that water buffalo are native to *Asia,* not *Africa.* Taken in that light, it makes it pretty difficult to prove that "behama" is a racist insult when aimed at a black (as opposed to an asian) person.

The school dropped all its demands.

I cannot say for certain that Evan returned to that school (I seem to recall that he did, though), and I don't remember if he and his attorneys filed some sort of counter-action. I doubt they did; it would be difficult to prove damages. However, it might have been appropriate to have the school's president *and* the young woman in question write formal apologies to Evan.

Sauce for the goose, don't you think?

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 09, 2000.

Shakey,

For you edification, the Hegelian dialectic is thesis-antithesis- synthesis.

It's,

The horse was close the death last year. Each passing critical date was another step close to the big goodnight. Y2K was dead a week after rollover... but folks like Ed Yourdon and Russ Lipton aren't ready to let the horse lie easy in the grave. What concerns me is the dynamics of the lunatic fringe... and just how far they will go to see their vision of the future realized.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 09, 2000.

Sal and Cap, very interesting anectdote about Georgetown.

Ken, I can't resist jumping on this University racism controversy issue. You must admit that on a simingly barbarian internet forum such as this, you can call me a Moosehead or a Beaver (I'm from Canada) without fear that I'll file a suit against you ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 09, 2000.

Ken,

Going back to your original random thoughts, musing on the possibility of the Internet increasing the Balkanization of society and the number of cultish, clannish groups. IMHO, the fact that the Internet is an abstracted medium washes out some of its potential for mischief of that sort.

Sure, the net is a great way for isolated loonies and criminals to meet and share mutual reinforcement. That is a real danger. But, it helps to remember these folks are only meeting as digitally-degraded personas, not as persons.

In their real lives, these people will still need to deal with real people and find a way to accomodate themselves to society. The failure rate may increase, as more and more marginal people are drawn by the net in a direction that causes them to fail in society. But I doubt the rate will increase all that much. There are so many other influences that cause people to fail, the Internet is just another among the crowd.

In reading the replies your thread has provoked, I am struck mostly by the number of respondents who don't seem to grasp that the concept of absolute and inviolable rights is bound to create a whole train of undesirable effects.

Liberty and law are in constant tension. Any fixed position at one extreme is going to cause problems, because to some extent, the balance has been removed. It's like the predator-prey relationship. All prey and no predators makes for an unhealthy population of prey, as does the reverse.

When the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, they were sensible enough to know that it was going to be a trade-off. That society was going to have to suffer the unwanted effects as well as the desired ones. That is what the rest of the machinery of checks and balances is there to offset. A great example of this is the law of libel vs. freedom of speech. The gun control debate is taking place at the same borderline. Armor-piercing bullets, anyone?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 09, 2000.

My Dear Mr. Decker,

Sir...As with your usual evasive tactics. You have resorted to pointing out my misspelling of Helegin's Dialetic; instead of addressing the real issue.

I would have said that your "apparent concern" about the fracturing of our society into small myopic groups, who are no longer in contact with their seperated parts. As being a geniune concern. But alas! I cannot. No government, no collage professor, no Preacher...Nor any one else I can think of. Can force me (or any one) to like people I;or they do not, by natural causes, like! And you cannot Command! That I (or them) do so.

It is rather "high dramma" of you, to be so concerned for things that you KNOW that you cannot control.That no person can control. Rather like swallowing the Camel; while straining on a Mustard seed; this current posting of your's. Or else...This has all been a "Decker moment"! And you simply where and are, plying your wiles to troll for discenting discussions. To what end? Only the great Decker knows..LOL But you are funny....

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunke@forty.feet), April 09, 2000.

Anita,

Please name one of our other Presidents who was STUPID enough to stuff his genitalia into the facial orafice of a loud-mouthed girl (young enough to be his daughter...)in the Oval Office and then lie to the world about it, BBD (before blue dress)? Please name another President who was caught commiting PERJURY before a grand jury as he laboriously twisted the definition of 'sex'. Would it be sex if you caught your husband on the recieving end of a mutually consenting blow-job with his 20 year old secretary? You're a big fan of outercourse.....would it be sex if he was caught in an act of anal intercourse? In my marraige, 'mutual masterbation' without MY participation is gonna get somebody's tool dusty, if ya get my drift. Planned parenthood promotes these actions (and others) as an 'acceptable' alternative to intercourse.....with MY tax dollars. The public school counselors who are denied the ability to refer to ANYTHING of a spiritual (moral) nature BY LAW are sending our 13 and 14 year old children to this site for information. If I caught an adult offering this level of information to MY 13 year old, I'd MAKE them step outside or sully their office with their OWN body fluids. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned or a bit dated, because I'm openin' a can a whoop-ass on the punk that pulls THAT crap on one of MY kids, and they know it. They legislated a ban on morality which now enables them to freely legislate immorality with our tax dollars at the expense of our children. It's the socialist way.

Please name another President who has been accused of groping, flashing and rape. Please name another President who has done more harm to a perfectly good cigar. If that worthless son of a bitch hadn't had his hand in so many different cookie jars, requiring investigation, he could have had all the pizza delivered that he wanted, in the privacy of OUR office. He's holding everybody's FBI files and we're wondering how he's managed to get away with all this? He's a corrupt, well-educated piece of white trash thug. I'm awfully relieved to know you wouldn't be stupid enough to defend him.....or his evil, pea-brained, criminally insane, treasonous actions. Whewwwie. Lucky thing for you, 'cause I might be forced to voice my view otherwise.

Tell me, what's up with this 'sweet lil ol' me' niave show you've been putting on lately. Are people here actually falling for it? You've made yourself out to be such a big victim, I'd almost guess you are a liberal.

-- Will Continue (farming@home.com), April 09, 2000.

... but folks like Ed Yourdon and Russ Lipton aren't ready to let the horse lie easy in the grave. What concerns me is the dynamics of the lunatic fringe... and just how far they will go to see their vision of the future realized.

Please elaborate. What are you saying?

-- Enquiring minds (want@to.know), April 09, 2000.

I agree with Will on this one Anita, your arguments are nonsense on the Clinton immorality issue. Rumors of affairs by previous presidents is one thing, but the oral sex in the Oval office, Clinton whipping it out in hotel rooms, going for everything he can, that's not exactly the same thing as a descrete affair. And on the side, selling White House bedroom time to the highest bidders. This man can't control himself, and he's President? This is the most immorial and corrupt President, and First Lady, ever. Period.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 09, 2000.

In the recent past I had pondered just what it was that this place was missing. Now I see it: Rabies! There was no rabies here, and there was certainly no "foaming away at the gate" rabies!

Welcome Will. ;-)

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

"... but folks like Ed Yourdon and Russ Lipton aren't ready to let the horse lie easy in the grave. What concerns me is the dynamics of the lunatic fringe... and just how far they will go to see their vision of the future realized."

It's just a typical ant hill kicker's *method* of thoughtful discourse. It was a laughable joke 18 months ago and it's just a raging belly laugh today. To have the Debunkers refer to anybody as 'lunatics' has me in stitches.

For most of us, Y2K was NOT simply about a computer glitch. That would have only been the straw that broke the camel's back. We all had many concerns about a variety of different issues which made up the load piled upon the already stressed camel. The Pollies never understood that and obviously STILL do not. Whatever. Don't care. Gotta go now, the noxious aroma of ant hill gasoline ready to be lit around here, is not my idea of conversation. I prefer individuals who don't play 'games'. This forum became a psychobabble-fest of participants (you know who you are) whose hobbie is manipulative literary calisthenics performed by those who consider themselves to be legends in their own minds. My apologies to the others, I mean you no ill will and want you to know your viewpoints would always be welcome over where 'the good guys hang their white hats'.....that's right, even victims like you gilda.....well, probably not gilda but most everyone else.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), April 09, 2000.

Howdy Uncle D. Good to see you're still hangin' around. How's things in your neck of the woods? Hope you won't be witness to Waco II. Stay outa trouble or I'll be back!

:)

-- Will Continue (farming@home.com), April 09, 2000.

Will,

That's a cheap,shitty cop out,("where the good guy's hang their white hats") that is a load of total bullshit!!! Are you not astute enough to disregard what you do not care for?In the past I have generally liked your posts and it was good to see you here but never good enough for me to follow you to that cheap,sleazy,socialist,piece of shit board that the little Hitler yourdon owns.I wouldn't even give him the satisfaction of a hit on his counter,unless I decide to take a stroll and get myself banned so that my prior registration is nullified.

If your THAT chickenshit then by all means get your ass back to your safe little haven and do not venture out again.BTW,if you think the hats over there are so friggin' white try wipin' your ass with one,I bet afterwards you can't tell the difference.

Good riddance!!!

Glad I got my remodeling done early so I could come make sure the "our" house got disinfected.

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

Cap,

You are just starting to figure out Will? You may want to compare notes with "Z." Listen, compadre, Will Continue contributed nothing to the Y2K debate save an occasional personal attack against the forum optimists. She had no insight into any aspect of Y2K, no technical expertise, no professional knowledge, not a single original thought. On her best day, she manages to regurgitate the ultra- conservative party line. As you can tell from her interaction with Anita, the highwater mark of her political philosophy is her disapproval of the sexual antics of our current president. (Note to Anita, don't mention Eleanor Roosevelt!) She and EZB are made for each other.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 09, 2000.

My Dear Mr. Decker,

Sir you are in your usual perfect from this night, it seems. Although I did not realize that Will Continue is a lady...You have made it a bundantly clear that you are the typical "liberal" styled "gentleman"..Chiefly, polite to the oppisite gender, only when it suis your base purposes.

Really Decker old boy...You do need to work on your people skills! After all...Seeing as you are so worried that factions of humanity are breaking off into remote and differing political/racial/ideology/ etc. We truely need a go between oh great one,and you seem so "self appointed". After all...You have the power to name who is a lady...And who is not.

Perhaps you should return to your roots for a sabatical...Docking sheep on a ranchett in the Rocke Mountain states.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), April 10, 2000.

ouch...I was going to say something, but a closed mind just slammed the door on my face.

-- (lurking@late.night), April 10, 2000.

Shakey,

In case you have noticed, women have equality under the law. In an intellectual debate gender does not matter. Neither does race or religion. I will not treat Old Git or Will Continue any differently because of their gender. When they contribute nothing to the debate save personal attacks (and an occasional recipe), they will receive the same treatment as you... dismissal.

I'm not really interested in who is a "lady," at least by your definition. I am interested arguments that are comprehensible, by anyone's definition. The problem, Shakey, is that neither you, Old Git or Will Continue have enough education or experience or insight to realize your arguments (and humor) are completely weightless. The only way you can sound off and be heard is an anonymous poster on the Internet or a caller on talk radio. This is the scope of your influence. I doubt anyone in real life will listen to you longer than five minutes....

Oh, you want to be taken seriously, Shakey? Take your "message" to the people. See how many convention halls you fill with people hanging on your every word (particularly those used out of context). Publish your ideas (after you find an editor with a spell check). Participate in reality.

I realize these are wasted words. Perhaps on some level you realize how the real world would treat you (and the other EZBers). Oh, and I am sure you think this is because something is wrong with the world... not with you.

And you think I have a big ego. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 2000.

capnfun,

Sorry, I'm afraid *I* can't take credit for above said 'ignorant' remarks. They were originally made by *your* forum's resident liberal 'keyless wonder'.....gilda. I simply turned them around and placed them back in said victim's lap. She made this ridiculous statement in a fit of blame and a refusal to take responsibility for her own actions in respect to Y2K preparations.....typical in light of her politics. And then we have Ken. Some boys just can't tear themselves from a magazine and the bathroom. Ken has this forum. American women are grateful.

Have a nice day!

-- Will Continue (farming@home.com), April 10, 2000.

You see, forum participants, Ken does not talk with people. Ken talks AT people. He is actually nothing more than a warmed over asshole with diction, as he has so eloquently proven. He relieves himself at the expense of anyone willing to sit through it. Got handi-wipes, folks?

-- Will Continue (farming@home.com), April 10, 2000.

Will,

Why bother? Anyone who has read the old forum knows the extent of your contribution. In a word... zero. To date, you have displayed no technical expertise, no professional knowledge, no unique insight. The highwater mark of your "work" has been mindless heckling. Your participation did not move the Y2K forward; it was only a distraction for the serious participants. Your loathesome personality would not be an issue if you had something interesting to say. Surprise me, Will. Produce something worth talking about.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 2000.

Well, well, what have we here? Part-time fool and full-time pig farmer/hairdresser Will Continue is once again polluting the airwaves. Of all of the Y2K doomer idiots she still ranks number one. Or is it just that she ranks? Will you were not too bright last year and cutting hair has made no improvement this year. Dumb is dumb.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 10, 2000.

FactFinder:

I never said Clinton was a moral person. I haven't yet researched a politician that WAS. They ALL have sexual skeletons in their closets. Some were exposed without our tax dollars dedicated to the task [Livingston, Hyde, Gingrich, etc.] and some were exposed by DNA Thomas Jefferson WAS the father of Eston Hemmings.

Regarding Clinton being the most immoral of them all, I can't really comment. Kennedy was EXTREMELY promiscuous. Several others were as well. Again, our tax dollars weren't being used to dig up anyone/everyone that could testify in this regard.

Corrupt is quite another issue, but I see this again as a prerequisite for political office.

Will maintained that it was Clinton that put fellatio in the face of every American. I maintain that if ANYONE put fellatio in the face of every American, it was Ken Starr, and our tax dollars paid for this. *I* wasn't the one who defined fellatio as outside the realm of a sexual relationship. Newt Gingrich and those before him did that. In fact, many folks joked about Clinton using the "Newt" defense.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

You see, forum participants, Ken does not talk with people. Ken talks AT people.

You mean like what you're doing right now?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 10, 2000.

Gather around Forum Faithful! This morning we have Ken Decker, Ra, Hmmm, cpr, and Y2kPRO all here to further our spiritual development. Do not miss this rare opportunity in the Cult of Debonkers. Perhaps they will instruct us in the art of civil discourse and rid us of our sin of personal attacks as Ken opined in the beginning of this thread.

-- (Amen@halleluiah.com), April 10, 2000.

Anita,

I usually avoid discussions about our current president, but you do make valid points. American presidents have a long history of illicit behavior... some far more worrisome than sexual antics. As for Clinton, if he had a shred of integrity, he would have resigned his office. I'd expect the same from any corporate CEO who was found dallying with an intern. Should he have been impeached? I prefer to keep the bar of impeachment limited to "high crimes" lest it become an oft-used political weapon.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 2000.

Gather around Forum Faithful! This morning we have Ken Decker, Ra, Hmmm, cpr, and Y2kPRO all here to further our spiritual development. Do not miss this rare opportunity in the Cult of Debonkers. Perhaps they will instruct us in the art of civil discourse and rid us of our sin of personal attacks as Ken opined in the beginning of this thread.

The only problem with your premise that this forum is a "Cult of Debonkers" is the fact that people like you are welcome to post here, even under multiple fake names. Whoops. Try again. LOL.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 10, 2000.

Ken:

There was talk of impeaching Jefferson as well over the scandal that ensued during his administration. He went on to win the next election with a landslide victory.

Regarding CEO's, I include them in my comment regarding "Newt and those who came before him." That's actually where I learned about fellatio not being "covered" in the Good Old Boy network under "sexual relations." Just as in the Monica situation, these indiscretions are "not seen" by others in the workplace, and not discussed by the partners involved until something goes wrong. The line used all along is that consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want and the collective WE won't interfere. Companies don't get involved until something goes wrong...which usually involves one partner getting jilted. By jilted, I'll include both the standard definition of one partner grieving the unreturned emotional attachment perceived, in addition to the unreturned promotion, etc. promised. Once jilted, the jilted party either discusses the situation with a friend [as in the case of Monica] or seeks revenge [as in a sexual harrassment suit.]

SOME firms will transfer potential offenders to offices beyond reach of their victims, or transfer the potential victims to offices beyond reach of their offenders. Right after high-school I took a job as a secretary that had an educational assistance program to help me through University. A married man [from another floor even] spent an inordinate amount of time visiting in my office. I don't know if my boss turned him in or not, but one day months later, I learned that he'd been transferred to a remote location. I never saw him again. A female friend on my floor suggested that his transfer was because he was spending too much time "sniffing around in my office." [grin]

Sex in the office has been a humorous thing for me to watch, however. I had one boss who TOLD me that he was having an affair with another woman and that I was to give her free entrance to his office. He went on to divorce his wife, leave his 5 kids and marry this girl. Another boss for whom I worked went on to divorce HIS wife and marry a secretary from down the hall [who divorced HER husband]. Of course the downsides were also obvious. I was in a position to observe women entering a manager's office and come out crying on numerous occasions. They weren't crying because they'd been sexually harrassed. They were crying because they'd been told the relationship was over.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

Gotta love it. Ken observes that Will contributes nothing but personal attacks, and Will counters with ... personal attacks! Vaudeville lives.

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

We should all be grateful that Will Continue pays a visit now and then. A first class reminder of the low-rent doomer zombie mentality that we know so well. She gives clarity to the idiom trailer trash.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 10, 2000.

"You see, forum participants, Ken does not talk with people. Ken talks AT people."

You mean like what you're doing right now? No hmmm, she means that logic and rational bounces right off her and people like her. That's why the "at". As opposed to the good feeling one gets to be "with" people of like minds and patting each other on the back.

-- generic (one@trolls.R.us), April 10, 2000.