Extra Extra Read all about it!

Sources A

Sources B

This guy can't seem to get along with ANYONE!

-- x (x@x.x), April 24, 2000

Answers

Hey --x:

Although I have had my share of 'tiffs' with Hawk, I think anyone with the time and/or energy SHOULD READ the WHOLE thing. There was someone who even apologized to Hawk.

It would appear to me that although you state he cant get along with ANYONE, he DOES get along well. Surprising to me is they havent BANNED him yet cause of the FOWL (smile) language.

Hawk, how do you manage to stay aboard over there? (smile, but desiring an answer.)

Thought they were censored. Although I see some of the editing you did personally, how come they didnt call you on it yet?

Also, Hawk, why do you assume folks are drugs/alkies? Just wanting to know, and DONT start with me.....(grin)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Hmm... I thought the way to get banned from EZB was to show any sign of critical thinking.

As long as Hawk continues to say the EZB pledge of allegiance, he will be safe.

"I pledge allegiance to Ed Yourdon, of the endless state of preparation and to the Forum, for which he stands, one mindset, under God with passwords and privacy for all."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 2000.

Hey Kenny -- it's Monday. Don't forget you have some urinals to inspect.

-- (@ .), April 24, 2000.

oops!

Sources B

;)

-- x (x@x.x), April 24, 2000.

Hawk and I are not exactly old buddys but the only thing he was trying to do was bring some sanity to the usual group of folks (led by the Cascadian Twits, I might add) who see conspiracy in everything. He has some experience with digital photos and was pointing out things that he didn't see and should if the photos were faked. For this, he was roundly attacked. He responded to the attacks and things went on from there.

If he gets banned then he can still post here and I hope he will continue to do so.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

can I really be this brain-dead?

Yes I think so ;)

-- x (x@x.x), April 24, 2000.

Actually, Hawk was warned on this thread, after which he made the following request:

I was hoping we could clarify and post the forum policy with regard to "name-calling", because it seems to be sort of a double standard. IMO, the best thing to do would be to only refer to others by their user names. I started getting angry after I was called a "loser", a "moron", a "nazi boy", an "a**hole", etc. Is the policy that it is okay to call someone a moron, but not an a**hole? I do not mean to be a pain, but it seems like everyone gangs up on you unless you agree with them. Could you clarify the rules just a bit? Thanks. :)

Hmmm, asking for clarification of the rules. Where have we heard that before??

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 24, 2000.

Don't spend much time there but it seems to me that Vern17 is working the same side of the street as Hawk. The the Tim McVeigh site and other such gems.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

For a group who can't stand most of the folks over at ezboard you sure glean through the posts alot.

-- (...@...), April 24, 2000.

seldom, @, seldom:

But it is better than nothing when you are waiting on a delayed flight.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Ken, I like the proposed pledge. Have you considered taking the appropriate legal steps (e.g., copyright) to protect your rights to it as intellectual property. One never knows when an extra "publication" might come in handy. 8^)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 24, 2000.

Ken,

Re the EZ board, you said:

"I thought the way to get banned from EZB was to show any sign of critical thinking."

"...one mindset..."

Aside from certain conspiracy theorists and the banning of Y2K optimists, could you explain what you mean by these remarks?

Yes, I think the banning was wrong, and to the extent of that one issue did unfortunately leave the board with a single Y2K mindset -- for a while. But since Y2K is, in essence, no longer an issue in any case, may I assume you're probably referring only to the conspiracy theorists? If this is the case, could you tell me how many conspiracy theorists you know of who post there, and why you would generalize from your opinion on them to an opinion which encompasses the entire forum?

For now, Ken, your remarks seem quite empty.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

eve's been eating apples again

-- (go@head.eve), April 24, 2000.

Eve is the illegitimate child of Ashton & Leska.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 24, 2000.

Howdy Eve:

How is the little grass-snapper doing? I'm not really part of this discussion but you said "I thought the way to get banned from EZB was to show any sign of critical thinking." "...one mindset..."

and further Aside from certain conspiracy theorists and the banning of Y2K optimists, could you explain what you mean by these remarks?

My guess is that you missed Ken's point. He seems to be saying that people were banned for showing signs of critical thinking and not for being Y2K optimists. Lord knows Ken doesn't need anyone to speak for him :o). But that's how I read it.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

hey eve,

Just came back home & am quickly catching up.

I wanted to ask you if you read the Hawk threads before you questioned Ken.

{PS thanks for the thoughts the other day. Long term care is being taken care of, if you consider possibly 3 months long term}

-- flora (***@__._), April 24, 2000.

Lighten up, Hawk did no harm.

-- JOY (Tryon1ja@cmu.edu), April 24, 2000.

Oh, Hawk is totally a sweet guy. In fact, look at this little ditty that he wrote to me:

(snippet)********I don't know what your problem is, but you're a first-class fucking bitch, and I'm not suprised that you're sitting home alone with your computer taking your frustrations out on others. Stupid worthless cunt!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 21, 2000*******

Yeah...what a guy.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

JOY:

Did you mean to post that on the other board?

-- flora (***@__._), April 24, 2000.

"x" should be banned from both boards.

-- (x is @ loud-mouthed .idiot), April 24, 2000.

For a group who can't stand most of the folks over at ezboard you sure glean through the posts alot.

-- (...@...), April 24, 2000.

Welcome back Mr Erskine....

-- Mikey (w@s.and.is.a.loser), April 24, 2000.

Hi Z,

This little grass-snapper's doin' just fine! How's my mycotoxin mentor?

Anyway, I do appreciate your input on this, Z; but my problem is that Ken seemed to be unfairly labeling the entire forum membership. And the way you put it actually backs up my take on the comments -- you know, that you're automatically banned once you show signs of critical thinking. Of course, that's untrue; but maybe I misread this.

Hi, flora,

No, I hadn't read Hawk's remarks; I do intend to take a look, though. But I can't see how it would have had an effect on my reply to Ken because it seemed Ken's comments were aimed at the whole forum; I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

(And (re your mom), you're welcome! It was the least I could do; If I'd have had more info, I might have been able to give you more feedback. I hope she's doing ok.)

Hey, cin --

I'm so sorry you had to put up with that trash from him.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Cin:

Who threw the first page in your last fight with hawk? Please let me know what thread-I would like to decide the answer myself.

Thanks.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

I've seen that thread here:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0031EI

In my opinion, the response from Hawk was disgustingly inappropriate. It seems Hawk can dish out the jokes, but can't take them.

-- x (x@x.x), April 24, 2000.

cinloo=x@x.x,

pub5.ezboard.com

From cinloo

Hi Vern

Taking on the whole board today I see.

p.s. Todberg are you always so full of hatred and bitterness? Do you know any nice words? Have you ever used them? Can you please direct me to even ONE post where you had anything nice to say. I'll bet you would be the first to yell for Jesus to be crucified. How sad. But He would forgive you.

cinloo will express outraged surprise when the nutbag Todberg starts insulting her now, too. Cinloo is always in the vicinity of whatever shit stinks the worst...instigating, anthill-kicking, shit-stirring. Like her best friend, LL, her behavior invites troll fans, then she whines...waaaaah...wahhhhh....waaaah!! Ya baby!

-- (pffft@pffft.pffft), April 24, 2000.

oh brother

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 24, 2000.

Hi Eve,
I interpreted Ken's comments as aimed at those who administer the TB2000 forum at EZBoard, rather than at its general membership. Though I think Ken may have overstated things (perhaps deliberately, for effect), I'd say that even taken literally, it isn't really that much of a stretch.

I'm a little baffled by Hawk's being singled out for the "yellow card," given that he seemed to have received no less than he dished out (or should I say, "let fly"), and that his dishing out seemed to have been provoked. Possibly something had transpired earlier at EZBoard that I am not aware of.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 24, 2000.

p.s.

Youre actually blaming the behaviors of those psychos on ME?!

youre crazy AND deluded.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

I stay away from other people's fights on the fora, but I've never had a problem with Hawk, personally.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 24, 2000.

Here is the exchange:

Not sure but, JC Penney gave me my first credit card when no one else would, so I am a loyal customer. I will do my shopping there first, if I can.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

JC Penny is toast. WalMart and Target kicked their ass a long time ago.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 21, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Hawk, how do those wal-mart clothes fit ya? And have you patched that hole in the roof of your trailer yet? You'd better hurry, I smell rain. {giggle}=)

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Cin did not answer my last question because she knows she threw the first punch. Hey, Cin, maybe you were just "joking", but I was taught there is always truth in jest.

This thread does not denigrate if you do not call Hawk trailer trash. While I do not condone the level he brought it down to, hey, people react as they react when they are attacked.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

x = helen or suzy

-- (Told @ on. you), April 24, 2000.

Future Shock's right.

-- (Told @ on .you), April 24, 2000.

Hawk, you and I have had our differences but we seem to keep going and occasionally agree on something. I would personally be disappointed if you were no longer posting here at this forum. Why not tell those weird ass whackos at the EZ board to get fucked and spend your time here, where you can vent all you want and be appreciated at the same time. Personally, I would not want to be anywhere near those two major sub-human freaks, Ashton & Leska. No telling what you might catch from the Kascadian Kooks.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 24, 2000.

oh come on! people can call each other monkey spankers and this is different? well whatever. I used no vulgarities or obscenities. I WAS joking. x is right. hawk's reaction was WAY out there, hardly an equal reaction.

btw, thank you Eve

And I see netghost must be back around. Yes netghost, I am x AND LL AND Imso. whatever you say. (did you see that major eye roll?)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

David, I'll take your suggestion under advisement.

Eve, the "pledge" was meant as humor, not a scientific analysis of the composition of EZB. "Z" offers a correct interpretation of my comments. The structure and operation of EZB suggest a bias against critical thinking. In the Kafkaesque world of EZB, one can be banned without ever knowing why. The mysterious EZB sysops maintain "rules," but the rules are not given to those who must abide by them. The EZB sysops do not even bother with the pretense of open and objective discourse. From the beginning, they have made it clear it is a private club.

If you challenge the sysops or the sacred Ed Yourdon, you'll be banned. If you stray far from the pessimist ethos, you'll be ushered out. If you want, I'll describe the pessimist philosophy in detail, but it is quite apparent to any regular of TB 2000 or EZB.

Critical thinking forces us to challenge ideas... even when it places us directly against the accepted norms, the established order. An open forum tolerates the obligations of intellectual integrity. It allows me to challenge even the mighty sysops... and for my ideas and arguments to be judged on their merits.

On EZB, Flint is banned for being Flint. See the difference?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 2000.

Heres another one for you

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0031Iy

-- x (x@x.x), April 24, 2000.

x/helen/suzy

You are nothing but a fucking troublemaker. Push your fat ass away from the keyboard and do something constructive. Try hog slopping.

-- (Carl Sagan @ the ninth .hole), April 24, 2000.

x/cinlooo,

1. Pick out a poster who is known for descending into obscenities and/or personal attacks when feeling insulted.

2. Call that poster "trailer trash"

3. React with shocked horror when that poster calls you a 4 letter word.

OR

1. Find the nuttiest poster at EZBoard (arguably TodBerg)

2. Post this: "Todberg are you always so full of hatred and bitterness? Do you know any nice words? Have you ever used them? Can you please direct me to even ONE post where you had anything nice to say. I'll bet you would be the first to yell for Jesus to be crucified. How sad. But He would forgive you."

3. For extra points, cinlooo, what happens next? DUHHHHHH!!!!!!

You are not this stupid. And, you are OFTEN found in the middle of those kinds of threads. Waaaaah!! Waaaahhh!! Ya baby!

-- (pffft@pffft.pffft), April 24, 2000.

It seems to me that the same people suffering acute paranoia on the old TB forum have now relocated on EZ Board. They have always seen a conspiracy in every shadow, or in this case photo, a communist under every bush, chemtrails, and a white UN vehicle driving slowly by. The few posts I read, and it was just a few, seemed to condemn Hawk for suggesting they were wrong. Nuts abounding.

That board is so clunky and slow I get bored just fiddling back and forth with it.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

You know, I thought Hawk and I had been getting along well enough to joke around. Perhaps NOT; my mistake. I DO have a solution, however, I think. Hawk does not exist anymore in my world, and neither do YOU pffft you idiot.

btw...This board really sucks lately.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

but I was taught there is always truth in jest.

LOL! I think the word is sarcasm -- Heavy emphasis on biting their ass, and leaving no teeth marks :-)

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 24, 2000.

HEH HEH!!

YOU MUTHA FUCKAS!!

Didn't realize ya cared so much!

( J-u-u-u-s-t Kiddin! )

I love ya all, ya bunch of friggin retards!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

EXCEPT CINLOOO!

(just kiddin)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

"Oh boy, I can't wait! Isn't she a beautiful welfare-sucking crack whore? She sucks welfare faster than she can crank out illegitimate deformed babies. Now she can't get enough of that for sitting at home running a circus, so she decide to take the easy route and show her filthy crotch to half the population of Miami who have already seen it. In addition, she is going to sue the government for causing her so much emotional distress because she had to get rid of the crack while they were watching her house."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

-- -----q------ (outfishing@thepond.edu), April 24, 2000.

Hawk, in case you might have missed it, here's some more lauditory stuff from the Playboy thread...

Sheesh. Now someone is accusing Pastor JoseMiami of stalking Hawk and posting obscenities?? Fercryoutloud, some of you people are insane!

-- (brother@xx.xx), April 24, 2000.

Here dumbass, see for yourself. About halfway down.

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=3275. topic

Re: [SpinControl]Doctored Picture of Father and Elian

Hawk, you are a complete a**hole in my books.

JosiMiami

-- Hawk protector (@ .), April 24, 2000.

Hawk is sure getting a lot of coverage lately. We have Hawk Fan, HawK Protector, Hawk Admirer....

Hey Hawk, what's your secret?

-- Question Man (QMan@questions.rus), April 24, 2000.

Hawk protector (and Hawk needs your protection? I don't think so!),

Maybe you didn't notice the thread where Jose Miami apologized to Hawk for calling him a name? Hawk accepted the apology. I'd give ya a link, but I'm not keeping track of 'em. Ask Hawk next time you see him. You're out of line when you go around accusing obscene anonymous trolls of being known posters on EZBoard...'specially when the one you pick is one of the more sane, and civil, posters there.

-- (brother@xx.xx), April 24, 2000.

Maybe that's why Ra has been so obnoxious lately, because Hawk's getting all the limelight.

-- (tuttut@raisa.jerk), April 24, 2000.

-- Q-Man (qman@questions.rus), April 24, 2000.

Actually I was just trying to help some of those people over there get their head on straight. I'm not gonna push it because there are still some nice people there, but some of them got a pretty warped view of the world. Then there are a few bastards who are just downright rude sick motherfuckers if you dare disagree with them. I know that most of the trolls on this forum are just messin around, but over there they are serious. Many have a pretty narrow-minded twisted view of life, and there are several of them that use the old gang mentality and team up on ya. That's how I got busted, they figured it was easier to blame me instead of about 5 or 10 other dudes that started getting rude. Oh well, I don't give a shit, if they only want people to agree with everything they say they should just buy a parrot or a tape recorder or something!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

Hey, I haven't been posting at all today, been at work. I have no idea who's doing that shit but it ain't me. Jose Miami is one hot headed sonofabitch pastor though, lemme tell ya. I hadn't said a fricking thing to that psycho, and out of the blue he calls me an asshole. Then he ass kisses the sysops and everybody else so that I was the one who got blamed. What I do on this board shouldn't have anything to do with their board, that's why they split!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

Hey, Q-Man, you forgot this one...

The only thing that disappointed me about the hostage rescue was that they didnt bust up some up those law-breaking spics when the opportunity was available.

Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 24, 2000.

Sifting, are _you_ Manny?

Sifting, you've got to be either Hawk or Ra. I agree that you're too eloquent to be Manny.

Q-man (qman@insults.rus), April 24, 2000.

-- (holy@cow.patty), April 24, 2000.

Hi Dave,

You said, about Ken's comments...

[I'd say that even taken literally, it isn't really that much of a stretch.]

Well, I have to take issue with that. Sure, the EZ forum may have a few "problem posters" but in my experience, the vast majority are decent, intelligent, interesting folks who have heated disagreements on all kinds of issues. So, I'm at a loss as to what you're referring here.

Personally, I've had no problems with Hawk. He and I had an argument or two, a week or so ago, but it was all very civil. And I don't recall ever seeing him hurl insults other than as a reaction to others'. But, geez...I really don't think cin deserved that stuff he threw at her after what she said. I mean, there was so much imbalance there that the whole point was lost.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Ken,

With respect to the Y2K issue and the bannings I agree with practically your entire post. But now that Y2K is over...specifically, with respect to which other issue(s) are we supposed to be "toeing the line" on?

Re your point on the "pessimists": Once or twice I jumped head first in the middle of a conspiracy theorists' (I assume this is what you mean by the pessimists) thread over there and took them to task on all kinds of points. The discussion was civil, and I received no subsequent flak over it from Ed or the sysops -- not even a hint of anything.

So, with respect to non-Y2K issues -- I guess I'm still not quite sure where you're coming from yet, Ken.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Thanks for being honest Eve, you are a decent woman. :-)

I usually try to react to the comments, not the person. All of us have our bad days, so I don't think it's right to develop a hatred for someone based on a couple of isolated disagreements or conflicts. There are only maybe one or two people on this forum who I haven't been able to get to show their human side, and reveal that they don't really mean to be mean. As for cinlooo, well, we go way back. She knows she's not mean, she just enjoys being a snot, and she started needling me a long time ago, but I forgive her. There are several hard cases over on EZ that I haven't been able to break yet, because they won't let me go far enough to show them themselves. I'm glad that you don't let yourself get sucked in to some of their narrow-minded views. Good day. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

You're a sick manipulative control-freak fuckwad, Hawk. It's funny watching you turn to sugary words when you think you've finaly got your way.

-- Woman (abused@by.hawk), April 24, 2000.

Eve, you're on the inside looking out. As a member of the private club, I hardly expect you to provide an objective analysis of the members. Your participation is a tacit approval of not only the other members, but of the structure of EZB.

Despite your comments, I hardly think EZB would ever tolerate genuine dissent. Question the motives or actions of Ed Yourdon and find out how long you last. Your closed forum has its sacred cows... and the forum sysops will protect them.

The real sacred cow on EZB is... optimism. From my cursory observation, the continuing theme is, "What is wrong with our world." It really doesn't matter what particular subject area you choose. In economics, what is wrong with the Federal Reserve and fiat money. In politics, what is wrong with Clinton, Reno, etc. In science, what is wrong with genetic engineering or global warming. In society, what is wrong with modern culture. A group of pampered individuals are living in the richest country on earth (or at least the first world) and sitting around whining about how terrible life is. And who are afraid to allow open discourse.

Sad.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 2000.

Oooooooooooh, dem's fightin words, bitch!! LOL!!!

I don't think you are even a woman, probably just one of the assholes from sleazy. But hey, I'm a fair guy, let's get to the bottom of this and see who the manipulative one really is. Show us you real name, there's no need to hide if "I" abused "YOU" is there? We'll dig up the posts in question and do a little critiquing. How about it? I doubt that you will because you're just a lying sack o' shit, aren't you? :)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000.

Well, I have to take issue with that. Sure, the EZ forum may have a few "problem posters" but in my experience, the vast majority are decent, intelligent, interesting folks who have heated disagreements on all kinds of issues. So, I'm at a loss as to what you're referring here.

Hi Eve,
I interpreted Ken's comments as lampooning not the EZBoard community, but Ed and his sysops for their arbitrary enforcement of rules that they show great reluctance to divulge, and for their banning of certain individuals apparently on no other basis than ideological differences. Sure, the "pledge" may be an exaggeration in some respects, but I think it effectively captures the spirit in which the EZBoard forum was founded and is administered.

I haven't formed an opinion regarding "toeing the line," as I'm not a regular lurker on EZBoard. But I see that Ken has spoken further on this matter.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 24, 2000.

I'm not posting as "x' and I didn't start this thread.

cheers

-- helen (home@the.farm), April 24, 2000.

Your participation is a tacit approval of not only the other members, but of the structure of EZB.

That's a bizarre twist of logic. I'm posting here, and I don't approve of all the other members. Do you?

-- (whu?@really?...), April 25, 2000.

Consider the difference between a public gathering and a private club. If I go to a public meeting, I may (or may not) have anything in common with others attending. If a group of people start bickering a few rows over, it may be about a subject I am interested in. Like this forum, I can sit and listen, join the conversation or simply leave.

If I go to a private club with exclusive membership rules, I am choosing to join a specific group in a specific activity. If I join a country club that excludes African-Americans, I am tacitly supporting the policy by maintaining my membership in the club. The act of joining EZB acknowledges the forum structure of anonymous sysops operating under hidden rules. To accept entry is to accept the rules.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Ken, Bullshit! Is that all you have to offer?

-- I simply (Don't@like.fools), April 25, 2000.

Hawk,

I have got to hand it to ya dude,you make me roll.Livin' by the rule: If they don't start no shit there won't be any shit.Maybe wev'e bumped heads once, but you pressin' the SLEZ is priceless.

Ken,

"The real sacred cow on EZB is... optimism. From my cursory observation, the continuing theme is, "What is wrong with our world." It really doesn't matter what particular subject area you choose. In economics, what is wrong with the Federal Reserve and fiat money. In politics, what is wrong with Clinton, Reno, etc. In science, what is wrong with genetic engineering or global warming. In society, what is wrong with modern culture. A group of pampered individuals are living in the richest country on earth (or at least the first world) and sitting around whining about how terrible life is. And who are afraid to allow open discourse."

I would like to expound on this in my view.

It really is allright to challenge the aforementioned,it should be challenged and needs to be challenged,to accept these things blindly is to put a different set of blinders on and ignore the negatives that exist within all positives,just as positives exist within negatives.It is not allowing open discourse that blinds us all.

David L,

It is impossible to "toe the line" at SLEZ,because of the simple fact that the rules are never stated,thay make them up as they go,like they are some kind of whimsical gods.So you never know exactly what is ok and what is not,if you want to hang around you will be an agreeer.(sp)

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 25, 2000.

Hawk, You said,

Oh well, I don't give a shit, if they only want people to agree with everything they say they should just buy a parrot or a tape recorder or something!

Is this really you, or do you have an imposter here? Weren't you saying what a great place EZ was a couple months ago, rational discourse and all? Could you at least throw in a few expletives so I'll know it's really you?

Anyway, good to have you here, ESPECIALLY when you're not in "fuck shit crap" mode.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 25, 2000.

Mornin' Hawk,

Thanks for your kind words.

You know, Hawk, actually I've always had a soft spot in my heart for you ever since you (with some help from Diane) stepped in and pulled bardou and I apart by the hair from our brawl on an old thread -- one of those times where I had let my emotions get the best of me.

(nothin' romantic here, folks -- so don'tcha start no rumors...) :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Thanks Eve. Though I haven't read all of your posts, I've read enough to know that you don't need any help defending yourself, you are one of God's best students, a kind and gentle soul. Even though you were being attacked, you stood your ground. I only reminded you that you needn't let it upset you. Bardou did not have the courage to trust her soul, so she joined the mob of the narrow-minded, and was completely wrong to call you naive. In my view, you are the farthest thing from naive, you are enlightened. Bless your heart. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 25, 2000.

Ken,

You said,

[Eve, you're on the inside looking out. As a member of the private club, I hardly expect you to provide an objective analysis of the members. Your participation is a tacit approval of not only the other members, but of the structure of EZB.]

I'm there for spirited debate, amongst friends. I'm here for the same reason. And, for the most part, this is what I've experienced -- in both forums. So, why would I even be interested in "objectively analyzing" the members? I approve or disapprove of the individual members as I get to know them.

I disapproved of the the way certain people were banned. But I stay involved because I enjoy it immensely, as I enjoy it here. Of course I don't like the fact that Flint, Hoff, Jonathan and Patricia (I'm not sure who else) were banned; I think that was wrong. But I choose not to take it to the level of sacrificing the relationships I have with my friends there and all the wonderful repartee and debate I have with them.

You said:

[Despite your comments, I hardly think EZB would ever tolerate genuine dissent. Question the motives or actions of Ed Yourdon and find out how long you last. Your closed forum has its sacred cows... and the forum sysops will protect them.]

Y2K aside -- can you give me an example of what you mean here?

You said,

[the continuing theme is, "What is wrong with our world." ]

I don't see what the problem is here. For the moment, let's assume you're correct. If it encourages debate -- that's a good thing, right? Isn't that what these forums should be all about?

You said,

[A group of pampered individuals are living in the richest country on earth (or at least the first world) and sitting around whining about how terrible life is.]

Oh, it's really quite the contrary -- life can always be even better than it is. So if people seem to be complaining about something -- I would assume that for the most part that would be with an eye towards debating how that something could be improved. You know -- they would be looking for people with opposing views who might add some illuminating angles to the issue -- something not previously considered. I know that this is what I would hope for, to the extent that I post something "negative." So I'm sure many others view it the same way.

You said,

[ And who are afraid to allow open discourse.]

Y2K aside -- what do you mean by this? Could you give me an example or two?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Oh, Hawk -- this is too much for me! You're so sweet...thank you. You know if you keep this up, I won't even be able to bring myself to argue with you anymore. :)

(If there are any potential flamers out there who are just about ready to say "get a room already" or some such thing -- please stifle it for a while...ok? I'm havin' a good moment right now.) :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

eve:

You are most amazingly, determinedly impenetrable. You keep saying, in essence:

"Yes, when they added 2+2 and got 17, they were wrong. How many times do I have to agree they were wrong? Now that's out of the way (and totally forgotten), I simply can't for the life of me understand what you could possibly mean when you say they do not add correctly. Could you give me an example? Otherwise, I just don't understand what you're talking about."

Your precious "spirited debate among friends" is, as I keep trying to tell you, very much like a debate among white men (nobody else allowed in) about how to deal with the "nigger problem." And you're right, those white men can have a spirited debate, so long as they agree that we have "niggers", and that those niggers pose a problem, for which there is a "solution" they find acceptable. Can't you understand that by controlling club membership, you constrain the debate unreasonably?

You write, "they would be looking for people with opposing views who might add some illuminating angles to the issue." Here you are entirely correct. They DID look for such people, who DID add illuminating angles. And they BANNED them! Sheesh!

"[ And who are afraid to allow open discourse.]

Y2K aside -- what do you mean by this? Could you give me an example or two?"

eve, you yourself listed FOUR examples -- me, Patricia, Hoff and Jonathan. How many more do you want? I'm quite sure that if Decker or any of the regular posters to any "enemy" forum were to bother trying, you'd have a much longer list of examples. Now, what do all these people have in common? Might I suggest that, y2k aside, they engage in critical thinking, they don't jump to conclusions, they view ALL presented "evidence" skeptically, they look for most reasonable rather than worst case explanations, and so on. They are not paranoid. And they were all CORRECT about y2k.

Logically, you are demanding that Ken provide, as illustrations, a list of posts the censors DO NOT PERMIT to be made. And then you turn around and say that since there aren't any such posts over there, Ken doesn't have any evidence!

"[the continuing theme is, "What is wrong with our world." ]

I don't see what the problem is here. For the moment, let's assume you're correct. If it encourages debate -- that's a good thing, right? Isn't that what these forums should be all about?"

eve, with all due respect, WHAT debate? Where are the people who do NOT think things are so wrong with the world? Where are those who regard problems as minor, inevitable, soluable, and mostly unintentional? THESE are the people who make any such debate properly focused and complete. And these are exactly the voices the censors have silenced. If you continue to refuse to see this, don't blame Ken.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.

Ken and Flint will not be happy until the posting standards of EZ Board are reduced to those we see here.

-- (@ .), April 25, 2000.

Flint,

Flint,

You said,

[Can't you understand that by controlling club membership, you constrain the debate unreasonably?]

Through the banning, the EZ Board absolutely constrained debate in two ways: First, by eliminating optimistic viewpoints on Y2K. And second, by silencing your voices with respect to everything else you might have contributed on other issues.

Now, with respect to the lasting effects this would have on the conspiracy theorist/pessimist element in the EZ Board -- I agree with you. If you go to those threads, you won't see much debate. The ones I've seen are more like a social gathering.

But I really feel that your argument stops dead in its tracks right there. What I've experienced there (as I've detailed numerous times -- I'm just too tired to do it again right now) is diametrically opposed to the picture you're trying to paint.

You said,

[Now, what do all these people (the banned posters) have in common? Might I suggest that, y2k aside, they engage in critical thinking, they don't jump to conclusions, they view ALL presented "evidence" skeptically, they look for most reasonable rather than worst case explanations, and so on. They are not paranoid. And they were all CORRECT about y2k.]

Absolutely! However (career pessimists aside), you seem to not want to address the possibility that hundreds of others -- members of EZ -- more or less fit these categories as well -- with the exception that the majority were probably wrong about Y2K. You can certainly have rational, reasonable methods of thinking and still arrive at an incorrect conclusion about something, you know.

You said,

[Logically, you are demanding that Ken provide, as illustrations, a list of posts the censors DO NOT PERMIT to be made. And then you turn around and say that since there aren't any such posts over there, Ken doesn't have any evidence!]

Oh, not at all! All you have to do is look at what's there right now. Look past the pessimists, Flint. Others exist there, too. And, whether you believe it or refuse to -- they're just like you and me -- you know -- as different as night and day in the details, but united in the use of that which makes us human -- their rarional faculty.

You said,

[WHAT debate?]

Now, I haven't done any scientific analysis of the forum, but I can tell you that I love debate. And it's there; I've immersed myself in it. And if it were to disappear over there, -- as much as I love the people -- my visits would drop precipitously. I'd still be very interested in the social aspect, but I think chatrooms are much better suited for that. I presume most others would feel the same way.

You said,

[THESE are the people who make any such debate properly focused and complete. And these are exactly the voices the censors have silenced.]

I'd agree with this only if it were restated, such as in the following way:

"These are among the people who make debates properly focused and complete. And the censors have silenced their voices."

That all being said...one more time, Flint -- the banning of you guys was wrong -- really tragic. And I will never forget it. If you'll recall (maybe you didn't read it), I stood up and asked them to keep you; that they should not silence your voice. I don't know -- maybe I'm even risking my membership in coming over here and talking about how wrong I think this was. I really hope that wouldn't happen, but if it does...well, so be it. I love this place too, you know.

But, as horrible your experience was -- please don't expect me to get up and walk away from that fascinating little piece of my life in protest over your situation. I know that most of the rest of you have chosen differently, and I respect your choices. I hope y'all would accept, though, that much as you might disagree -- some might conclude that another type of response is not necessarily unreasonable.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Oops...Flint -- sorry about calling your name twice! I know that once would normally have done the trick, although -- if you'd been napping, the second might have served a purpose in any case...:)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Eve,

Flint is quite correct... you are dogged in your determination not to acknowledge our position. Let me rephrase your argument using Flint's example:

"I feel terrible that my private club excludes blacks like you and Flint. But you can't really expect me to give up my friends and sparkling conversations over a teensy little problem like racism. Just because I belong to the club doesn't make ME a racist. I do say 'Hello' every time I cross the tracks and see you folks."

This is a simple matter, Eve, a matter of values. My values would not allow me to join or remain in EZB. Yours do. As a libertarian (of sorts) I support your right to engage in behaviors I might find repugnant. No amount of intellectual mincing or prancing will make EZB more palatable... at least to Flint or I.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

This is only an observation, not what I represent.

I don't really think they were banned because of race, or wealth or gender or disabilities, but were banned for behavior. Big difference. Apples and oranges.

Now, just what behavior they found to be offensive is another issue. I think THE issue relevant here.

-- x (x@x.x), April 25, 2000.

Along those same lines, and amusingly, eve goes on to say:

"Besides, the fact that our club doesn't allow blacks has *no effect at all* on our discussions of topics like crime, welfare, public schooling, career paths, drugs, or teen pregnancy. I honestly can't see what earthly difference our membership policies could make..."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.

Eve is a sweet woman, perfect example of what glues this society together, isn't she? She gets to socialize with anyone she wants, and won't be made to feel unwanted anywhere.

All it takes is a little diplomacy, a wilingness to close your eyes to unfairness, and a sweet batting of eyelashes.

There there now Flint and Ken, all's not so bad in the world. Learn to get along, won't you?

-- (y@x.x), April 25, 2000.

x, Technically I never found out if I was banned or not. I simply refused to apply for a password. I do agree that we really don't know why Flint, Hoff, Latimer and others were banned, though it does make for interesting speculation.

Flint, good addition. Eve reminds me of one of the southern belles who talks about the "darkies" without ever thinking she's racist.

y, in fairness, I really don't see Eve batting her eyelashes or using any feminine wiles. When she first arrived on TB 2000, she whisked in on a broom. I recall, with some amusement, her assigning me a reading list in economics. I'm still curious as to how many undergraduate courses in econ she has taught to date. (chuckle)

Eve seems relatively intelligent and modestly well read. Despite this, I really think she doesn't get it. Perhaps Eve is used to being the smartest person in her social circle and simply not used to having anyone challenge her rather spongy thinking.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Ken and x,

You two would make the perfect couple. Two arrogant, ugly, nasty, peeons, who can't get the message that noone likes either one of you.

-- (You @ people .suck!), April 25, 2000.

In my view, "x"'s observation hits the mark; the analogy to class discrimination doesn't hold up.

Here's a better analogy. Person A periodically invites a circle of acquaintances to A's house. Eventually, Persons B, C, D and E find themselves no longer invited to A's gatherings. Conferring, they surmise that it may be due to each of them having expressed an opinion in A's presence with which A took issue.

Person F, on good terms with each of B through E, nonetheless decides to continue accepting A's invitations, largely because F rarely gets to see Persons G through J outside of A's gatherings. Person K, faced with the same dilemma as F, elects to decline A's subsequent invitations.

My view is that neither F nor K has made an "immoral" decision, they simply made "different" decisions.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 25, 2000.

David L:

Could you try that again. This time use the Cyrillic alphabet. It will be easier to follow :o).. Maybe.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

It's spelled "peon."

David... egads, man. Let's improve your analogy. Ed Yourdon hosts a Y2K symposium. It is open to the public. In the middle of the symposium, Yourdon leaves and chooses a few students to serve as "moderators." Please note, the symposium is being held in a public building at public expense. The new "moderators" openly encourage vicious personal attacks on the small minority of students who disagree with Yourdon and his theories on Y2K. Some of the dissenting students are quite polite and tolerant. Some become equally nasty.

Late in the debate, suddenly Yourdon is proven wrong... completely wrong. He closes the symposium and immediately opens another, this time in a private room. At first, Yourdon says disruptive students will be thrown out. Then, we learn that some students will not be given the chance... they are simply denied entry. When they ask why, they receive no answer.

Of course, the dissenting students feel somewhat vindicated... after all, they were right about Y2K. Most lose interest and wander away. A few stay in a public room to continue the discussion.

Now, one student wanders from the private club into the public forum. As a matter of principle, she is tolerated though her membership in the private social club is not widely admired. Why?

Perhaps there are some lingering ill feelings towards her friends at the social club. I think it more a philosophical issue. The members over at Club Yourdon have turned their back on open discourse. In the words of Flint, they have become a church... while this has remained a school. I disagree with the theology of the Church of Yourdon, though I respect Eve's right to attend... whatever the reason. And I will continue to exercise my right to disapprove, be it of her involvement or the Church itself.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Ken:

"And I will continue to exercise my right to disapprove, be it of her involvement or the Church itself."

As you know, I've posted several times on EZBOARD myself. If you've read a few other threads HERE, you might also know that, although not a Christian, I attended some youth group activities at a church with friends who were. This act of attending neither made me a Christian, nor did the thoughts/actions expressed at the youth group functions change my mind in any way. Even using Flint's example of racism, the church at which I attended the youth group activities refused to go along with the minister's recommendation on how to treat "new" neighbors. *I* agreed with the minister. Had I not been willing to associate with folks of another belief, they may never have known that their beliefs weren't accepted by ALL. Closed systems suffer from that syndrome.

I don't see EZBOARD as a closed system yet, although I see it moving in that direction as dissenters tire of constantly swimming upstream. I would have discontinued my youth group activities had I been in a position where I was exposed to the congregational majority. I was not. Eve isn't either. She chooses to engage only in the conversations of which the True Believers have little interest.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

I am NOT ugly! ;0)

And I think you-people-suck has a bit of a crush, wouldn't you say?

-- x (x@x.x), April 25, 2000.

I disagree with the theology of the Church of Yourdon, though I respect Eve's right to attend... whatever the reason. And I will continue to exercise my right to disapprove, be it of her involvement or the Church itself.

No argument, Ken. My analogy was constructed solely to suggest that EZBoard policy is not comparable to class discrimination.

"x@x.x", I wonder whether You@people.suck!'s remarks were meant to refer to y@x.x rather than you. I also wonder why x@y.y and y@y.y haven't shown up.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 25, 2000.

Hi Dave,

Good analogy; thanks for jumping in.

Ken,

With all due respect, your analogy appears to be essentially Dave's, all dressed up and with a church thrown in.

Ken, please explain to me how I could belong to a church if Im not interested in Y2K anymore, I dont discuss it with anyone there anymore, there are practically no such threads there anymore, its easy for anyone to avoid the pessimist threads, and I dont even know what else Ed believes in?

Further, your analogy of a racial exclusion is inapplicable. The reason is that we're not speaking of physical characteristics here. I think that part of your confusion on this lies in the fact that people were banned. But people were banned not because of some inherited characteristic. They were banned (apparently unjustifiably) because of their opinions and/or behavior.

It seems that Ed didn't like their opinions (and/or behavior?), but realized that, for all practical purposes, it was impossible to censor just that factor alone. So, he probably felt he had no choice but to throw the baby (i.e., the acceptable, non-Y2K part of Flint, Patricia, et. al.) out with the bathwater (their opinions on Y2K). And thus we observe Flint being banned, even though it was really only his opinion that was censored. Ed may very well regret that the rest of Flint (as well as the others, of course) had to be kept out as well.

Remember, Kenpeople are banned; opinions are censored. But given the constraints on Ed here, I think that people were banned only because their opinions were censored. And the reason for this is that Ed saw no practical way to sever the two.

Thus, my conclusion: Racial analogy? No way!

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

OK ol' grass snapper:

Explain me. No, that is too difficult. I am not banned. My posts were just deleted. I don't read the board much anymore and I don't post there. They may no longer be deleted. Makes no difference. The effect is the same. How does this relate to your argument. Or Ed's statement that banning people like Hawk could lead to a Big Brother impression [picked that one up in a airport waiting for a delayed flight; just amusing myself]; I think that the impression is there; at least for me. I got myself in trouble when I pointed-out to Ed that his formula wouldn't lead to the formation of a community but to the formation of a cult. Probably, worse, when I pointed-out to a poster there, that, at the international level, I was more widely known than Ed. That got some responses [probably true, but who cares, this is not a pissing contest].

So go explain.

Best wish

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

I knew that until recently the majority of the people over at EZ were conservatives, with a good portion of them being more extreme right-wingers, some even militantly so. Their true colors came out last weekend during the Elian rescue. Perhaps it is just because they speak louder and more violently, but the overwhelming force on that board now are extreme haters of the current administration, a sort of Rush Limbaugh fan club. They even had a recent thread admitting that Rush sounded just like them. IMO, that is hardly something to be proud of. Some of the mellower participants are afraid to speak, and some who use to be more middle of the road now feel that they too need to exhibit extreme intolerance in order to be part of the gang. The depth of subjects that interest them have narrowed, as have their minds, and the number of participants. They will continue to lose participation and become a cult, unless they begin to open their hearts and open their minds. I personally have nothing against Ed Yourdon, I think he is an honorable man. I don't think he expected his original forum to turn into a hate club, and that is why he started a separate one for his own interests.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 25, 2000.

OK folks,

You are now engaged in quibbling. The racial analogy was imperfect, as was David's, as is any analogy an imperfect reflection of fact. Participation in EZB require more than simply wandering in. It requires one to request a password and pass some secret litmus test. Anita may be correct. EZB may not be a totally closed system yet, but give it time. Remember EZB morphed from the original TB 2000. It's pretty easy to discern the pattern.

There is a pattern of exclusion, only the discrimination is not so obvious as race or gender. The clear common demoninator is a matter of personality... while not as obvious as skin color, still a distinguishing factor. Flint, Hoff, Latimer, etc., were all relentless rationalists. They (and others) deconstructed the flawed arguments of the Y2K pessimists time and again.

We make people uncomfortable... particularly those who are not used to have their argument, logic or data challenged. Flint called it "kicking the anthill" but it's really just a incurable desire to find the facts. This particular "trait" is not an "opinion" or a "behavior." I contend this is an inherent part of my personality.

Aside from my obvious status on the EZB blacklist, I simply have chosen not to ask for access to EZB. Why? I'm really not interested in a social club, particularly with some of the individuals I bumped heads with last year. I AM interested in legitimate intellectual discourse. A closed environment cannot provide a suitable forum, particularly when individuals are excluded on an arbitrary basis. As an aside, I think it's particularly wrong-headed to exclude those individuals who demonstrated the greatest critical thinking skills during the earlier debate. (Take your bow, Flint.)

As for you, Eve, I just don't think any of this is sinking in. Yourdon's Church is pessimism about the modern world. It may not exist on every thread, but it is the theology of EZB. Big business sucks. Government sucks. Clinton sucks. The Federal Reserve sucks. The stock market sucks. Chemtrails suck. Modern culture sucks. Why did Ed write a book, make a video and launch his little MLM? Is he a profiteer or a noveau survivalist? Why does Yourdon, a "prominent" IT guru, have an obscure little forum for a small group of disaffected, disgruntled, middle-class white Americans? I can't see any money in it... so I'm leaning towards the survivalist answer.

Yourdon can exclude whoever he wants. It's a private club... but I don't buy your contorted logic. Flint and others were never given the chance to even participate on EZB. I don't think the "ban" had anything to do with opinions... I think Yourdon wants a cult of personality. He has a group of sysops that revere him. He has a board full of people ready to analyze photographs of Elian Gonzales for traces of "doctoring" or signs of "drugs." (laughter)

What Yourdon and his minions banned from EZB was not people, opinions or data... it was critical thinking. A philosophy, the scientific method, was outlawed. Intellectual integrity was subordinated to good social relations. It's a tragic flaw, Eve, but I won't belong to any group that asks me to check my brain at the door.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Decker, I agree with your observation about the way many at EZ react to critical thinking, particularly if it contradicts what they want to believe, based on emotionally distorted perceptions. I was objectively trying to show them that it was unrealistic to think the photo was doctored. The premise for altering the photo simply didn't exist, but what did exist was evidence that it did not appear to be manipluated. Of course that wasn't what they wanted to hear, and I caught hell for even suggesting the truth. (which BTW, was eventually proven to be the truth about all of the photos)

On the other hand, I think some on this forum have been more intolerant of "imaginative" thinking. I like to feel that it is okay to talk about ideas and possibilities. Just because there is no proof that something is possible, doesn't mean it is impossible, especially if there is no proof that it is definitely not possible.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 26, 2000.

Ken,

You said,

[The racial analogy was imperfect,...]

Let the reader judge whether it was instead nonexistent.

Next...on the one hand you speak of "secret litmus tests" and exclusions on an "arbitrary basis" while on the other hand you appear to know full well why thay were banned, through such comments as "clear common denominator," they "were all relentless rationalists" who demonstrated "the greatest critical thinking skills, " etc. Maybe if I knew which side of this point you were really on, Ken, I'd at least have one more piece of background on your position.

You say that,

[There is a pattern of exclusion, only the discrimination is not so obvious as race or gender. The clear common demoninator is a matter of personality... while not as obvious as skin color, still a distinguishing factor. Flint, Hoff, Latimer, etc., were all relentless rationalists. They (and others) deconstructed the flawed arguments of the Y2K pessimists time and again.]

Yes -- they were correct on Y2K. That's fine, but what does this have to do with their methods of thinking being necessarily superior to others' who were incorrect? Personally, I think they all happen to be intelligent people, but you have a non sequitur here.

You said,

[We make people uncomfortable... particularly those who are not used to have their argument, logic or data challenged...it's really just an incurable desire to find the facts.]

That's fine for you. And others operate the same way -- you'll find many at EZ, as well as here.

You said,

[ A closed environment cannot provide a suitable forum, particularly when individuals are excluded on an arbitrary basis.]

If the only thing closed off is Y2K optimism, then with respect to every other issue...you'd have to be wrong.

You said,

[ As an aside, I think it's particularly wrong-headed to exclude those individuals who demonstrated the greatest critical thinking skills during the earlier debate. (Take your bow, Flint.) ]

But of course they "demonstrated the greatest critical thinking skills." After all, they agreed with you. (Mona Lisa smile)

You said,

[As for you, Eve, I just don't think any of this is sinking in...]

Of course it's not sinking in. I really don't mean to sound offensive, Ken, but I never allow arbitrary assertions, random pejorative remarks, wild guesses, and speculative categorizations to sink in unless they're backed up by something tangible.

Re your comments later in that same paragraph: And yes, there's pessimism there. But, so what? I stepped in once and challenged it all on a thread and it was a great learning experience for all of us (lots of history and Constitutional law, for example) and very civil.

You said,

[What Yourdon and his minions banned from EZB was not people, opinions or data... it was critical thinking...A philosophy, the scientific method, was outlawed. Intellectual integrity was subordinated to good social relations. It's a tragic flaw, Eve, but I won't belong to any group that asks me to check my brain at the door.]

I'm sorry, Ken, but you just lose credibility with baseless, off-the-wall remarks like these. By the way, speaking of church -- that last phrase the Protestants and Catholics use against each other. Hmmm...this, taken together with much of the other "doctrine" you've repeated...you know, I think I am starting to see a "church" of sorts materializing...(Cheshire cat grin)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

Eve,

First, spare us the cut and paste formatting. I trust most folks have enough short term memory to remember what I said, or can scroll up the thread if they have a question. It's annoying and only makes the writing look as petty as it sounds.

I am clearly speculating about the reason Flint et al were banned. For all I know, Yourdon and the new sysops have some unusual bias against articulate middle-aged white men.

Yes, the folks on the "black list" were all right about Y2K. Why? I suggest they did a better job of analyzing the available data and filtering personal biases. They also challenged data, particularly from potentially biased secondary sources like Y2Knewswire. Frankly, they just did a better job... in my opinion.

I will grant that this may have been an fluke. Flint, Hoff, Latimer, etc. may all be raving lunatics who just happened to stumble on the "magic" answer for Y2K. Having read their work for over a year, I think their posts show a greater clarity of thought and command of logic than most of the artists formerly known as Y2K pessimists. Again, this is an opinion, Eve..

That EZB chooses to exclude some people for unknown reasons is not an arbitrary assertion. It is a provable fact. You choose to participate in EZB and I do not. This is also a provable fact.

Most of the rest is just opinion. My opinion of EZB, its founder, sysops and some regular members began forming last year. I do not think highly of Ed Yourdon, Russ Lipton, Diane Squire, "Old Git," "Invar," "Will Continue," etc. As a matter or personal preference, I simply don't socialize with people I don't particularly like or repsect.

As a matter of principle, I avoid private clubs with exclusive membership requirements. I find it rather perverse to deny people membership without letting anyone know what the membership requiremens are.

But as long as EZB is a private organization absent any public support, I have no quarrel with it. I don't have a particular bone to pick with you... despite your smug attitude and fuzzy logic. Oh, and if your bored... try to have this same conversation about EZB. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 26, 2000.

Hi Z,

I'm sorry you had to put up with this. Can you give me some more information? Were your posts deleted other than for the reasons you just gave? Were they all being deleted? What types of responses did you get regarding your renown?

Was the issue about Hawk related to his language or his ideas?

Z, in your closing I couldn't help but notice you gave me just one "Best wish" instead of your usual "Best wishes." Hopefully it was just a typo and it doesn't mean we're now on the "outs." (women notice the little things, ya know...) :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

Eve,

Sorry if my last point was not clear... I meant you should try to have this same conversation over on EZB. Of course, I doubt you'll find any regular members who actually want to talk about the structure of EZB or the conduct of Ed Yourdon or the forum sysops.... And I am sure "Z" appreciates your concern, but I'll wager he's enjoyed the exchange thus far.

Wow... did a MAN just notice a detail! You MUST explain this notion that women are more likely to notice details... of course, I stand ready to read your citations from professional journals. I know how picky you are about standards of data.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 26, 2000.

Ken,

Thanks for clearing up the first point. I'd kinda gathered that's where you were coming from.

As to your last point...well...um...touche. :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

Ken,

Oh yes...I'd wanted to respond to your first point. You know, I agree with you here. After all I've heard, it's difficult to imagine conversations of this nature (other than mundane issues) taking place over there.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

Hawk, like *you* should be preaching about tolerance. What a load of crap.

-- x (x@x.x), April 26, 2000.

"Was the issue about Hawk related to his language or his ideas?"

Why don't you read the links given in the original post of this thread and tell us what you think?

-- (y@x.x), April 26, 2000.

I think the issue was neither, but rather Hawk's reaction to others and how it far surpasses the reaction that would be considered normalcy. In other words, he over-reacts.

In all fairness in regards to those threads on EZ board, I do have to concur that he was obviously riled by the others. And again of course, over-reacted and resorted to obscenities.

-- x (x@x.x), April 26, 2000.

I have little tolerance for intolerance, and that is why I react the way I do. Someone else is being inolerant first before I become intolerant to them.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 26, 2000.

Hawk:

Your claim of "intolerance" seems based on two factors:

1) Imaginative proposals are fine provided they have some supportable basis, some salient evidence. It's a vacuous exercise to make outrageously unlikely claims, and support them solely with the argument that absolute proof that they're incorrect cannot be produced. Even you should realize that absolute proof of *anything* is unavailable, taken to reductio ad absurdum extremes.

2) When a sufficient body of consistent evidence points to one explanation of something as being most likely, yet such explanation is rejected in favor of another for which no evidence exists, this is not dialogue. This is a pissing contest. Imaginative thinking is fine, *provided* the thinker is ready and willing to discard notions which fail all empirical evaluation.

Occasionally, fanciful proposals pan out. This is their great value, because the world can be a wonderfully devious and indirect place. It's not "intolerance" to laugh at someone who clings doggedly to hopelessly discredited notions and supports them with nothing more substantive than name-calling. Your "imaginative thinker" MUST be pepared and willing to say "OK, I was wrong" nearly every time, in exchange for the few very real brilliant insights that prove out.

(For example, that photo *might* have been a total fabrication of high quality. You can't absolutely prove otherwise, you know. Those experts who agree it was genuine might ALL be wrong. See how that works? That's not "imaginative thinking" at all, it's merely a delusion.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 2000.

I'd love to see Flint after he's had a about 5 shots of Cuervo and is being silly and wreckless. Instead of so...so...well you know.

Flint, please go to the liquor store and entertain us. Cmon, it'll be fun. ;0)

-- x (x@x.x), April 26, 2000.

Kenny...

.....You said, "I meant you should try to have this same conversation over on EZB. Of course, I doubt you'll find any regular members who actually want to talk about the structure of EZB or the conduct of Ed Yourdon or the forum sysops...."

.....C'mon over to EZ and I'll have this converstion with you; or have you been rightfully banned like your little brother flint?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 26, 2000.

"I'd love to see Flint after he's had a about 5 shots of Cuervo and is being silly and wreckless. Instead of so...so...well you know."

Exactly. You are a dullard Flint, a mediocre bore at best. Flint's the kind of guy that would go up to Einstein and call him an idiot for using his imagination...

"What do you mean energy equals mass times the speed of light squared? You can't prove that!! I've never seen that theory used before to explain principles of physics, so you must be an idiot!"

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 26, 2000.

There once was a dullard named Flint

who loved what he put in print

Apparently he was boring,

as his posts caused lots of snoring

Like Ken he could not take a hint.

-- ZZZZzzzzz...... (zzzz@zzzzz.com), April 26, 2000.

Trying to explain something to an immature temper-throwing brat like Hawk is like trying to explain contrary evidence to a bible thumper. Madening. It shakes their confidence to the core.

-- (y@.x.x), April 26, 2000.

Patrick,

I thought you'd be running with a better crowd. (chuckle) Out of principle, I will not ask for a password to EZB. I have no interest in joing a Kafkaesque community where a group of anonymous sysops enforce unpublished rules and deny admission without explanation. Nor do I wish accept the premise that the sysops and their demi-God, Ed Yourdon, cannot be openly challenged. Why don't you pull Yourdon's chain and see how long you last, Patrick?

I do find it amusing you think of me as Flint's "older sibling." Coming from EZB, I expect you know all about "Big Brother." (laughter)

Be well, Patrick, and don't forget the graciousness you demonstrated on TB 2000. I do worry about the company you keep....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 26, 2000.

Hawk, weren't you just talking about Jesus? What a short attention span you have. Flint, it wasn't an insult. I'd just like to see you let loose. You're always so proper. Hey, I can have my fantasy. leave me alone. ;0)

-- x (x@x.x), April 26, 2000.

Hawk:

The important thing is that Einstein *did* prove it. His predictions were correct, and verified by many. So far, despite incredibly detailed investigation by a veritable army of mathematicians and physicists, nobody has found a single flaw.

That's what I like to see. Solid, verifiable, confirmed conclusions. Provide them, and I'll accept your imaginative theories as well. Just be careful not to confuse imaginative with imaginary!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 2000.

y@x.x,

Well, I finally read the threads from the links in the first post. While I disagree with Hawk's style of responding to insults, I think it would be unfair to judge his character on that basis alone. People are complex -- and I've read enough of his other posts for me to have gotten an overall impression of him as an intelligent, funny, sweet (yep, even before his post to me in this thread) guy -- with a quirk.

My concern from which you quoted, though, actually had to do with Z's remark about Ed's comment about Hawk, where he (Ed) seemed to be on the verge of banning him. So I had asked Z what he felt Ed was getting at here. Z's comment is below:

"...Ed's statement that banning people like Hawk could lead to a Big Brother impression..."

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

y@x.x,

Actually, I read the first link, then noticed that the second link appeared to duplicate the first; so I skimmed it just a bit, then skipped the rest of it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

Ken...

.....I really don't know why I'd want to "pull Ed's chain" or anyone else's for that matter, I thought on these boards that that was the definition of "trolling" in essence. I don't think I'm keeping bad company on EZ board; all I find is the civility that I see sorely lacking here. I find it quite laughable that this outfit refers to EZ as "sleazyboard" when you here, as evidenced the other day by some clown that thinks it's cute to write a post about his fetish for self- abuse, along with the other "stars" on board here and the perpetual foul-language that never serves to aid a conversation, regardless of the degree of passion involved. You all speak of the sterility of view on our board; yet you fail to see a sterility of intellect on this one.

.....I'm a big boy, Ken, you needn't be concerned with the company I keep; I'd be more concerned for myself, were I you.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 26, 2000.

"Hawk, weren't you just talking about Jesus?"

Yes, I was, but I don't think Flint has seen that thread yet. I'm sure when he does he'll argue that there is no evidence that Jesus exists, so I must be a fool to believe that he does. I don't see anything wrong with believing what I want to, whether it is real or not, and I don't need Flint to tell me that I'm "wrong" to do so.

If I want to believe that the sky is green and that grass is red, so what? It isn't necessary to turn EVERYTHING into a debate.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 26, 2000.

Pat:

Ken... .....I really don't know why I'd want to "pull Ed's chain" or anyone else's for that matter, I thought on these boards that that was the definition of "trolling" in essence. I don't think I'm keeping bad company on EZ board; all I find is the civility that I see sorely lacking here. I find it quite laughable that this outfit refers to EZ as "sleazyboard" when you here, as evidenced the other day by some clown that thinks it's cute to write a post about his fetish for self- abuse, along with the other "stars" on board here and the perpetual foul-language that never serves to aid a conversation, regardless of the degree of passion involved. You all speak of the sterility of view on our board; yet you fail to see a sterility of intellect on this one.

My response is that you haven't listened to the discussion or don't really understand it.

.....I'm a big boy, Ken, you needn't be concerned with the company I keep; I'd be more concerned for myself, were I you.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 26, 2000.

Once again, I doubt that you have understood the situation. I have lots of friends stranded on EZboard. But there are some people there that I worry about. Then again I don't look in often enough to make a critical judgement.

Personally, I am gone again. Hawk, have you fixed BA. It is important to me.

Best wish

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

BA? Do you mean AB?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 26, 2000.

Z...

.....I understand it perfectly; it's not like it was all that heavy. I've lurked just enough to see what I'm not missing. I felt compelled to make a post tonight, but; I don't see much in the way of heavy- hitter intellectuals taking part here. If any of you think your "stars" are of a high intellectual caliber, that speaks volumes for you, although not saying much, (is that the flint syndrome at work?).

.....Following conversations here is kind of like hunting mushrooms in the woods; you have to look at a lot of debris to find a gem, and many times you simply come up empty and have to go home and clean the the feces off of your shoes from what you've stepped in. I thought you were a bit more cerebral than to find much of interest on this board, Z.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 27, 2000.

Pat,

And what makes you such a heavy hitting intellectual? Could it be that the fecal matter that you speak of is oozing from between your ears?

I find it very odd that this late in the game ed refers to the BIG BROTHER analogy,like he gave a damn before.You pat must be one pompous ass yourself, with such high fulutin' tastes,that the SLEZ board is SOOO superior to this fecal board.

Are you that in love with ed that you are willing to give up your right to free speech ? To be monitored like a sixth grader ? But then still have the gumption to come here and tell us what brainless no-nothings we are?

At least Z is able to see what is/has been going on,but has a very valuable asset on his side that you do not,it is called ETHICS,yes he is very smart,but he doesn't let it get in the way of ordinary common sense,a trait you were obviously not blessed with.

The bottom line is,YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE FROM THE SLEZ CAN DEFEND CENSORSHIP OR THE BANNINGS!!! Unless it is the .gov or the mega corps doing it to you,but that's different.

BTW,why not yank ed's chain? Is he the deity that is so untouchable? (appears so) Especially when he was one of the first to accuse different agencies and organizations of selectively disclosing (censoring) information.

You pat,cannot defend ed,nor yourself,because what EVERYONE of you at SLEZ has allowed is indefensible!!!Please,go back to your hallowed hole and tell them what boorish,uncivilzed people we are and that they should not waste their time even trying to get through to us.

Just for you pat sinse your obviously a mensan type and so far above us regular folk,in regular everyday language,this means:GET THE FUCK GOIN'!!! YOUR SIRNESS, OF THE ROYAL ORDER OF ED.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 27, 2000.

I don't think I'm keeping bad company on EZ board; all I find is the civility that I see sorely lacking here.

LOL. You mean like this kind of civility?

"Chicken Hawk! Nice try Nazi boy."

"Hey chicken hawk go ahead and sue me!"

"Hey Hawk...don't try to trick the trickster...especially when at least ONE is a photographer. Loser."

". . .those who do just got more proof you are a moron. Now...sit still...my beer will fall off your head."

"who IS this a*hole HAWK???? i thought the forum got rid of these idiots.."

"Hawk, you are a complete a**hole in my books."

Yeah, it's like a fancy tea party. LOL.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 27, 2000.

Hi Patrick,

There really have been plenty of great threads over here. Sure, there are some that are more like chatrooms...but just ignore 'em if that's not to your taste. And how can you insinuate that intelligence is any less here than over at EZ? We're all individuals...so at either forum you'll see all types. Yes, the language is generally rougher here, but try to look through that for the substance.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Hmm:

Thanks for the cut and paste! Yeah, some civility, eh?

On this thread, the mecca of the intellectual set at SLEZ shines through:

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=3489. topic

It starts with innuendo and a vague statement, and ends up with people saying that Clinton is still going to declare martial law and become a dictator, ruling the country after his presidency expires.

Yeah, real group of brainiacs over there.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 27, 2000.

{{{{{{Capn}}}}}}}}}}}}

YOU GO DUDE....for the rest of us 'no brainers who lack intelligence' per the INFAMOUSE (yes MOUSE) Patrick, we KNOW capn NEVER gets this worked up over anything.

Patrick, I for one am not going to pit pat with you. Should you not like it here, the door is ALWAYS open. IF you wish to be here, fine, if not, well.....

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 27, 2000.

Hey Patrick you sound like a wimp,

Just another poor sleazy board pimp.

Takes a real empty head,

To suck up to Ed,

Over here your ideas are limp!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 27, 2000.

Hawk:

Nope. There is a AB and I have been on their planes. I meant BA; British Airways. You know this is a joke.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 27, 2000.

Opined a buffoon named Ken:

"I'm God's gift to thinking men"

"My crap doesn't stink"

He said with a wink

"I've a tamper-proof toilet in my den!"

-- Hawk fan (@ .), April 27, 2000.

First, Pat, my response to you was humorous in intent... lighten up! I know you are really down about the Federal Reserve still chugging along, but don't give up hope. Maybe this China-Taiwan conflict will go nuclear. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 2000.

Futureshock, I see that thread on EZBoard has since been removed? Where did it go?

-- x (x@x.x), April 27, 2000.

X:

It probably went to where my [and other] posts went. Ed must be taking Vern 17's warning to heart. Ok, it's boarding time. See you'all in a bit. Bye-the-bye, eve, Phil's software often cuts off the end of a post. That's all it is.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 27, 2000.