OK, folks, the thread on "Hawk" and EZB was getting entirely too long. If I might summarize the story thus far....

Apparently, young Hawk's temper (and salty vocabulary) may have placed his EZB privileges at risk. The thread has ebbed and flowed about the controversial Hawk, EZB and this forum. Towards the end, Patrick McHenry (our ardent Fed-hater from TB 2000) has expressed his dislike of TB2K unplugged. In fairness, EZB was trashed throughout the thread.

Young Patrick feels the level of intellectual discourse here is lacking... and that EZB is more civil. My response is simple. First, inevitable excesses are the price of freedom. Because TB2K doesn't have heavy-handed moderation, a "delete-on- sight" policy or password protection, it will undoubtedly have much more raucous discussions. Second, I think a precursor to genuine discourse must be freedom. The knowledge cannot occur within certain bounds. In fact, the advance of knowledge is often the overthrow of accepted ideas, rules or norms.

For those who want to converse with like-minded individuals, EZB is far superior to this forum. If Hawk cannot keep a civil tongue in his head, I imagine he'll been shown the cyber-door. This is what happens at private clubs.

In a free and open forum, Hawk can rant and rave to his heart's content. On the other hand, perhaps he'll make substantive contributions to the discussions here. The only way we'll find out is if Hawk is free to express his views. Were anyone to remove this freedom, door would be closed to any potential contribution.

EZB and this forum are apples and oranges. EZB is a private club for people who, for the most part, share similar views. This is a forum for open and unfettered discussion and debate. I have expressed my preference as have Eve, Pat, Flint and others. I certainly think the world is big enough for both... and for Hawk as well.

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

Answers

I don't think I was banned yet, just put on warning. I haven't been over there since, waiting until they settle down a bit. Not much fun to converse with when they are in such a bad mood.

-- Hawk (flying@high.again), April 27, 2000.

When you have freedom of speech things will be said that you strongly agree or disagree with (nothing new about this). What puzzles me is that so many people want to huddle in a like-minded location. That is as dangerous to the thought process as in-breeding is to your family tree.

Everybody has opinions. Everybody likes to share, force, cram, etc. their opinions with others. What makes freedom so great is that I get to choose what I believe is relevant to me or what is not. A forum should not be allowed to dictate to the guests what is relevant or what is not.

Hawk...do what you will, offend who you will, and don't let the socialist board get you down. I predict that EZboring will go away because of their closed mindedness long before this board will...

For what its worth...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), April 27, 2000.

I hadn't visited the EZ board in a long time until reading the "Hawk working to get banned" post. Visiting it was a bit of a shock. It brought back memories of the old board, but only the bad memories.

For a while I thought that I missed the likes of dogmatists such as "Andy," for instance, because it built tension and contrast into the old TB2000 debates. But a quick tour of the EZ board gives one the impression of a very unhappy, fundamentalist mindset that is chronically focused on the paranoic and negative at the expense of open discourse and shared learning.

We are not only judged by the company we keep, we are actively influenced by it. There were times on the old board where the level of right-wing hate was so high I didn't feel I could comfortably co- exist mentally with it. Now the EZ board seems almost totally comprised of rumor and suspicion, products of an "outcast" mentality typified by a software guru who retires to the desert. Ed Yourdon may have enough money to live in comfort the rest of his life, but his professional reputation is forever tarnished by establishing and fostering a "closed discussion" board whose forms of communication have become ever more paranoic and extreme. The rest of the IT world, of those who even notice, must be having a good laugh (or shudder) at Yourdon's expense.

Here there is a mix of all types and opinions, much like an inner- city neighborhood allows all cultures to harmoniously co-exist. Although this mixing may be less comfortable and genteel than gated subdivisions, social insulation slowly builds the kind of alienation and compressed outlook that ultimately erupts in dogmatic self- righteousness (typified last year by Big Dog, for example) and civil intolerance.

Of all the analogies for the EZ board, I appreciated its likening to a Kafaesque universe the best. In Kafka's world, one never knows the rules, or the rulers, and thus lives under a kind of shadowy, lawless totalitarianism. Ironically, this sort of political structure is apparently most appealing to those who are most frightened. To those who live in mental, social, or political isolation, fundamentalism and uniformity of opinion become nearly irresistable.

As for the lack of contrast and debate on this board, there's still plenty enough to go around. Bit I think the overall level of discourse is much higher, and the general outlook more optimistic and egalitarian.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

.....First of all, Ken; I have a few years on you, youngster, so forget the "young Patrick" stuff. Are you, at 37 or so, trying to impress upon your "audience" your worldly and wise nature? Needs work, I think...

.....I'll have time to respond to the tale end of the initial thread in a while, but your assumptions that we're in any way "muzzled" on EZ are flawed; I'm free to speak my mind there just as here. Bannings happen, not for the content of one's posts, but for the way in which they are expressed, and banning a self-professed "anthill kicker" is perfectly normal, when the only purpose of posting is to stir people up or play devil's advocate. That is the very essence of a troll, as I have understood it. As was demostrated most assuredly in my discussion with flint concerning fiat currency and our fraudulent monetary system, (find it in the archives if you're interested), he would argue without even possessing cursory knowledge regarding the subject at hand. Who has use for such?

.....Freedom doesn't mean that civilized people have to tolerate the insolence that manifests itself so regularly on this board, as you would only get away with that on the internet. If good ol' capnfun ever spoke to me face to face the way he responded on the other thread, he'd be wondering how he ended up on the floor so rapidly, and damn, (why does my face hurt?).

.....To those that have addressed me on the other thread, I'll be there a bit later, perhaps.

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

But of course you are free to speak your mind over at Eds place Patrick. Do you know why that is? You share the mindset (poor choice of word) and the limited and narrow mentality that permeates that forum. You are also free to bring that foolishness over to this forum. The difference being that we will rip you a new asshole for being oneGet It? If you are older than 37 I suggest you keep that secret to yourselfdoesnt speak well for your lack of intellectual development. Hey, cheer up and have a great daycome back often.

-- Ra (through@the.rubble), April 27, 2000.

.....Freedom doesn't mean that civilized people have to tolerate the insolence that manifests itself so regularly on this board...

Patrick,

Actually, freedom means that you DO have to tolerate the insolence that manifests itself regularly on this board. You of all people should know that you do NOT have a right NOT to be offended.

Unless, of course, you choose to hang your hat at a moderated board. You will be free from the insolence at a moderated board, but you certainly will not see true freedom of expression there.

I do support your right of free association with others of a like mind, just don't confuse a moderated board for one with true freedom of expression.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

This place is STILL the New DeBunkie's House o' Trolls. But of course to trolls, it's just called "home".

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 27, 2000.

Howdy Pat:

Intolerance and disrespect are to be expected and encouraged [evidently you have never taught graduate students]. Hate is to be discouraged.

Freedom doesn't mean that civilized people have to tolerate the insolence that manifests itself so regularly on this board, as you would only get away with that on the internet. If good ol' capnfun ever spoke to me face to face the way he responded on the other thread, he'd be wondering how he ended up on the floor so rapidly, and damn, (why does my face hurt?).

Freedom doesn't mean that civilized people have to tolerate the insolence that manifests itself so regularly on this board,

It sure does. But it also means that you don't threaten people with physical violence. I guess that means that you have reached your mental limits in dealing with this argument. It usually does. It is an admission that you are wrong and know it.

Between flights. Nice in NY. Will be leaving soon. See you in a while.

Best wishe

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

Ra...

.....You have to have an intellect, in order to recognize one, or the lack thereof, so obviously you think your preverse little limericks qualify you; I happen to think otherwise. Thank you for putting an exclamtion point on the end of my sentence.

Unk...

.....I agree with you, and I separate myself from morons when I encounter them, but on a moderated board such as EZ, I still don't find myself muzzled. As I implied above, it isn't so much what you say, but how you say it. The sysops there don't arbitrarily delete anyone, you have to do something wrong first. How does that inhibit freedom?

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

Hello Patrick-- I have always considered the position of "devil's advocate" an honorable one. That's the person who makes me reconsider my argument and assumptions and beliefs. If those won't stand up to critical inspection then I must come up with better ones.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 27, 2000.

Z...

.....If you're a college professor, you should be able to better distinguish the difference between a threat of physical violence, and the stating of consequences for an overly mouthy jerk. I didn't threaten anyone, nor do I as a rule; however, my comment stands that if a jerk stood face to face with me and spoke as such, my hand would probably come out a little too quickly for "sorry" to be of much use after the fact. Perhaps that's what's wrong with many of today's youth, they haven't learned there are consequences for their actions, as their softened parents were stupid enough to think Dr. Spock was giving good advice.

.....I don't normally give a hoot what you all say here, but you are speaking out of order with what you say of EZ, and I felt compelled to respond. You're perfectly free to ignore me, but from what I see between the two boards, the differences are more the result of a generation gap, be it physical or emotional age differences.

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

Patrick,

Ra the Limerick Wunderkind put his finger on it. I wonder how long you would last at EZ if you decided to question Ed too closely, or if you wished to "Kick anthills" for the sheer pleasure of instigating debate. And again, I think EZ has every right to exsist, and to make it's own rules for posting. But even though you find your expression unfettered it is not a free board.

How shall I put it....if you are posting at a forum for cat lovers and you post about cats, you will find no trouble or lack of freedom in your postings. However, should you start posting about gerbils(in honor of Hawk) you may find your freedom curtailed.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick: You said: "The sysops there don't arbitrarily delete anyone, you have to do something wrong first."

Define "wrong" for me please. Is this written down somewhere so you'll know if you're about to do something wrong? Or, is it made up as they go along? Would your "wrong" be the same as my "wrong"? If not, how is this not arbitrary by its very nature?

It seems pretty clear to me that banning of people at EZBoard was arbitrary right from the beginning.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Yeah Right:

You insist on concentrating on debunkers being on this forum. Is it more surprising to you that Y2k optimists were/are the only folks banned from EZBOARD, or is it more surprising to you that [to cite one example] Factfinder and I are diametric in our opinions on the Elian Gonzalez situation and are free to express our diametric opinions on THIS forum? Afterall, we were BOTH debunkers on Y2k.

Patrick: Folks weren't banned from EZBOARD due to their method of expression. Jonathan Latimer was always the politest poster on TB2000. He questioned censorship, however. Patricia never even posted on TB2000, yet she was banned as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Pat:

.....If you're a college professor, you should be able to better distinguish the difference between a threat of physical violence, and the stating of consequences for an overly mouthy jerk.

I grew up in a simple time. We understood what words meant. That was a threat of physical violence. If the event happens, Hawk and I will be there on the other side with cap. We are big folks. Don't want to mess with us, except in intellectual argument. That is welcomed.

Time to board [once again].

Best wishes,,,

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

Anita...

.....I'm not certain what the circumstances were surrounding the decisions to ban the two you've mentioned; perhaps something that was said on the old DB or biffy? At any rate, I am addressing the more general terms of this issue, and flint comes to mind as the banning that generated the greatest degree of controversy, and in my opinion, it was just.

Unk...

.....Again, I fail to see the point of "kicking the anthill" as you say, as debate can be instigated without resorting to such.

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

Z...

.....We'll disagree then, but for my part, that was not a threat, as I have no intentrion of ever standing face to face with the likes of the poster I mentioned.

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

Hi Patrick:

Hey, good to see you here. Your post is another classic, although you may not be forwarding your cause by claiming more than a teenager's experience without exhibiting more than a teenager's thinking.

I enjoyed the knee-slapper where you extolled the intellectual virtues of the censorites, and illustrated these virtues so wonderfully by regretting you couldn't punch someone in the face! And you'd do this to *preserve civility*! Too much. I needn't ask if you've got any more like that, since you never fail to satisfy in that regard.

Sad to say, I have no recollection of discussing the "fraudulent" money system with you, since your assumption of fraud is a delusion which prevents you from discussion the *real* money system. But I enjoy your railing against the sinfulness of interest, even as you collect it quite gratefully. I suggest a genuine discussion might ensue should you choose to study how money really works, rather than arm your arsenal solely with polemics from the fraud freaks. Otherwise, what you believe is your "knowledge" is mere parroting of someone else's paranoia. You claim to be old enough to have outgrown such childish credulity, but demonstrate otherwise (once again).

If you consider that making an effort to get people to think is the essence of trolling, then I stand guilty. Come to think about it, you have made it clear that this definition fits your mindset like paint. Please try to understand that some people are NOT threatened by the challenge to start thinking. Specifically, those who CAN think. But I'm fully able to feel sorry for those who must wall themselves off from such a threat, in order to feel comfortable and civil.

I just love your claim that nobody is muzzled, everyone is free to post wherever they like except those who don't *deserve* it! Quite right, Patrick. There are no exceptions except for all the exceptions! But except for them, there are no exceptions. Uh, are you *sure* you're older than 13?

So welcome to the land where we can all gleefully insult one another, rather than only ONE side being permitted to insult, while responses in kind are trolling! Without people like you, this forum becomes a dull place where reasonable people point out the obvious. We need the contrast you provide so ably. Keep up the good work.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick,

thank you for expressing your opinions on my freespeech forum. Although I disagree completely with your point of view, you help making this board what it is intended for. I understand that several people who also disagree with you do not have the freedom to say so on Ezboard, but you have the freedom to disagree with them here.

Regards,

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick,

I almost feel compelled to come to your aid. You are taking quite a pounding here.

I am quite sure you are not "muzzled" on EZB. A few posts on fiat money and the illegality of the Federal Reserve and I'm sure you qualify for charter membership. Please note, Pat, Flint was banned before he ever had a chance to participate in EZB. (And if you ever bother to read Flint's comment on "anthill kicking" in context, a bright fellow like you might reach a different conclusion.) As the ever incisive Anita notes, the terminally polite Jon Latimer was banned before ever posting.

The sysops over at EZB do not simply delete offensive posts. They ban people from participating based on some mysterious criteria. Ms. Thaxter accurately describes this as Kafkaesque... though given the size of EZB it seems more silly than sinister.

And if you choose to take Flint to task over "fiat money" you might wish to query Ed Yourdon who wrote a book of essentially economic speculation with absolutely no credentials. C'mon, Pat, the entire online Y2K debate was filled with laypersons arguing about the work of experts. And with all due respect, I hardly consider you an "expert" in monetary theory. I apologize, Patrick, if you are really a published author in economics. If you are, I'd be delighted to read your work. If not, we'd still like you to descend from Olympus to debate us mere mortals on the nasty old Fed. (chuckle)

On freedom... I can't say it any better than the folks on this thread already have. By the way, Patrick, don't tease. You get me looking forward to you taking a poke at someone... and then say you never will. Honestly, Patrick, I've always hoped one of the Y2K pessimists who were such chest-thumpers on the forum would stop by. Sad....

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

flintstone...

.....All those words to again say nothing of substance? Don't concern yourself with welcoming me, I don't expect to be here long; it's just nice that your wonderous fans can be impressed with such drivel.

.....The reason that what I say sounds as it does to you, flintstone, is because you have no foundational understanding of the issues I speak to, nor do you seem curious enough to investigate. That would probably take too much time away from your coming here to be admired by any mental midget "brilliant" enough to appreciate you.

.....What I said above about the person landing on the floor was a hypothetical situation, obviously a point lost on the big brains that you a Z seem to be in possession of, and it would have occurred long after civility went out the window; but then, that happened about the time I hit the submit button in a place like this. So just keep yucking it up there flintstone, and I'm quite certain that you'll find a goodly supply of adoring fans to clap you on the back for how well you "handled that one."

"Sad to say, I have no recollection of discussing the "fraudulent" money system with you, since your assumption of fraud is a delusion which prevents you from discussion the *real* money system. But I enjoy your railing against the sinfulness of interest, even as you collect it quite gratefully. I suggest a genuine discussion might ensue should you choose to study how money really works, rather than arm your arsenal solely with polemics from the fraud freaks. Otherwise, what you believe is your "knowledge" is mere parroting of someone else's paranoia. You claim to be old enough to have outgrown such childish credulity, but demonstrate otherwise (once again)."

.....Still referring to me as "delusional" when you fail to grasp the issue, eh? Seems to me you'd have donned a new MO by now, this one's a bit tiring. I guess your fans can't really tell the difference though, so you're probably able to get a bit more mileage out of such shenanigans here. The fact that you're unfamiliar with the authors doesn't automatically mean they're "freaks" as you put it, but since that is your stock in trade, I expected no less. You claim to not recall our discussion, but the remainder of the paragraph gives lie to the comment; either you are a liar or your memory is shorter than even you can conceive. Either way, there is nothing in your statements to suggest that you have the capacity to learn, so continue your ridicule, I'll continue to dismiss you as an idiot, but use care, flintstone, lest that becomes all that you'll ever be.

"If you consider that making an effort to get people to think is the essence of trolling, then I stand guilty. Come to think about it, you have made it clear that this definition fits your mindset like paint. Please try to understand that some people are NOT threatened by the challenge to start thinking. Specifically, those who CAN think. But I'm fully able to feel sorry for those who must wall themselves off from such a threat, in order to feel comfortable and civil."

.....You've certainly made me think here, flintstone; I think this is the last time I'll respond to you, as it has repeatedly proven to be a monumental waste of time. I understand that that there are people that are not threatened by thought provocation; I also understand that you are not among them, or you would have had sense enough to look into the money issue when we spoke of it, as opposed to playing the clown with your ridiculous word games. As I recall, it was you that someone posted the picture of with their head up their tailpipe, not I.

"I just love your claim that nobody is muzzled, everyone is free to post wherever they like except those who don't *deserve* it! Quite right, Patrick. There are no exceptions except for all the exceptions! But except for them, there are no exceptions. Uh, are you *sure* you're older than 13?"

.....Yes, you continue to avoid making any sense with this paragraph; as always, you fail to disappoint me. If you knew how to behave yourself, and hold a conversation without the perpetual bovine excretia you spew forth, you wouldn't have had your banning to talk about in the first place. Again, you attempt to use ridicule as a mask for your lack of substance.

.....Good luck with keeping your fans happy, flintstone; the "poor, poor me" line won't hold their interest for too long.

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

I say we give Patrick the last word on this thread. He made his position lowd and clear IMO. No arguments there.

Anyone else, other than a mental midget like me, posting anything after what he said, would only show that they are mentally shorter than me, eh. You couldn't add anything better to his next to last paragraph.

But since I'm a mental midget, feel free to disregard anything I say.

-- a (ment@l.midget), April 27, 2000.

Oh my Patty, you sound so upset,

Is there something you still just dont get.

Over here youre a fool,

Pastor Yourdons little tool,

And a sad-assed excuse for a pet!

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

Patrick:

I was unaware that Flint had "fans." Then again, I was unaware that CPR had "fans" when I posted on Debunkers. I agree with Flint sometimes and I disagree at other times. I did the same with CPR.

I'm aware that you don't like Flint personally, or more aptly put you don't like Flint's internet persona. However, I think you're crossing a line when you imply that YOU see something in Flint that others DON'T see, going on to essentially state that all posters on this forum are morons because they're blind. I understand that some others on this forum have made generalizations about EZBOARD, but you never struck me as a "tit for tat" kindof guy.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Anita...

.....I never said all posters on this forum were morons, and I do have friends that post here. I implied that anyone that would be a fan of flintstone, or hold him in any esteem, may be somewhat less than, shall we say, even slightly smart.

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

I think Anita, that you've been deemed less than smart by Patrick.

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

Who gives a flying F@CK. So there board has become a clique. Dont hang with snobbish crowd. There are thousands of places to place you view. You cant call it censorship, when you still can voice your view. Why are you all wasting your time crying about it ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

oops key must of stuck

-- boo (boo@home.com), April 27, 2000.

Well said Anita...

The real issue is about the respective "character" or "civility" of the two fora. If the goal of EZB is to serve as a social club for like-minded members, it is probably a better vehicle for that purpose than this forum. On the other hand, I think this forum is a better vehicle for free and unfettered discourse.

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

Hi Patrick, good to see you. I agree that Flint can be irritating, especially if you are an imaginative person like me. He does have his fans, because he is pretty good at arguing on many subjects. Personally, I think it tends to inhibit some of the creative thinking on this forum by consistently contradicting speculative thoughts with the mundane and obvious. But I understand that some people feel more secure about having their beliefs firmly grounded in "reality" (or what they think reality is), and supported by known facts. I've learned to ignore his criticisms, and discovered that there are a wide variety of different types of thinkers on this forum. Like Eve said, some threads end up being just free-for-all "chats", or expressions of frustration and insanity, or sometimes just stupid insults (Ra, go easy on Pat, he's a good guy :-) ), but this is how we get to know ourselves. Other threads are brilliantly intellectual, creative thoughts flowing so freely that open-mindedness and agreement prevail. I especially like these... the kind of discussions where original thoughts are manufactured, and participants think.. "yeah, I can understand what you're saying, and how about this idea?..". Here a couple of recent subjects that I enjoyed, and maybe you will too...

astrology thread

free will thread

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 27, 2000.

y@x [or whatever]:

I don't know what Pat means by Flint's fans, or even what he means by those who like Flint. Pat knows I like Flint. I don't think he'd intentionally try to hurt my feelings by insulting me due to who I like or don't like. I don't have to incorporate HIS feelings of Flint.

I have a good friend in Chicago [I've probably mentioned this before.] We've been friends for perhaps 15 years. We once decided that we were good friends because we felt secure that if one of us was acting like an asshole the other would state just that. There'd be no talking behind backs, we'd just come out and say it. We also agreed that EVERYONE has a right to BE an asshole on occasion.

Internet persona don't provide the opportunity to develop such close relationships. My SO can't type worth a damn and his spelling is even worse. Had I met him on the internet, I would have considered him an illiterate. He's well read, however, and our conversations are quite stimulating. Do we agree on everything? Of course not. Sometimes I think I'm right and he's wrong. Sometimes I REALIZE he's right. Disagreement doesn't mean an end to a relationship.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Hawk...

.....Good to see you, too. I don't have a problem with the way this forum works, and as I said, I have lurked here a bit, and some threads are worthwhile. What irritated me, (Anita, you call it generalizing), was the savaging that takes place of the EZ board. I have friends there, and some post here; I don't like seeing my friends misrepresented in such a fashion. Were the shoe on the other foot, I'd rise just the same to the defense of my friends here.

.....The issue seemed to be "censorship"... I simply don't see it as such. Nobody had lost their rights to free speech, they merely lost priveleges that are granted with proper behavior. I just don't see why all the invective has to spill forth in such an ugly fashion due to differences of opinion. Who, of any degree of caliber, as an individual will have their opinions changed when the conversation goes into the gutter? Whether I come around when the topic interests me remains to be seen, I certainly don't hold blanket condemnation of all the participants here, and didn't mean to give that impression.

.....Thanks for the kind words...

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

"Pat knows I like Flint. I don't think he'd intentionally try to hurt my feelings by insulting me due to who I like or don't like."

.....Absolutely right, Anita; I would do no such thing, and at times I'm as guilty as the next in generalizing.

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

Well then, it appears to me that Patrick thinks with his foot. In his mouth too. So how can he judge anyone else with this impairment?

I don't need an answer, I'm simply pointing out.

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

Patrick, I'm sure are some who will forever bash the EZ board, particularly if they were among those who were not allowed in. I understand those who prefer the atmosphere over there, and you can defend it, but there will always be those who don't agree.

The problem I have with EZ right now is that they are operating under a double standard. It is okay to call someone and idiot, moron, low-life scum, or anything else except what is considered by conservatives to be "foul" language. I think that is ridiculous. I really don't see the difference between calling someone an idiot and calling someone a fuckhead. They are both equally offensive, in fact IMO, being called an idiot is worse. I was called an "anti-semite" and a "nazi-boy", which is probably the most offensive thing I have ever been called in my life, yet no one said complained about this behavior. I suggested that I think the best thing to do, if they prefer to be completely civilized an respectable, is to only allow others to be addressed by their registered user names. I think it really has to be one way or the other.. controlled, or free, not left open to the interpretation of the sysops. I was warned and told that I would be banned without further notice if they don't approve of my behavior. So, if someone calls me an idiot, what words am I allowed to use to reply to them?? I am honestly confused about this, since I am not a mind reader. If I call them a poophead, is that okay? How about stinkybutt? I just don't get it. Hope you have better luck than I, but I don't always agree with the paranoid cynical liberal-haters, so they tend to gang up on me. To each his own, I'm just glad this board is still here. To have freedom, you just need to be willing to accept the bad and the ugly that comes with the good. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 27, 2000.

HEY,

Uncle dee, I just read that....

Fowl....!!!!

(still lmao)

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

Patrick:

Are you a Leo? Leo's always feel the need to defend their brood. Just curious.

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

Hawk...

.....I understand; I try to solve that by not calling anyone names, although I have made reference to the effect at times, (see above). hehehe

Futureshock...

.....No, a Novemberite.

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

I was called an "anti-semite" and a "nazi-boy", which is probably the most offensive thing I have ever been called in my life...

Are you saying that I don't try hard enough? Hmmmmm, well let's see here....how does anti-nazi-semite-boy hit ya?

OXOXOXOX

hee hee

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick,

Despite what the Bible propagandists wrote about Jesus, I don't think it is always appropriate to "turn the other cheek". It took a long time for me to free myself of much of the guilt instilled into me during my Catholic upbringing. I now believe that the "Golden Rule" has two parts... when I am the INITIATOR of an action, I treat others as I would like to be treated... but when I am the RECIPIENT of someone else's actions, I treat them as they have treated me.

LOL Unc! Very clever... I don't mind that one at all! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 28, 2000.

Hawk...

.....I have noticed that about your posts, and I agree with you, sort of. That Scripture verse is one of the most widely quoted-out-of- context that exists; it is only meant to apply to discussions of doctrine, brethren to brethren, no more. Don't ever let anyone use Scripture to lay guilt trips on you; it isn't there to be weilded as a club. The very moment someone does that, they prove themselves unknowledgeable of Scripture.

.....I've noticed that you and I have been able to both agree and disagree, and you were always quite civil to me; it is appreciated. The golden rule would only have to work in one direction if everyone understood how well it really works.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 28, 2000.

Patrick,

If in a public setting or face to face you or anyone else advocated the muzzeling or censoring of those whom you deemed inappropriate yes you are right, you probably would try and hit me in the mouth as I would not be shut up,even after saying damn that hurt.And if I were you I wouldn't be surprised if you picked yourself up off the floor as well.

The big difference here is that I will fight for your right to speak freely and apparently you will fight me to prevent me from speaking.

And just in case you think I'm a debunker that moved in here to trash the SLEZ let me set the record straight with you,I was a 3 on the doomer scale,prepped for a 5.The other board trashed itself when the new policy was unveiled.

I just won't go along to get along.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 28, 2000.

Z,Hawk,

Thanks for the support,made my day.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 28, 2000.

.....I understand; I try to solve that by not calling anyone names,

Do you post as "Patrick Mc" on the other board?

Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at this thread in which you said:

.....I used to think that the only people that were brain-dead enough to hold such an opinion had to be either from California, be a new-ager ufo dupe, or an enviro-whacko; or, like you, all three.

It doesn't look like you're trying very hard.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 28, 2000.

Hawk,

I believe you are describing the "brazen rule." Do unto others as they do unto you. As an aside, this is solution to the "Prisoner's Dilemma."

During the Y2K debate, I ignored most personal attacks. After all, did anyone REALLY think I was a well-paid operative for the banking industry? (chuckle) On occasion, I bumped heads with some of my attackers.

Since this was an mostly anonymous online debate, I never really lost any sleep over these exchanges. In fact, I probably would have lost interest and wandered off the forum, except I knew we'd have conclusive answers abou the debate in the less than a year. With smug individuals like Russ "Big Dog" Lipton looking down their nose at every positive Y2K post... it was worth the wait. (chuckle)

After the TB 2000 pessimists worked through their post-rollover denial, I thought they'd probably bolt for a protected forum. I was right, though I was a little surprised to see Ed Yourdon leading the parade. I was not shocked to see some of the hardcore follow him, and become sysops.

EZB is being run by a group of people (or Internet personas) for whom I have little respect. This opinion is based on not only their conduct during the Y2K debate, but a general lack of intellectual integrity. People like Patrick and Eve may disagree with my opinion. C'est la vie. They obviously have a different perspective on the Y2K debate (and the participants) than I do.

Unlike the zealots, I can see both sides of this issue. Some of the "pollies" behaved very poorly. Some of the "doomers" were quite thoughtful. I do not want my general opinion of EZB to be seen as an indictment of every participant. Nor should my participation here be seen as an approval of every poster.

You are just getting a taste of what TB 2000 was like for some, Hawk. And now, you have a choice. You can bite your tongue and avoid posting anything that contradicts the EZB world view. You can also "call 'em as you see 'em."

And they call us "sheeple".... (laughter) Best of luck, Hawk.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 2000.

How about "anti-boy-semite-nazi"?

Is it hurting yet?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Hawk said something further up on the thread that hit me like a shot between the eyes. I just can't pass up expanding on this -- I know some of y'all are well aware of this, but it's a point that I haven't seen much on in these threads.

He said that about the "chats": "...but this is how we get to know ourselves."

First off, he attributes part of the passage this came from, from me, but this phrase was his own. In an extremely concise way, though, it beautifully expresses how I feel.

I'd previously written that if the forums were reduced to chats that my visits would drop. This is true. But the I think the chats are a very important adjunct to the debates. They add a dimension to the personalities -- the people -- behind our posts.

You know, as much as I love debate, I spend some time lurking, and sometimes posting to, the chats. In this way I learn more about the people behind the posts -- they become more multi-dimensional -- more real -- to me. And this is so important to me, because it turns a two-dimensional debate experience into a multi-dimensional, much more fascinating and colorful experience -- kind of like when Dorothy opened the door of her house and stepped out into OZ.

You know, the other day, Dancr recommended another forum to me. I checked it out and the structure and philosophy looked very interesting. I knew that I'd be able to jump right in and start debating some folks. But I clicked right out and never looked back. And it was only now that I reflected on the reason. First, a minor reason was that I would never give these forums up and I just didn't have the time to devote to a third; I didn't want to spread myself too thin.

But the main reason was that I didn't know anyone there.

Yes, you can say that this place and EZ are just "virtual" groups, etc. and that they're not the real world. But in an important sense you'd be wrong. Because, even though we can't see each other, I feel I can "see" your personalities. I mean, it's so exciting to me now when I see a post and I absolutely know who it is before I even read the name. These posts -- the chats as well as the debates -- are reflections of who we are -- our minds, our emotions, ourselves.

And this explains the valid role of the "like-minded" pessimist-type threads as well, because those serve the same social purposes where the people get together and share information -- or whatever else their imaginations conjure up. The point is that they're in the process of getting to know each other better -- getting into the social experience -- and even learning from each other. And who cares if some of it's unrealistic? It's interesting to them to ponder these things, they gain and strengthen friendships, and in those ways those threads have a type of validity.

Just think about it, y'all...how many of us could stand pure, dry debate and nothing else -- no matter how brilliant the ideas? I know I need more than that. I've laughed here, I've cried, I've felt anger and joy here -- and through your posts -- which reveal your thoughts, your emotions, we're more or less all doing this together -- and all that makes us feel more real to each other. Believe me it really gives me a lift when I learn something new about one of y'all; another dimension of someone -- be it a long-time friend, a casual acquaintance, or someone new -- begins to take shape And when I see someone who I know react to something I've said -- it's like a sort of psychological mirror has been held up in front of me -- it makes me feel more real to them -- feel that I've been seen -- feel that they now know me a little better.

You know, the most challenging, exciting debates I've ever been involved in here are no more important to me than getting goofy and off-the-wall -- you know, getting into one of those Marx Brothers - type things where people take it to ever higher levels of insanity. Or seeing Hawk's chicken cartoon from way back (which literally almost put me on the floor), and laughing out loud at all the little "emoticons" that he and Satanta were throwing at each other in the link that started the other thread. Or reading Anita's wonderful little snippets from her life. Or feeling frustration and sadness when I learned Flint and the others were banned from EZ. Or seeing the pure joy consumer showed when she became a grandma. Or feeling the tears well up when I read about cap'nfun's friend's little girl who was critically injured; you could almost see the pain in his post. Or following Laura's thread where she literally pours out her happiness.

So I think each and every thread and post (troll posts aside) on both forums potentially has a purpose and role; in different ways they're all learning experiences and they weave a wonderful quilt when they're all together. I know many of y'all can see this. Perhaps if the rest of us open up our minds and hearts a little more, I think we'll see it too.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Just to clarify a term from my post above for those who aren't aware -- the "emoticons" I referred to are the little faces that you see in the posts.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Eve:

Amen!

-- (gray@matter.think), April 28, 2000.

-----consumer is...blushing....thank you eve.

But, consumer can also be mean and has been Very much so in the recent past...trying to work on behavior better.

I do feel at home here. I do not wish to go elsewhere and as mother hen type, when I beleive someone is attempting to berate us, I come out of the barn REAL FAST.

BTW, most times, toooooooo fast..

thanks again eve.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 28, 2000.

Hi consumer,

You're quite welcome!

On the other issue you brought up...hey -- we all have our off days; and anyway, almost all of the posts I've read of yours show a pretty sunny disposition, IMO. In others, as I recall, you were mostly either provoked or defending a friend.

You know, when I first started posting on TB2000 -- I think it was late last summer or so -- it was after I had lurked for a number of months. During that time I had read so much that I disagreed with that when I finally had the nerve to start posting it showed through some posts of mine that ended up being kinda "bitchy" in tone, as Ken so aptly put it to me at the time. So when I read his post about me on the other thread (that I came down on a broom, assigning him a reading list) I had to laugh because it was so true!

After he had mentioned it to me I took a hard look, realized what was happening, and decided to try let my frustrations go. And sure enough, the more I posted the easier it was for me to let go of the old baggage. Nowadays -- sure, some posts still make me angry, but I try my best to "walk it off" first before responding.

Ken,

You know, I never forgot that comment you made to me; a belated thank you. I can't say for sure right now how much you influenced me in other ways -- some here, some there -- but I'll bet you never knew about the effect you had on me in this way...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Hawk:

If you exercise a little imagination [grin], it becomes clear that what's important is NOT which names you call people, but rather which people you call names!

On EZB, you can call ME any names you can dream up and you'll be cheered on. Redirect those *same* epithets at Old Git or (gasp!) Ed Yourdon, and you'll get banned in a hurry. That's the way personality cults work.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 28, 2000.

Came down on a broom with a reading list? ROFLMBO..... :) I missed that one. It would of got me going a 'lil' bit. (EG)

tooo cute...you know, in the case of the infamous Hawk, he READ me, real good... ::::)))) to good, if memory serves me well.

But, I dished it out first, strait up so he went for it. I now can say I honestly do not blame him. Had we of been in the street, welllll :)!!!

Street smart by nature, I have a saying,

You can take the girl outta da ghetto, but you can NEVER take the ghetto outta da girl... (*wink*)

I believe this is true w/most folks, provoke and hey, "shift happens" right Ken? LOL

Ken, BTW, I agree with the post.

-----looking around to see if I really just said that, now exiting stage right......

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 28, 2000.

capnfun...

.....You said...

"If in a public setting or face to face you or anyone else advocated the muzzeling or censoring of those whom you deemed inappropriate yes you are right, you probably would try and hit me in the mouth as I would not be shut up,even after saying damn that hurt."

.....You miss my point completely; I would no sooner wish to stop you from expressing your opinion than I would want you trying to stop mine. But as a man, I won't be spoken to in that fashion, by you or anyone else. I wouldn't care if you were eight-foot-eleven and three hundred ninety pounds, I'm not ever gonna be your "boy" so to speak. That's where the internet comes in handy to people who know they can't get away with such in person, yet can say whatever flys out of their mouth without fear of repercussion. As I've already stated, it's not always "what" so much as "how" things are said.

.....I have no interest to fight with anyone on the internet, and this discussion has pretty well had enough words thrown in it's direction for all to see who feels which way about what. I only spoke up initially, as I don't like seeing my friends beleaguered unjustly, probably same as you.

Hmmmmm...

.....The operative word in the quote of mine you used was "try"... I never claimed to be one hundred percent successful.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 28, 2000.

Oh Patrick me boy, meet your new Daddy

Hes not very nice and he wants you Laddy.

Eight-foot-eleven and three hundred ninety pounds,

The screaming you hear is your own fearful sounds,

Be careful what you wish for Paddy.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 28, 2000.

Ra...

.....You're a waste of bandwidth...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), April 28, 2000.

Paddy Lad..

Glad you liked it!.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 28, 2000.

Here is a pretty good post from the old TB2000 board on how the actions of some of the regulars caused less than their desired results.

And so, as usual, in wade the big guns. The attack dogs.

And why ?

Because someone dared to voice disagreement to something a fellow attack dog posted? What nerve !!

Which kinda proves my point and at the same time explains why OldGit will NEVER EVER EVER take my challenge.

Because in this case I didn't actually come in and post an argument, or a counterpoint to the thread topic. I posted a challenge, in the form of a question. Who's arguing with the content of the accusation ? Nobody. But that isnt the end of the story BigDog, cuz its the context that matters.

Yes, in the debunking forums there was once a thread discussing, humourously, the de-fusing of the TB2000 bomb. 100% true. No argument. In the same manner as the endless Fruitcake threads in here, debunkers also crack a smile from time to time. If some of these attack dogs had a sense of humour, they wouldnt bother mentioning it at all. What did they think was being discussed ? Armed revolt ? (On second thoughts, knowing some of them and the degree of paranoia which rules their lives, thats probably exactly what they did think . . or worse).

In the same way that you are irked by the disruptive trolls, (Y2Kpro and the like), debunkers are irked by the attack dogs. Debunking is, after all, partly about correcting the erroneous outpourings of the most vociforous element propagandizing the airwaves. Who should they debunk ? The lurkers ?

No, this thread isnt really about that insignificant old tongue-in- cheek conversation at all. Its an attempt, in the absence of much bad news or accurate doomer info lately, to get back to the confident ground of "Its the fault of all those pollys". Happens every time theres a surfeit of optimistic news. I suppose it gives the hardcores something to talk about.

The last time I locked horns with OG and the other attack dogs, over the blatant injustice (at the time) of the system of moderation (which, since chuck asserted some influence, seems vastly improved), I received a fair number of private emails FROM FORUM REGULARS, sympathising with my position, and lamenting the fact that a few fundamentalists have to barge around like the board is their private playground. Most felt they did as much harm as good. I tend to agree.

Is that so hard to understand ? If you believe in your position, then you can bear to have it examined by folk who DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

If you do that, and they cant argue the point with logic and counter information, then you probably have quite a strong position. If however, you are AFRAID to debate your opinion, and do whatever you can to stifle any voice of opposition, then people quickly notice they are being propagandized. OG may claim that she has the support of the people. Im sure that the other attack dogs support her, and maybe many others do too. But I KNOW how many moderates just roll their eyes to the ceiling every time they see that handle.

And its a shame. Cus this issue, by its complexity, deserves every ounce of debate available. The stakes are high (by which I dont mean life or death neccessarily, just that however you respond to the issue, you're spending some money and adapting your life to some degree). By taking the extreme position, I am sure that just as many people ARE PERSUADED AGAINST SENSIBLE PREPARATION, by the impression you give that Y2K is simply another internet conspiracy theory. How are people expected to take your advice seriously ? Sure, you catch a few, but how many do you miss ? Paul Milne may scoff, but next time you see a guy on a street corner yelling about the day of judgement, take a look at how many ordinary people cross the road. And that doesnt make the road-crossers irreligious. Its just that very few people trust a frothing-mouthed preacher. It aint the message, its the messenger.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001fKD

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 29, 2000.

This Old Git to the eyes is a mess,

An angry old hag is my guess.

Not too happy with life,

She embraces its strife,

And would like us to share in her stress!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 29, 2000.

Perusing Patrick McHenry's contributions to this thread, I can't help but see how he would be much happier at EZBoard. His inevitable reaction to every opponent is irritation. This sometimes escalates to a desire for physical violence.

With that kind of a disposition, I can see where participation in a free-wheeling forum where the only given is that your opinion will be challenged (and not always politely) could only be a constant simmering anger. I think Patrick would be wise to stay far away from here for the sake of his blood pressure. At least, until he needs a good dose of mud-wrestling to clear his humors of black bile.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 29, 2000.

Hello,

Given my once a week soujourn here, my response is, as usual, late. However, I found this thread and had a couple of comments. :)

Patrick wrote:

Bannings happen, not for the content of one's posts, but for the way in which they are expressed, and banning a self-professed "anthill kicker" is perfectly normal, when the only purpose of posting is to stir people up or play devil's advocate.

Then I am sure you can answer my questions: Why was *I* banned? I never was an anthill kicker, I was sincerely polite in all my posts, I carefully cited sources and evidence, and I even wrote and asked politely why I was banned and received no answer. Can you explain why, other than my opinion (which disagreed with the premise that Y2K would be a Bad Thing), I should have been banned from Ezboard before being allowed to post anything? Can you cite examples of my writings where banning seemed an appropriate measure?

Anita wrote:

Jonathan Latimer was always the politest poster on TB2000. He questioned censorship, however.

and Mr. Decker wrote:

the terminally polite Jon Latimer was banned before ever posting

(Laughing) I thank you both very much. It won't be anything I can put on a resume, but I think being the called the most terminally polite person of TB2000 is the highest of compliments. Maybe, when I finally pass away, I can have a headstone that just says 'Terminally Polite." It isn't "I told you I was Sick," but may get a chuckle or two from a passer-by. :)

Again, thank you for the compliments. I hope all is well for you and yours.

Take care,

Jonathan

-A computer glitch did not bring about the end of civilization. But you already knew that, didn't you?-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 29, 2000.

Jonathan:

It appears quite clear that when setting up the censored forum, they *began* by compiling a list of every regular poster to any other forum they viewed as being "the enemy". It's not that hard to believe that the censors don't just give lip service to paranoia, they *live* it. Clear and accurate thinking, however politely expressed, automatically places you under deep suspicion. Expressing it where you are guilty by association is not tolerated.

But that applies mostly to Yourdon and His Hand Puppets, not to everyone. Most of the rest simply have the misfortune to combine narrow thinking with thin skins. Their ghetto serves a useful purpose.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 2000.

I am curious about the criteria that the EZBOARD uses to determine banishment. I was NEVER involved heavily in the Y2K debate, always lurking on the sidelines so to speak. I posted a few times at the Debunker board, and a few times on the original TB2K forum; however, I noticed that recently that I do not have the option to reply to any message on the EZBoard forum. Instead of the REPLY button, it says YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED ON THIS BOARD.

Just curious.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Steve,

Basically, if you are a white, ultra-conservative, narrow-minded, intolerant, racist, gun freak, you don't have to worry about being banned. It also helps if you are too much of a coward to shoulder any personal responsibility for your own unhappiness, because you will be heartily applauded if you can invent new ways to blame the "Satanic Hitler Klinton" for every single problem in your life.

I had been skating on thin ice all along, because I dared to be so "ignorant" as to think objectively. Last week, a crack appeared in the ice beneath my feet, and the next time I mention the truth I will fall through, never again to threaten the illusion.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 30, 2000.

What the Hawk says is sad but so true,

And the worst of the freaks are those two.

In some cave in the hills,

Two care givers on pills,

A&L must be sniffing some glue!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 30, 2000.

Satanic Hitler Klinton I like that! Be a great sig at the EZBoard! Fit right in.

On a personal level, I always take responsibilty for myself, and any unhappiness that comes with it. Been married 11 years so I talk from experience (just kidding).

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Eve said:

"You know, when I first started posting on TB2000 -- I think it was late last summer or so -- it was after I had lurked for a number of months. During that time I had read so much that I disagreed with that when I finally had the nerve to start posting it showed through some posts of mine that ended up being kinda "bitchy" in tone, as Ken so aptly put it to me at the time. So when I read his post about me on the other thread (that I came down on a broom, assigning him a reading list) I had to laugh because it was so true!

After he had mentioned it to me I took a hard look, realized what was happening, and decided to try let my frustrations go. And sure enough, the more I posted the easier it was for me to let go of the old baggage. Nowadays -- sure, some posts still make me angry, but I try my best to "walk it off" first before responding."

Eve -

Whenever I am angered by a post I go and visit this site before responding. Hope it helps!

-- Debra (!!!!@!!!!.com), April 30, 2000.

Hi Debra,

Well...er...um...that photo of me the week before I swooped down and actually made it into the forum to submit my first post wasn't supposed to get out. You know, it took me a whole week to recover from that unfortunate occurrence, after which I finally made my first successful landing in TB2000.

Thanks so much for the fantastic pic, Debra; you made my day! For a quick fixer-upper in turning a frown upside down, looks like ya found a real winner there! :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

Eve 

Im sorry. I didnt know that pic wasnt supposed to get out. But maybe some good can come out of posting it. Anytime us girls are tempted to ride in on a broom well remember what happened to you and hopefully be more careful.

Since the broom is often my transportation of choice I will now remember the trees when contemplating the forest because I certainly dont want to be so involved with one tree that I miss the forest altogether!

Im happy to know that you recovered from your accident and were able to make an unforgettable landing in TB2000. How do they say it?  You Go Girl!!

(Your Welcome )

-- Debra (ofthebroom@brigade.com), May 05, 2000.