Diane Squire

-- (I Told @ on .you), April 29, 2000

Answers

Pics

-- (I Told @ on .you), April 29, 2000.

Sheeesh! More evidence that obesity is becoming a problem of epidemic proportions in American society. (just teasin, sorta) :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 29, 2000.

Practice

-- Debra (...@....), April 29, 2000.

well shoot i missed it . was was it tell me tell me

-- x (x@x.x), April 29, 2000.

Yep me missed it too.

Day late, $$$ short, tis story of my life. *sigh*

Oh well, *shift happens* (calm down, I AM just kidding.)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 29, 2000.

Deleting those posts was wrong, OTFR.

You've been WAY to heavy handed with your delete key.

Members, You can now post at:

Uncensored Spinoff

-- (~S~ @ the new .forum), April 29, 2000.

Uncensored Spinoff

-- (~S~ @ the new .forum), April 29, 2000.

Oh, man! I'll keep trying 'till I get it right :-)

Uncensored Spinoff

-- (~S~ @ the new .forum), April 29, 2000.

NOT.

Who started this new place?

-- ok (newatthis@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Excuse me please while I practice.

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

I do not condone the use of this forum to encourage harrassment and/or vandalism on someone else's forum.

Since Diane Squire is a controversial personality on this forum, but who has moved on to a new life unrelated to y2k, I viewed this posting of the link to her new forum as encouraging trolls to invade her forum. If Ms. Squire wanted to have her website advertised here, she would have done so herself.

I apologize for not having explained my action on this thread sooner.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 01, 2000.

OTFR, there were things I did not like about Diane. In that I was not alone. But one thing I really liked about her, was her concern for the enviornment.

I would never Spam anyone's forum, especially one about earth and environmental news. I posted on her forum to let her know I like what she's doing. If people don't like it, they don't have to go there.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 01, 2000.

The bad news is, all of us here are trolls and vandals. The good news is, OTFR has *saved us from ourselves* with thoughtful "administration".

Trust me, Diane set up a public site on the internet for people to NOT visit. She doesn't want anyone to SEE it. How do I know this, you ask? SHUT UP, I explain. I know what's good for you better than YOU do. I know what Diane wants better than SHE does.

*Big sigh* I guess we get to exercise freedom of "correct" speech, as defined retroactively and, to be frank, stupidly. OTFR was great when invisible. Now I'm starting to expect that whether or not a post will be allowed to stand is just pot luck.

And if someone here has a link to Diane's site, could they email it to me privately, which is still allowed? I'd like to see what she's up to these days. If she does NOT want me visiting her site, I'm sure she'll tell me herself. She hardly needs some self-appointed busybody to keep her site secret for her.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 2000.

Flint, I've never perceived you so sour and bitter in the 2 years I've read your posts. For someone who seems remarkably consistent in mostly leaving emotions out of an issue, this from you surprises me. You appear stubbornly irrational to me on this issue.

Also, you seem to be avoiding responding, or at least acknowledging that you have read my response to your last post on this thread. If I am so wrong, please take apart my reply on that thread too. Take apart all of my replies on this issue, at least it gives me the chance to give my perspective to the readers of your posts.

"OTFR was great when invisible. Now I'm starting to expect that whether or not a post will be allowed to stand is just pot luck."

That's a startling comment to me. I've been more and more "invisible" the past few weeks, gradually not having to respond to threads or deleting as much as the first initial wave of testing me subsided. You were around since the beginning of this forum, how could you have missed all the button-pushers-testing-OTFR's-limits the first month? Perhaps it's because it's been so quiet with no or few censorship complaints for a long time that you now jump all over me?

You seem to be condoning the posting of Diane Squire's link to her environmental forum on this forum for mischievous purposes. If I was to follow your own logic about the show of pettiness on the part of the former sysops of old TB2K, I would then have to say that you yourself show pettiness here.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 01, 2000.

OTFR:

When I click on your link, it asks me for the admin password, which I don't have.

This particular effort on your part does make me angry. I can't for the life of me dream up any good reason for this behavior. Do you really feel that the readers of this forum (and who else would find the link) are all trolls and vandals? I find that incomprehensible. How in the HELL do YOU know that I (or anyone else here) would have nothing but "mischief" cross our minds, should we follow that link. Who the HELL are YOU to decide to keep Diane's site a secret from us or anyone else? Whatever for? If I should post a link to a government site, would you scurry to disable it because we are all government haters and we'd do terrible things? What the HELL is your criterion for deciding which web sites we aren't grown up enough to allowed to visit? This is nothing more than capricious and arbitrary paternalism, uncalled for.

Yes, I know you have standards. As you can see from my discussion with Brian, mine would be different if I were administrator, but that's OK. As I said, all I can do is suggest what I consider a better method, and if you disagree, hey, it's your forum.

I suspect I know which explanation you'd like me to reply to, and I'll do my best. I take this as seriously as you do (and I'll try to calm down a bit, no guarantees)

[The "uncensored" part clearly refers to Y2K related ideas, news and discussions. If I had wanted it any other way, I would have called it Uncensored Discussion Forum or some such.]

Faugh! So if "I Told" had mentioned y2k in this link, you couldn't have censored it without violating this interpretation? Come on! Y2k as a topic is basically dead, even the post mortems are moribund now. Are you *really* saying that *any other* topic will be censored to your heart's content? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I'm here to speak my mind on topics that interest me, in the hopes someone will read them and continue the discussion. NOW you say I'm only guaranteed to be able to do so if I'm addressing y2k, otherwise it's pot luck just as I wrote?

[posting of materials which I object to...clearly defines this forum as "moderated". ]

OK, that's the way it is. You "clearly state" that you will censor anything you find objectionable (except, as per point #1, if it's y2k- related?). Yep, who could ask for a clearer guideline? I need to check each potential post to make sure someone I don't know won't find it "objectionable" for unknown reasons.

[You don't have to deal with 6 or 8 individuals to guess at what is appropriate or allowed.]

Given that "compassion" was one standard, and "assumed mischief" was another, it'll be a while before I'll be able to guess what you will disallow (in order to create a FAQ). The common denominator seems to be material you worry might hurt someone else's feelings! Since I tend to be somewhat blunt and outspoken, might that have a chilling effect on me? Is that what you *want*?

I'd react the same way were you to censor away any of the attacks I've been subjected to as well. I certainly don't feel I have any business asking people to be gentle with my feelings, nor would any such attempt be compatible with honest reactions to what I write [grin].

I don't know what you mean by vandalism or terrorist attacks. Golly! Who here is terrified? This is a discussion forum, and potentially a very good one. A discussion forum that doesn't upset anyone or hurt any feelings is NOT a good one, by definition. Think about it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 2000.

Flint, sorry about the link not working. It was the "This forum is all mucked up" thread. Here's the reply I gave you in it's entirety, so that your quotes of my post are not taken out of context.

Thank you for your lecture, Flint.

It is very easy for you to pontificate from your position. I pontificated about censorship much the way you have, on the old TB2K, so I know of what I speak.

My actions as administrator speak for themselves. No one has been banned from me, or targeted in particular as someone to ignore since I started this forum. I have explained to Retard and everyone in my post above as clearly as I could, my decisions and actions. I have NOT censored Retard on this forum. He has been welcomed to express his views about Cap's request on many different threads. I have explained my decision on the "Urgent" thread in question, so there was no "wondering of what the criteria is".

You forgot to mention a few points in regards to this forum and why it was called "uncensored".

1. As clearly explained in the About section, it was started in response to Ed Yourdon closing Timebomb2000 on Lusenet and heavily censoring the new forum on EZboard. The "uncensored" part clearly refers to Y2K related ideas, news and discussions. If I had wanted it any other way, I would have called it Uncensored Discussion Forum or some such.

2. This forum was never intended to be a free for all, anarchist forum. Again as stated in the About section, posting of materials which I object to, such as pornography, is subject to my moderation. This clearly defines this forum as "moderated".

3. I am the only moderator and administrator. You don't have to deal with 6 or 8 individuals to guess at what is appropriate or allowed. By now, everyone should have a reasonable idea of my standards, and if anyone is unsure if something should be posted, that person always has the option to write me via email. Retard for example, could have written me asking me why I deleted the posts on THAT ONE PARTICULAR THREAD (after my explanation and warning).

Flint, you use this forum quite extensively, as shown by the number of posts under your name in the statistics. Since you have such strong feelings about the way I administer and moderate this forum, perhaps you could make yourself useful and sketch a FAQ about the policies and standards of this forum. You could start by going back to every replies I have written regarding this forum and my views on free speech, moderation and the purpose of this forum, write a detailed and unambiguous FAQ, and submit it for my approval via email. I feel I get a lot of criticisms from discontented people who don't have the stress to make hard decisions as moderator to please everyone on a forum where NO ONE EVER AGREES (which in itself proves that free speech is alive and well here), nor have to log on several times a day to make sure this forum is still functioning as it should.

Many of you invest too much emotion on this forum and Ed Yourdon's by association of subjects. I have gradually dissociated myself from any "click" or friendship with anyone since after the roll over. For quite a while, whatever correspondence I have via private emails with anyone are purely business via my OTFR account. No one in particular has more weight or influence on my policies and decisions.

From my vantage point, I see pure vandalism on this forum, and what can be termed as terrorists attacks. Nothing so obvious as what LL did, but they are attempts at discrediting and/or bringing down this forum nonetheless. My goal is to maintain free flowing discussions.

I will concede that this particular incident with Capnfun has been a learning experience for me, and I hope for all of you as well. Please take note of this incident Flint if you decide to go ahead and write a FAQ. To discourage requests of compassion and support on this forum, where one stands to be hurt and attacked. Support and free speech, it seems, are incompatible.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 01, 2000.

And here's my reply to your reply above.

" This particular effort on your part does make me angry. I can't

for the life of me dream up any good reason for this behavior. Do you really feel that the readers of this forum

(and who else would find the link) are all trolls and vandals? I find that incomprehensible."

I am in noway accusing EVERYONE on this forum to be trolling. What

makes trolls on one forum though, are people quite content on another.

ANGER, FRUSTRATION and EMOTIONS turn SOME people into trolls.

"How in the HELL do YOU know that I (or anyone else here) would have nothing but "mischief" cross our minds, should we follow that

link. Who the HELL are YOU to decide to keep Diane's site a secret from us or anyone else? Whatever for?"

I know that SOME people here DO have mischief in mind, I DO

see it from MY POSITION. And I did not want to keep it "secret",

you're twisting my words. I did not CONDONE it. Notice that I did not

touch (~S~ @ the new .forum)'s link who started a forum to repost those same links to Squire's forum and the private MSN pics forum.

"If I should post a link to a government site, would you scurry to disable it because we are all government haters and

we'd do terrible things? What the HELL is your criterion for deciding which web sites we aren't grown up enough

to allowed to visit? This is nothing more than capricious and arbitrary paternalism, uncalled for. "

A public government site is quite different than one started from a person whom we all know from her past participation on another one. Diane Squire has the right to start her "cyberlife" on a new website venture without being harassed by past cyber-acquaintances who took her actions so personal in the past. Diane Squire has told me clearly that she had moved on away from Timebomb2000, she does not post here, and does not want to continue to be harassed by those who hated her on TB2K. She views that as cyberstalking.

"Yes, I know you have standards. As you can see from my discussion

with Brian, mine would be different if I were administrator, but that's OK. As I said, all I can do is suggest

what I consider a better method, and if you disagree, hey, it's your forum."

Glad you see it that way.

"I suspect I know which explanation you'd like me to reply to, and

I'll do my best. I take this as seriously as you do (and I'll try to calm down a bit, no guarantees) "

I'm not sure you take it as seriously as I do. You're not sitting in my seat, attempting to be fair to everyone, and not just you Flint, maintaining FREE SPEECH, not chaos, doing all this on a volunteer basis and listening to angry criticisms from people who don't have all the facts or have their own petty agenda. You on the other hand, use this forum to express your views and disagreements, whether you have all the facts or not, a place to vent and debate. That's fine, that's what it is intended for. But don't be surprised if I don't see it your way.

" [The "uncensored" part clearly refers to Y2K related ideas, news

and discussions. If I had wanted it any other way, I would have called it Uncensored Discussion Forum or some

such.]

Faugh! So if "I Told" had mentioned y2k in this link, you

couldn't have censored it without violating this interpretation? Come on! Y2k as a topic is basically dead, even

the post mortems are moribund now. Are you *really* saying that *any other* topic will be censored to your

heart's content? "

No, I'm not saying that. If you would take the time to cool off and start thinking more rationally as you usually do, read my posts again, I'm certain you would have understood better what I meant.

And to you maybe Y2K is dead, but you're not the only poster here. The subject of "doomers vs pollies" and looking back on last year appears quite frequently on this forum.

"I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I'm here to speak my mind on topics that interest me, in the

hopes someone will read them and continue the discussion. NOW you say I'm only guaranteed to be able to do so

if I'm addressing y2k, otherwise it's pot luck just as I wrote?"

Probably not pot luck to you, since it seems you do have the intellectual ability to discern what constitute free speech as evidenced by your past views on this. But maybe it would seem more pot luck to someone with a terrorist bent, or "petty" as per your own definition of this term.

" [posting of materials which I object to...clearly defines this

forum as "moderated". ]

OK, that's the way it is. You "clearly state" that you will

censor anything you find objectionable (except, as per point #1, if it's y2k- related?). Yep, who could ask for a

clearer guideline? I need to check each potential post to make sure someone I don't know won't find it "objectionable" for

unknown reasons. "

Twisting my words again. You did not quote the entire sentence from which you took this. I said "posting of materials which I object to, such as pornography." You conveniently left that last part out, why? That IS clearly stated in the About section. Did you ever read it? If not, that's your problem, not mine. You also seem to have picked and choose carefully the parts of my post you would reply to. If you're going to quote me on a reply, and if you take this issue as seriously as you say you do, take the time to quote my entire post and reply to every point I make.

" [You don't have to deal with 6 or 8 individuals to guess at what

is appropriate or allowed.]

Given that "compassion" was one standard, and "assumed mischief"

was another,"

YOU assume that I assume mischief. Again, you do not have the perspective that I have.

"it'll be a while before I'll be able to guess what you will disallow (in order to create a FAQ). The

common denominator seems to be material you worry might hurt someone else's feelings! Since I tend to be

somewhat blunt and outspoken, might that have a chilling effect on me? Is that what you *want*?"

If you mean a chilling effect in the sense that you will be afraid to give your opinion and post facts in a debate, I certainly don't want that. The goal of this forum is for all the views and facts to be discussed freely. But tell me, what does compassion have to do with freespeech in a thread started by someone looking for support? That is a private matter affecting no one else but that person. And one thread is not the entire forum, where the skeptics are still free to express their skepticism. I admire outspokenness, I am outspoken myself. I do not admire a complete lack of feelings and compassion. Having a brain Flint, doesn't mean one has to be completely devoid of feelings on every topic. You may pride yourself as being analytical, thinking critically and not emotional, but that is fine on topics that require such skills. A topic where someone makes an emotional request for support, logically requires an emotional response, i.e., compassion. So therefore, you could say that what I want is not a chilling effect on you, but more like warming your cold heart somewhat.

"I'd react the same way were you to censor away any of the attacks

I've been subjected to as well. I certainly don't feel I have any business asking people to be gentle with my

feelings, nor would any such attempt be compatible with honest reactions to what I write [grin]."

Since you appear to me as lacking in the feelings department, I can understand why you'd say that.

"I don't know what you mean by vandalism or terrorist attacks.

Golly! Who here is terrified? This is a discussion forum, and potentially a very good one."

That you don't understand what I mean by vandalism or terrorist attacks must speak for the good job I'm doing as administrator. What you can't see behind the scene you can't understand.

"A discussion forum that

doesn't upset anyone or hurt any feelings is NOT a good one, by definition. Think about it."

You speak as if I was trying to spare the feelings of everyone for any subject, when in fact my actions that started this controversy was one very clear instance about Capnfun, on a thread where I have been clear about my decision.

You have twisted my words in several instances on this subject, and I feel that to continue this discussion on the forum is not going to lead us, or this forum, anywhere. If you feel the need to continue, feel free to email me.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000.

GEEZ.

I thought this had been explained once and we were 'over it' or is it perhaps Flint you do not wish it to be over?

Yes, I see this is between you and OTFR, but I agree it should be done through email.

backing off

---

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Oh my. I feel foolish. I was gullible enough to believe this was an uncensored forum.

Now I know from OTFR's comments that it was censored from the beginning and even the deleted posts have been censored.

You started with a fine premise OTFR. It's sad that it didn't continue.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), May 02, 2000.

Well, it's just a *little* censored, see, and for *good reasons*, see? The old TB2K censors censored for *bad* reasons, see? They only *thought* it was for good reasons but they were wrong. OTFR's reasons are the right ones, see? That makes it OK. OTFR says so!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

As I said to ~s~ on another thread, free speech is never absolute, In fact, the constitutional limits to free speech have one thing in common: any speech which can be proven to lead directly to harm to another individual(s) or a high liklihood of harm being done.

There are no constitutional scholars here, and as far as I can see, OTBFR made a decision based on what she felt could cause harm to another, The Capn, of course, has stated no offense was taken to the troll, but OTBFR made what she felt was the right decision at the time.

It does not appear Flint will change his mind. He is holding the sysop to a standard determined by himself. That is fine and dandy-I do not hold it against him. No body of law can posit the possible incidents which may occur in the future, hence a "violation" of law, or forum stnadards, for that matter, sometimes will fall into the gray area of interpretation.

Even if an FAQ were written, it could not possibly cover all possibilities, in the end, there will be interpretation. Capn's troll was allowed to post his opinion elsewhere.

We, the BBS participants, will ultimately decide wether or not the "guidelines" are acceptable. This forum will die off if enough people disagree with OTBFR. I do not see this happening any time soon.

I will miss some of FLint's posts if he decides to leave, but I beleive OTBFR is doing the best she can.

The ultimate question for us all is what we consider to be a post which could cause harm. Then, if we choose, we can scrutinize the actions of the sysop and decide if our freedom here is REALLY being compromised.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.

I will not engage in pissing contests over how I should administer this forum. There is no one more irrational, illogical and manipulative than a superiorly intelligent person who has become emotional over an issue. You Flint, definitely are showing your anger and irrational fear over censorship, probably because you've been banned and burned over at the old TB2K.

There are an equal number of extremes in opinions and views on this forum; from fundamentalist religious to rebellious liberals espousing anarchy, from the strongly moralistic and dogmatic to the unethical and irresponsible.

I started this forum, I own it, and I have a middle ground stance. I am responsible for my actions and/or omissions, and will not run the risk of being held accountable for the misdeeds of others, either legally or ethically.

Anyone not happy with this state of affairs will never be satisfied with the way ANY internet forum is administered unless it is by themselves. Since I will not turn the keys to this forum over to anyone, no matter how strong the pressure, I will close up shop when and if the majority decide to leave. No big deal.

In the mean time, enjoy yourselves with the free use, no password required, no real name/email required, free speech forum.

As for me, I'm going out to enjoy the sun and fresh air.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000.

Geez people get a freaking grip! All you have to do is click on the lusenet link at the top of the page and it takes you to a page of all active forums. look for the sustain forum and you will find it. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Know what you'll see there? Diane talking to herself. Answering her own lame cut and paste jobs.

BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIg secret folks...NOT!

-- http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Sustainable%20Business%20%26%20Living%20iForum (duh@duh.duh), May 03, 2000.

Preemptive moderation of other people's boards is a wrinkle I had not even considered!

But for a more general demarcation of moderation from censorship, including a page defining SPAM: http://www.foolquest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_II_moderation.htm

-- Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com), November 19, 2002.