His helpless portrayal of Stan pissed me. Who else shows up just to scab pick and take cheap shots? Andy Ray comes to mind. Entertainment for your little friends, but a drag.

To ward off the usual suspects' favorite diatribes let me say that as a confessed prepper I spent a lot of time worrying about the nonexistant. Confess further that I had to buy TP last week. Confess further that the beer would have run out in early February. Confess further that...... Aw fuck ya.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 27, 2000

Answers

LOL @ Carlos...

I'll go you one better my friend. My part of Y2K is quite alive and doing well. And seeing as it, or a small occurance of one of it's cousins could well start WW III between now and November. I am starting to increase my supplies (just in case).

It is like I said...Y2K is a trigger...For all else that follows.

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

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

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), May 27, 2000.

....he can't pick

if you don't click.... :)

-- Will (righthere@home.now), May 27, 2000.

And that's why don't I Tick T...

Please, don't make me get into this again. I have read most of Ken's stuff over the past year or so, but I didn't get into it with him, because I had my hands full with Flint, Hoff, FactFinder, Stephen M. Poole CET, Chicken Little, and on and on...

The funny thing is that, even though I traded hours of posts with the above pollys, I have always considered some of them friends. And those that I didn't consider friends, because of the flame at the time, I have been trying to "make up" with now. I've had a few good posts with SMP and CE in the past month or so. Heck, I think I've even made up with LadyLogic. What more can I do?

I never took on Ken, but I did take on Andy Ray. I don't think that I'll ever "make up" with Andy because he is just too far out there. He will never let Y2K be history. He will be here, forever, reminding us poor doomers about how wrong we were. He will take it to his grave.

I feel sorry for him. Since he can't find a life for himself, do you think, that maybe, we can all chip in, and find one for him???

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 27, 2000.

Carlos,

As a prepper/doomer I'll have enough TP to last till bout Aug.,just resupplied beer pantry and the food is still being eaten.....but at least we are up front and admit that we were wrong,as where Stan made some good money then vanished,tuck tailed and ran just like the other Y2K cowards.All Ken did was call a spade a spade,Stan was a Y2K opportunist.

Now,look back through just the uncategorized threads alone,Ken gets "scabbed" a boatload and I see very few people recognize the unfairness,even when the man is deliberately associated with beastiality(one of a few examples).I don't believe you will find him bellyachin' bout it though.

I have had my disagreement(s) with Ken and the truth be told he's probably about as indifferent towards me as a perch in the Stones River.That being said,I find it very unfair saying he's pickin' scabs when in fact what he said is a common sense conclusion.You defend Stan when the evidence points to his guilt but don't say a word in defence of Ken when he's referenced with "doin' animals";thats fucked up!

No,I'm not particulary fond of scab pickin', as I think at this stage of the game it's counter-productive,but if they want to crow about it at least we can baste it in the oven with a lemon pepper alfredo sauce instead of over the Hibachi with beans: )

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

Then again, maybe some folks are just upset because it's too rainy to play outside.

And, as many have already written, true prepardness is a lifestyle choice. I no longer worry as much because I've gotten out of debt and I now keep more than a day's worth of groceries in the house, changes that I had been wanting to make anyway, Y2K or no.

In any case, have a good weekend. I'm off to the lake for some fishing. Maybe the rain will keep the beer-drinking Bozos away.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), May 27, 2000.

I think we really need to criticize all the hurricane preppers too. Every year a bunch of them get ready, and only a small percentage are vindicated. What a bunch of suckers.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), May 27, 2000.

The difference is that hurricanes can actually happen.

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

Carlos has not had a pleasant thing to say in the five months I have been on this board. Take a happy pill my friend. I second the things the Capn said.

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

Actually, FS, Carlos has stood up for a lot of jerks on this forum that I haven't had patience for myself.

Carlos, I agree with you that Ken is a scab picker, but he's just one of many that now make this forum the mean-spirited place that it is.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 27, 2000.

Brooks:

I haven't seen this forum as being mean-spirited. Is your reference to ME? Have I been mean-spirited? I've posted quite a bit here in recent weeks. Could you elucidate?

I don't agree with much of what Ken says, but I wouldn't start a thread to rally support behind my disagreements. As much as I like Carlos, I think his grievances with Ken should have been addressed to Ken in the thread Ken started.

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

Brooks,

I've been participating here for about three weeks. I don't characterize this forum's inhabitants as mean-spirited. Not a chance. I wouldn't hang out here if this were the case.

I bolted TB2000 when the mean-spiritedness became completely ingrained. I'll do the same if it happens here.

Agree agree with Anita that Carlos could have taken his complaint off- forum. Perhaps he did so and was left with a bad taste. Perhaps, as I am guilty of on occasion, he posted before his blood pressure returned to normal.

Nice to see your name here Brooks. Hope all is well.

Enjoy your weekends one & all.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 27, 2000.

While I wouldn't call Mr. Decker's analysis pieces "scab picking," I must admit I enjoy them. As you recall, I am of the Polly persuasion, but never joined in the various arguments pre-rollover (went to Cozumel instead). I had enough information for me to make my own decision (correctly as it turned out) and felt no need to convert anyone else.

But, I think you all don't realize how privliged you were to participate in the Y2K discussion. There will never, in our life times, be a global intellectual argument like that again. Most such arguments can, by their nature, never be resolved. Take, say, Al-d's ranting about how Jesus==sausage of life, or whatever. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's wrong. But, no matter how much we argue, none of us will know until we die.

Y2K was different. It not only could be resolved, but everyone knew the argument would be resolved on a definite date -- January 1, 2000. And, it was. And, yes, the Pollies won. But the real reason people like me -- who didn't participate publically in the original argument -- are interested in the retrospectives is that they provide much interesting insite into the thought processes and assumptions of the various communities that contributed to the debate. And, those communities and individuals did not go away just because Y2K did. Some of them adjusted their thinking based on what they learned from Y2K. Many of them, however, seem merely to be moving on to newer and fresher crisises. Look, for example, at Mr. Shakey (in the bunker at 40 feet below) who's apparently finally given up on worrying about late breaking Y2K effect, and moved on to worrying about WWIII.

Or, to go back to my analogy to Al-d. Wouldn't you really like the chance to discuss his beliefs with him AFTER he's died and moved on to whatever afterlife awaits him, such that could know what the truth actually was. And, let us imagine (hypothetically, of course) that when Al-d arrives in the afterlife that awaits him, he finds himself not knocking down a few cold ones with Jesus, but confronted by a very annoyed Molotch, Lord of the Universe, who thunders WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU, AND HAVE A VERY SPECIAL AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT ARRANGED FOR THOSE WHO PRACTICED A LIFETIME OF BAD GRAMMER AND GARBLED INTERNET POSTINGS. Wouldn't you be interesting in then discussing with him how he ended up so far out of touch with what actually turned out to be the truth, if for no other reason then just to get some insite into how people like him think?

So, that's my take on why discussion on Y2K still continues; I don't think it's just to put the burn on the Doomers.

And, of course, for those of you who obtained some benefit from Y2K, good for you. Many dark clouds do have silver linings. But, of course, I've always traveled extensively in backcountry wilderness, using canoes, backpacks, etc. This means that I've always avoided debt -- I like the flexibility that being debt free gives me. It means I've always got a week or twos worth of food in the house; usually meant for the next trip. I could survive just fine with no power, city water or heat in Minneapolis in January for quite a while with no trouble. When I was young, we used to backpack/ski into the BWCAW over New Years just to see if it would get cold enough to freeze a mercury thermometer. It did, too, on occasion. This, however, didn't make me any less of a Polly about Y2K, but I'm always glad to see that Y2K did cause some of you have come around to my way of thinking. Perhaps this is why I find Mr. Decker's posts interesting rather than offensive.

Well, that's my take on the matter. I'd love to hear yours.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 27, 2000.

Anita, I consider you to be the voice of reason and civility, and one of the few reasons I still lurk here occasionally. I'm glad you don't see the nastiness and pettiness that is so obvious to me.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 27, 2000.

hmmm:

the odds that a hurricane will actually happen to YOU are almost nil.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), May 27, 2000.

Just call me

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 27, 2000.

Porter,

From a different perspective, you outline this issue very much as I see it. Using your analogy of Al-d: There are millions of Christians who expect to sit at the table with their Savior in the afterlife. Should their passage into the next life find them quite elsewhere, YES!, I would be very interested in discussing with them how they view this outcome. I would also expect that, just as all people are different, the Christians would each have a different story about how they came to believe what they did, how they feel that the truth turned out to be otherwise, and how that affects them. I would most certainly NOT expect their stories to have a homogenous quality to them.

"Doomers" have often been painted with such a broad brush that there can be no discernment to recognize the distinctions between them as individuals. I believe that the majority of those who posted on TB2000, like myself, resided at neither end of the Doomer/Polly continuum. There are many I've spoken with in Real Life who now feel adrift from a form of internet community we found meaningful. There is no effective place we can "debrief" the experience of Y2K, and discuss the outcome, and its impact on us as individuals. I believe there are more "Doomers" who would not feel any more comfortable on the EZBoard forum than they might feel at a KKK meeting, and do not frequent that forum. Neither do they feel comfortable on *this* forum, for reasons I think Carlos may be reacting too, as well. With Andy Ray, Ken, and others (5 months later) still resurrecting the doomer of the week...let's kick around Stan, let's kick around Russ, let's kick around the next one, do you really expect to have the opportunity to discuss with those particular individuals the questions that you seem to be saying would interest you?

Ken and Andy Ray both seem to think they have some unique insight into the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of the homogenous "doomers". They continue to provide you with their interpretation of what those are. It's unlikely their analysis will be confirmed, modified or refuted, because, in this atmosphere, there are a number who will not come to this "kick the doomers" table to discuss it.

-- (xxx@xxx.xxx), May 27, 2000.

xxx,

Or is it Mr. xxx? Mrs. xxx? Ms. xxx?

Mrs. Teal and Ken Decker twins? Have we forgotten Flint? Triplets they are. Kicking doomers when they're down. Please.

Ken has much to offer the forum. That you or I disagree with him is a wonderful reason to participate! I take umbrage with Ken from time to time, yet I somehow survive to live another day. Occasionally I'm better for the knocking of heads.

It would take a decade or more for these guys to dish out the punishment optimists endured on TB2000! And the people they are poking fun at aren't even stepping up to the plate to refute them.

Mrs. Teal is easy to ignore/avoid. No discussion on his part, the threads are titled in such a way you know it is one of his gems.

To revive a golden oldie, one of (doomer) Andy's favorite quips: Pot, Kettle, Black.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 27, 2000.

Bingo, I used the same *forum* for Ken that he used, most recently, for Stan. Bummer.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 27, 2000.

I just spent the day in a series of cemetaries. We're all gonna die. Be nice to each other while you can.

-- helen (tot@lly.bummed), May 27, 2000.

I hear ya Carlos. I'm not trying to be critical.

Lord knows I get cranky & look to spank people publicly. I try to take grievances off forum if at all possible. That's why I sometimes take people to task for not providing real e-mail addys.

I've found 99% of all folks I've exchanged e-mails with are pleasant to deal with. Don't you agree Carlos?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 27, 2000.

You should have learned something from y2k! Don't reley on now! Have food for later. Food pantries is the best thing a person can do for themselves. If you need one thing you use, buy two. That way you can always have enough.

-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), May 27, 2000.

X:

"They continue to provide you with their interpretation of what those are."

Ken may be providing interpretations, but Andy Ray is simply providing quotes by these folks. Well, he IS throwing a few comments in as well, but history is speaking for itself for the most on the threads he starts. I've found it enlightening to have someone else do the research into what folks said in previous years. It doesn't mean that I respect them less for it, but may mean that some folks presented opinions as facts. Personally, I'm not "into" the old testament "eye-for-an-eye" thing, but I DO like my previous opinions to be presented and compared to my opinions today. My kids do it all the time.

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

A couple of observations...

Most of the doomers have claimed they were "right" by preparing. The most common post has been that "no harm was done" in buying extra food, etc. If there is no "wound," how can I be picking a scab? I was wrong about Y2K... I thought we'd have a recession beginning 2Q/3Q of this year. I really don't feel emotionally scarred by my missed prediction.

Someone else started the thread about Russ "Big Dog" Lipton. And Russ promised a review of Y2K in May. I think commentary on his essay is fair game in an open forum.

As for Stan, it was probably a mistake to use him as an example. Not because I think I am wrong... but because very others know Stan personally. His "14 Days" post made him a folk hero (of sorts) on the old forum. I think Bingo can vouch for the fact I honestly like Stan. I readily admit Stan is an extremely nice person. My real interest was in his motivations for prepping.

Oh, I've heard the "noble" speech... "I just wanted to protect my family." When I was at the Y2K gathering, I was one of the few nonsmokers in attendance. If you want to take care of your family, why smoke? It's pretty clear that smoking can take years from your life.

We all engage in risky behaviors... some just for fun. I think it had to be more than just a "protective instinct" that made people prepare for Y2K.

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

Most of the doomers have claimed they were "right" by preparing. The most common post has been that "no harm was done" in buying extra food, etc.

Do you believe that "most of the doomers", or even a representative sample, have come here to discuss this with you? Hard to know what they would claim if they are not here. In re those few who have posted here that "no harm was done", my impression is that your Stan thread wasn't about whether or not harm was done, rather it was a psychological autopsy of the man, absent the subject.

If there is no "wound," how can I be picking a scab?

Good question. If there is no wound, you cannot. If some do feel wounded, where would they go to discuss it? Here? EZBoard? That really is my point...that the majority of posters and lurkers from TB2000 will not be found on either of the spinoff forums. We may have different explanations for why that is so. I've given you mine.

Someone else started the thread about Russ "Big Dog" Lipton. And Russ promised a review of Y2K in May. I think commentary on his essay is fair game in an open forum.

I didn't say you started the thread about Russ. What is missing on that thread is commentary from the majority, the non-extremists who were painted with the "doomer" brush.

As for Stan, it was probably a mistake to use him as an example. Not because I think I am wrong... but because very others know Stan personally. His "14 Days" post made him a folk hero (of sorts) on the old forum. I think Bingo can vouch for the fact I honestly like Stan. I readily admit Stan is an extremely nice person. My real interest was in his motivations for prepping.

If you read my post, you've seen that the question of motivation would interest me, too. IMHO, it is a mistake to start threads singling out anyone as an example if you're actually interested in hearing from them personally as to their motivations.

Oh, I've heard the "noble" speech... "I just wanted to protect my family." When I was at the Y2K gathering, I was one of the few nonsmokers in attendance. If you want to take care of your family, why smoke? It's pretty clear that smoking can take years from your life.

As a non-smoker, I can offer you no insight into this question. You could start a thread about "Doomer smokers", and I'm sure you'd get a lot of input. Unfortunately, I don't think much of it would come from those who might fit this profile, since most of them are not here. Again, that's my point.

We all engage in risky behaviors... some just for fun. I think it had to be more than just a "protective instinct" that made people prepare for Y2K.

Very likely true. Again, as per my post, it is unlikely as hell that "people" all prepared for the same reasons. Individuals prepared for individual reasons. I don't expect many of those reasons to be posted on this forum, which is the point of my post.

My belief is that the majority of those who frequented TB2000 did not: (A) scream insults and abuse at you, (B) express a wish for harm to come to you or your family, (C) drool over the prospect of shooting rioting "pollies", (D) have fantasies of armed insurrection against the "gobmint", (E) engage in marketing schemes related to Y2K, etc.

As stated, I would share your interest in the motivations of the majority. I would have further interest in how the majority dealt with the aftermath of a non-event, and what they're thinking and feeling now. I know I won't be dissecting those issues on this forum, and I've told you why. If you wish to engage in an amature psych eval of me, your analysis will be conducted absent the subject. Perhaps It's a small point to you, but, I don't think scientific inquiry would consider your conclusions valid.

-- (xxx@xxx.xxx), May 28, 2000.

x,

First, I can read my own post immediately above yours. The line by line commentary is distracting. As for an "autopsy" of Stan, a couple of comments on my opinion of his motivations for serious Y2K preparation hardly constitutes an "autopsy."

If we found all the people who frequented TB 2000, I doubt we could fill a high school auditorium. The people who participated self- selected. They felt strongly enough about Y2K (one way or another) to find the forum and participate. In fact, I would contend the bulk of posts were made by the same 100 or so people.

Compared to mainstream America, the participants in TB 2000 (including forum "pollies") were wild-eyed extremists. Remember, the vast majority of Americans completely ignored Y2K. As I commented on many occasions, by real world standards I was a "doomer."

The life and times of TB 2000 are interesting as dynamics of fringe group. I doubt the "majority" of TB 2000 participants engaged in personal attacks... but the "majority" tolerated these attacks. The majority of Germans did not participate in atrocities... but they tolerated them. Fascinating subject. TB 2000 proved how powerful "group think" is... even in an online forum.

To his credit, Bingo was one of the few "doomers" to openly express doubts. And he was punished for this. In hindsight, I feel even more certain TB 2000 became more a church than a school.

There is no "majority," x... we were all in the minority.

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

Carlos,

Confess further that I had to buy TP last week.

And you call yourself a prepper? It is to laugh! I won't start buying TP for about 2 more years!

-- Cabinets (full@myplace.net), May 28, 2000.

You're playing the Nazi card, Ken? How disappointing. As someone who lost a grandmother and a great uncle to the holocaust, it is also highly offensive. Do you really mean to compare Nazi atrocities to people like Andy, Will Continue, and Ray flicking verbal boogers at an overmatched opponent like you on an obscure internet forum?

Flint tried this tactic with me once before, suggesting that I was responsible for the behavior of certain other posters on TB2000, based on my silence. He acknowledged his error when I provided links to posts where I had taken a few bullies to task. It was a weak argument anyway, but at least he didn't play the Nazi card.

Take a stroll over to the Million Mom March thread link, please. Using your logic, I'll look forward to seeing you take Ra and a few other posters out behind the woodshed rather than appearing to be a hypocrite.

Starting a thread about Stan and his motivations is more essay-like than "a couple of comments". I consider it a psychological autopsy, and we will just have to disagree about that.

When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

-- (xxx@xxx.com), May 28, 2000.

Carlos,

The only threads I've noticed Decker posting to besides the whack a doomer ones are ones about the meaning of manhood or ones about pictures of the other posters. The answer to your question is maybe.

-- (He's@lonely.man), May 29, 2000.

x,

My mother was born in Nazi-occupied France and I too lost family as well. You might try reading before reacting. I simply said very few "pessimists" on TB 2000 did anything to deter the forum bullies. This is a provable fact. I am not saying you (an obvious forum pessimist who has changed his/her name in our Brave New World) are responsible for idiots like Andy, Ray, Will Continue, etc. I am saying the vast majority of pessimists said not a word in response to vicious personal attacks. Draw what conclusions from this you will.

Over six million Jews died in the Holocaust (note capitalization). At worst, I was modestly annoyed a few times and never lost a moment's sleep over the entire debate. TB 2000, however, was a fascinating study in fringe dynamics and "group think." Anonymous posters protected by the Internet were still shaped by group dynamics. I think this "peer pressure" kept most pessimists from piping up when someone like Andy was making homophobic remarks.

If you actually stood up to this behavior... I congratulate you. Since you are "incognito," however, I can hardly grant you credit.

And don't waste my time with the pathetic argument that if I don't weigh in on every thread... I am some kind of hypocrite. I only read about 10% of threads on this forum. If I am involved in a discussion and think someone's behavior is out of line... I raise the issue. I challenged Stephen Poole on the ethics of his false Y2K story. I challenged CPR on his attack dog tactics and "list making." And I challenged a slew of "doomers" for utterly despicable conduct.

Let's take a look at your resume, what say?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 29, 2000.

Stop whining Kenny. I've never taken issue with what you don't say.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 29, 2000.

Ken,

You said, "I doubt the "majority" of TB 2000 participants engaged in personal attacks... but the "majority" tolerated these attacks. The majority of Germans did not participate in atrocities... but they tolerated them." You may not consider drawing that parallel as playing the Nazi card. I do.

You take issue with the fact that "very few pessimists on TB 2000 did anything to deter the forum bullies." Then, you proceed to dismiss your own failure to deter bullies on this forum with, " I only read about 10% of threads on this forum..." FYI, there have been more homophobic posts on this forum in its brief history than I ever saw on TB 2000 in the 2+ years I read it regularly. There are plenty of vicious personal attacks, racist and sexist remarks to take note of as well. This is a provable fact. The vast majority of participants, including you, have said not a word in response. Draw what conclusions from this you will. If you see my pointing it out to you as wasting your time with a pathetic argument, well, Pot Kettle Black.

As to whether or not I am an "obvious forum pessimist", perhaps your psychological autopsies will now extend to those who are unknown to you, as well as those who, like Stan, may have called you friend. As elsewhere said, whatever assumptions you make about me will be made absent the participation of the subject. If you and Andy Ray continue resurrecting The Doomer of the Week, you may get around to me eventually (laughter).

If you think I'm going to be presenting my resume to you, you haven't been paying attention to what I've said on this thread. Thankfully, I do not require that you "grant me credit" or any other dispensation. Likewise, I'm sure you can continue pounding those nails without my permission. Over six million Jews died in the Holocaust (note capitalization). At worst, I was modestly annoyed a few times and never lost a moment's sleep over the entire debate. TB 2000, however, was a fascinating study in fringe dynamics and "group think." Anonymous posters protected by the Internet were still shaped by group dynamics. I think this "peer pressure" kept most pessimists from piping up when someone like Andy was making homophobic remarks. If you actually stood up to this behavior... I congratulate you. Since you are "incognito," however, I can hardly grant you credit. And don't waste my time with the pathetic argument that if I don't weigh in on every thread... I am some kind of hypocrite. I only read about 10% of threads on this forum. If I am involved in a discussion and think someone's behavior is out of line... I raise the issue. I challenged Stephen Poole on the ethics of his false Y2K story. I challenged CPR on his attack dog tactics and "list making." And I challenged a slew of "doomers" for utterly despicable conduct. Let's take a look at your resume, what say?

-- (xxx@xxx.xxx), May 29, 2000.

x,

Just another "doomer" who got it... wrong.

I hardly expect you to see TB 2000 in an objective light. Very few of the pessimists ever saw anything "wrong" with the forum... aside from the sinister plot by the "pollies" to wreck it.

You can call me a hypocrite for my so-called "failure" to police every thread. The accusation rings rather hollow... particularly from a long-time forum regular hiding behind a new anonymous handle. (chuckle) After months of this sort of behavior from your peers, I am quite immune now.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 29, 2000.

xxx, Well done. Kenny exposes himself for the pompous windbag of an ass that he is.

-- (Chuckles@Laughter.clown), June 01, 2000.

Folks, let's keep this simple. There were doomer bullies and polly bullies on TB 2000. Thankfully, they made up less than 50% of those who posted there.

However, the doomer and polly bullies were both quite vocal, and both justified their shrillness by the shrillness of the other side. I would say the majority of those at the TB 2000 forum did not feel it was necessary to take sides between extremists who felt it necessary to match the perceived rudeness of 'the other side.'

The appeal of the old forum, at least to me, was being able to quickly find out what the latest comments about Y2k were by John Koskinen, or the State Department, or on rare occasions when the information was available, what percentage of organizations in a certain sector of the economy were Y2k "ready" or how far along other countries were coming.

For moderates to have taken sides on what the extremists on both sides were saying would have meant the death of the forum as a source of then current Y2k information. There is no end to arguements about personalities and topics as politics and religion, and I felt no obligation to weigh in on threads devoted to name-calling rather than Y2k.

I will say this: 'pollys' were probably treated about the same way on TB 2000 as those 'doomers' who sometimes visited the Debunking site were treated there. Those with thin skins should not have went to forums where they knew they would be disagreed with.

-- It doesn't (matter@any.more), June 01, 2000.