There are just TOO MANY quotes to paste here....

Go see for yourself as Robin Messing trashes the doomers and all they can do is squeal like stuck pigs!

(make sure to follow some of the links as well....funny FUNNY stuff!)

[Okay, just one quote from the lipdog...]

""The embedded problem has NOT been overhyped." You can now return home to the DerBunkie board, Robin, where they live for your illogic.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

LOL!

-- Archivist (keeper@of.truth), December 28, 2000

Answers

Turn the page, dude...you're living in the '90's...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), December 28, 2000.

There is (at least) one really odd thing on that thread....."bokonon" replies to "butt nugget" about half-way down, yet there is no "butt nugget" post prior to that (or after that, come to think of it). There are several from "lisa", however; at least one of which seems to be what's being answered.

How truly odd.....

Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything, you understand :-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

Interesting. A thread that I hadn't seen before (or if I had, I promptly forgot it).

I was a little amused at the reason stated for why I "left" TB2000. Not that it matters, but just for the record, I stopped posting there primarily because I was repeating myself. My argument had been made and there was no point in that.

I didn't leave because of attacks, though I certainly got my share of those. I left because there was nothing else to say. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 28, 2000.

A Non Apology For BigDog: On FUD and TimeBomb 2000

Now, a little freindly ribbing is all it takes to set them into a tizzy-fit and a huff of defensiveness. Oy!

BD, I used to think you were thoughtful and all that. Now I think you were just shilling for Yourdon all along. Pity.

-- Abused Polly (abused@by.thedoomers), January 04, 2000.

I suspect the (mistaken) belief that people like BigDog were shills for Ed Yourdon is the reason people like 'Archivist keeper@of.truth)' are still starting new threads about Y2k nearly a year later.

A much less conspiratorial point of view would be that what we saw on TB2000 was an old-fashioned BBS or Internet flame war.

-- Flame (blather@nd.spew), December 28, 2000.

wrong flame. look at this current thread on the defunct Timebomb

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

Remember the "rules"? "no vendors allowed!"

Why is that MLM scam allowed to stay there, when just last night I saw another post to that thread, which is now gone?

There were (and still are) active shills for Yourdonow on the dead Stinkbomb.

e-mail fast eddie and ask him yourself

ed1@yourdon.com

-- (sprinklin'@the.flame), December 28, 2000.

Flame, I'm thinking that Archivist said that with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. I suppose I could be wrong; stranger things have happened :-)

I'll bet you're dead-on about most of the original TB2K being nothing more than a flame-war. But that definitely does not explain the selective editing; the selective censoring of certain posters before they spammed the forum (some people just seem to remember things differently); the ridiculous "spin" put on "news stories" by the "sysops"; the fact that "cody" and "minnesota smith" and "Stan Faryna" were allowed to hawk their wares on a regular basis despite the rules; etc.

No, it doesn't explain any of that at all.

I kind of like these little "trips down memory lane". It's fun to sometimes wonder whatever happened to all those posters (assuming they were, in fact, "all those posters" and not just a select few -- wink, wink) who were so damn sure "it's all going away".

Of course, it doesn't keep me up at night.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

I was a little amused at the reason stated for why I "left" TB2000. Not that it matters, but just for the record, I stopped posting there primarily because I was repeating myself. My argument had been made and there was no point in that.

I didn't leave because of attacks, though I certainly got my share of those. I left because there was nothing else to say. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 28, 2000.

I have nothing against you, Stephen, but at this late date you should be honest about why you apologized and then left the old forum.

Why The Power Will Fail In 2000

An Apology To Lane, Diane, and the World At Large

But I do apologize for using this forum as I did and I shan't appear here again. Be well.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), July 06, 1999

-- (the@real.story), December 28, 2000.

-- (it@lics.off), December 28, 2000.

yawn.....

-- Sam (wtrmkr52@aol.com), December 28, 2000.

Heh. I was being honest about my reason for leaving. I doubt anyone cares enough to check, but I stopped posting regularly at TB2000 in April of 1999; by early June, I had completely disappeared. In fact, my infamous "experiment" was the first post I'd made there in quite some time.

In case my point eludes you, I had _left_ long before that post was made. I slipped back in long enough to apologize for using the forum (in retrospect, I should have used CSY2K), then slipped back out.

But since you insist on accuracy in irrelevancies, I'll put the reasons I left in general order.

1. I was repeating myself. My argument was valid, I had stated (and restated) it as clearly as I knew how and there was no need to continually flog a dead horse -- especially given that everyone there had pretty much made up their minds already, one way or the other.

2. I had begun to suspect by May that someone was tampering with the posts there. I am opposed to that.

3. I was having more fun elsewhere (primarily CSY2K[g]).

4. I had a life and enjoyed it in things other than debating in online fora.

5. There was a good movie on TV.

6. I was hungry.

7. I was very busy at work.

8. I needed a haircut.

The remainder are even less significant.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 29, 2000.

The real story, yes those two links show how stupid the doomers were (are). Stephen, you don't have to explain your actions here (and they are valid reasons, especially number 8). :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 29, 2000.

On this thread, Archivist = Mutha Nachu

-- (=@=.=), December 29, 2000.

I kind of like these little "trips down memory lane". It's fun to sometimes wonder whatever happened to all those posters (assuming they were, in fact, "all those posters" and not just a select few -- wink, wink) who were so damn sure "it's all going away".

Of course, it doesn't keep me up at night.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

Yeah yeah, what Pat said.

*wink wink*

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 29, 2000.

Interesting posite, "=@=.="

I will count that as a very high compliment to be included in the debunker class of critical thinking. And I will chuckle as I remember all the people Mutha was accused of being. If I were him/her, why would I change handles after being 100% right about y2k? You honor me, but but I must say, you are once again wrong (as you are no doubt wrong about y2k predictions last year and now feel the need to change names)

At the same time I have to wonder who you are, hiding behind your little "=@=.="....just how did YOU respond to others during the y2k debate? Am I perchance addressing Kevin musixmixer, or lisa buchner? Maybe Diane or Russ lipton? Or by chance are you the death loving psychophants known as ashton and lefsa?

I chuckle as I muse to myself. Care to reveal your 20th century online identity? LOL! I know you never will!

Thank you for the compliment and happy new millenium to you ANON,

William (ancient lurker)

-- Archivist (keeper@of.truth), January 01, 2001.