"Forum Posters Please Note:

We are in the process of S-L-O-W-L-Y cleaning up this forum so we can get back on track with serious discussions--most the time--on Y2K and preparations.

Ed asked us to take over moderating, so we are. He did not have the time so this place became a free-for-all which was fine. It is now JUNE 1999--with six months to go before New Years Eve. Continuing the troll games is a waste of all our time.

The constant heckling, harrasing, profanity, flamming--within reason--and the barrage of TROLL attacks trying to disrupt the Forum need to stop. This intent has amply been proven to be the case by a small group of Debunker and Biffy posters, and others.

We have given some of the agitators polite warnings. PLEASE STOP THE TROLLING.

If continued, your post will be edited for profanity or deleted.

Get it?"

Love the ironic last line.

I suppose all those who don't "get it" (DGI) are now subject to censorship. It seems the new jackboots have concluded the main rabble-rousers are the folks from BFI and Debunker. Given the many times I have been accused of "trolling," I suppose I made "the list."

From the above post, it is clear the new SysOps have an agenda far beyond a profanity-free environment. The real goal is to stop the wild and wooly discourse because (gosh!) there are only six months left. Obviously, this is not enough time to search for the facts about Y2K... let's just focus on "preps."

Flint once observed that some folks see this forum as a school and some see it as a church. This latest development clearly moves the forum in the direction of church. Of course, it is good to remember some forum regulars have almost begged for censorship. They do not want Mssrs Poole, Flint, etc. muddying the Y2K waters with information. Instead, they want this forum to become the intellectual equivalent of a post-Apocalypse recipe exchange.

Hardliner wrote an excellent essay on this subject. One theme of the responses was the idea of this forum as a "club" where members can establish and enforce "rules." If this forum is a "club" or "church" you are free to establish and enforce your rules... and expect support from your new anonymous SysPriests.

If this is the future of the forum, I have one simple request. Be honest. Label the forum as a "members only" Y2K preparations club and inform all new posters that all posts will be monitored for content. Let them know if they have a tough question, it may be interpreted as "trolling." (I'd love to read a definition of trolling and see how the SysPriests plan to enforce their dogma.) Let new posters know if they don't "get it," they can go somewhere else.

Despite popular opinion, I don't have a problem with religion, even the religion of Y2K. I just prefer honesty about the difference between those who share the Truth, from those of us looking for the facts.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999

Answers

Oh God, it's back from a weekend of frantic pansy-planting, oar out, sticking it in and stirring in ddouble time...

Can't you do better than religion again, we had this one last week...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

Just an added note... when CPR on the "Debunker" was criticized for making "lists," I weighed in. In response, he emailed me and we continue to disagree. One point I made was that some of my family lived in Nazi-occupied France during the Second World War. Their experiences have left me with a distaste for list making...

and censorship.

Some readers of this forum have disagreed with every word I have written. I can only say the feeling is mutual. Despite these differences, I would not have one word expunged... not even the most base and vile of personal attacks. I have been consistent in my support of freedom... without a Y2K litmus test.

So, what is more important... one's opinion on Y2K or the principle of unfettered discourse? An interesting question many will answer with their silence... another lesson learned from the Nazi terror.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

Ahhhh that's MUCH better - religion, torture in a far off place in a far off time and, yes, NAZIS...

We knew you could RISE (as in RISIBLE) to the occasion...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

MR. DECKER: I for one shall not remain silent.

I like to think that were you in fact killing me with your words, I would die a death of dignity rather than attempting to silence those words under a banner of censorship masquerading as moral justice.

My impotence in responding to your verbal amror would entitle me to no other course....

With respect as usual.......

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I agree. I also was disturbed by the "editing" post. To give them the benefit of the doubt, however, they probably are trying very hard to do the best they can and may not have realized the ramifications of the wording of the statement. IMHO If this forum is to be valuable it should allow all sides of the issue. One of the challenges (benefits) of the Internet is the freedom of "speech" - I for one am against censorship of it.

Sincerely,

Kristi

-- Kristi (securx@Succeed.Net), June 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker, it would seem your paranoia is showing, if you really believe the effort at curtailing foul language and ad hominem attacks is designed to hinder the ability of those who downplay the importance of Y2K to post. I DO wish the moderator(s) would ID themselves, but if they don't: so what. Even Hardliner, who I usually agree with, seemed mightily bothered by the new rules, thinking they would enforce 'an artificial civility.' But surely he must see that the net has always allowed an artificial 'uncivility,' in that people type things they would never say in person (although nowadays, sadly, casual profanity does seem to be the norm). I find it odd that you raise the false analogy of Y2K as 'religion.' What end does this argument serve? I find your posts, while grammatical, increasingly of limited usefulness. I think you simply enjoy your role as a controversialist.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), June 07, 1999.

"curtailing foul language and ad hominem attacks"

Sorry, Spidey, but that will stop many of the doomers too, if the rules are applied equally.

-- censorship sucks (thisis@merica.usa), June 07, 1999.

A valid comparison can be made between the trolls and the early actions of the Brownshirts. Borrowing from your somewhat stretched analogy, one could even go so far as to say troll attacks on this forum are a verbal version of Krystallnacht, when the Brownshirts broke the windows (and many heads) of Jewish businesses. Intimidation is intimidation, no matter how it's delivered--in a poison ivy of prose or at the end of a cudgel.

The Brownshirts had complete freedom of speech, in all those words they spewed at all those beer halls. Even when they started singling out Jews to attack, people ignored it, saying, oh, those Jews obviously did something to deserve it. Was this a good thing? Pity you can't ask your relatives.

If the Brownshirts' actions and speech had been curtailed, World War II might never have happened and lots of people your age would have happy memories of doting grandparents and great-grandparents. But the cogniscenti of the time said, oh no, don't worry about them, they're just ignorant ruffians, no manners, they don't know any better, they can't do any harm. Tell your relatives THAT.

What's that quote about evil -- all that's necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing? Something like that.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 07, 1999.

"...that will stop many of the doomers too, if the rules are applied equally."

So much the better, IMO. I've said in an earlier thread, and again here--

Maybe one of these folks all fired up about Patrick Henry, free speech, and the Bill of Rights will take the time to explain to everyone just how using scatological and vulgar phrases to characterize another person falls within the scope of "discussing Y2K."

Consider, for example, JBD's various fulminations here, in his several embodiments.

Do I hear a motion to commend him for his contributions to this Forum?

Would anyone's current understanding of Y2K be other than it is, had he never posted here?

Walking in Manhattan, it's good practice to monitor the sidewalk closely. It's often necessary to step over something you don't want sticking on your shoe. Everyone learns to do this soon after arriving there. But one never stops wishing that it wasn't necessary.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

People! Remember this editing isn't just about swearing, it's about the SYSOPS deciding what stays and what goes according to what they want to see on the BB. They aren't going to get rid of just vulgar phrases but everything that is not directly related to Y2K Preps. Does anyone here really want to see this BB fall to the people who have nothing better to talk about then bottled water and canned peaches? I mean come on, the new moderators have made it clear that they will censor anything they damn well please and if you don't like it then don't participate. I don't see how any concious person cannot get enraged at that sort of treatment.

-- (workathome@atl.ga), June 07, 1999.

In response:

1. Using the phrase "troll attacks" and casting wholesale aspersions towards the folks from BFI/Debunker is biased (and, in my opinion, wrong.) For example, Mr. Poole may be sarcastic, but he is not profane. A "profanity standard" impacts the pessimists more than the optimists, but my point is the clear suggestion of bias in the new anonymous overseers.

2. If you read my initial post, "Y2K as Religion," you'll see I make a simple point. For some people, severe Y2K disruptions have become an article of faith. Every bit of good news is rejected as "spin" or "lies." Every bit of bad news is interpreted as factual and Y2K- related.

If I walk into a fundamentalist Christian church, I will respect the right of those gathered to worship... without offering my personal opinion on their theology. If I walk into a scientific conference on the validity of Creation versus evolution... I'm going to weigh in.

So, is this forum a scientific inquiry or a religious meeting?

3. Let me remind Old Git of another expression. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

By the way, do you really think the expression of "troll" ideas on this forum equal to Krystallnacht? That comparison is an affront to every person that suffered during the Holocaust. How can you compare an exchange of ideas between mostly anonymous Internet posters to a brutal reign of terror? On behalf of 6 million executed Jews, I beg to differ.

I suppose you would have censored the Brownshirts... instituted a "better" government where you decided what speech was allowed and what speech was not. And, of course, you would have had a secret police to ensure everyone followed the rules... and to punish the dissenters. Agitators like me go straight to the Gulag. So, what's the difference between your government and theirs?

Censorship would not have stopped the Nazis. It simply would have taken the German people to reject their ideas.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I think the principle of "unfettered discourse" more important. And I,too,have noticed a definite turn toward a cult-like mindset amongst some of the Y2k crowd, complete with British Berkefield gravity water filters (for holy water )Petromax lanterns (to light at the altar)and freeze dried foods, as Sacrament. I'm won't debate quality,I will debate expense and along with it, the "must haves" mentality of this particular sect, now complete with thought police, so the teachings may be imparted without the interruptions of non-believers.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 07, 1999.

Ideas? Preferences:

Question: About the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Forum & Changes http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tPe

-- it's a (group@effort.yes?), June 07, 1999.

I am appalled by the new moderation policy of this forum and have decided not to participate in future. Many will be pleased.

-- Norm (nwo@hotmail.com), June 07, 1999.

Of course Y2K isn't a religion: to a millenarian, though, there is an undeniable convergence between the date of expected computer-related problems and the passing of 2,000 years since Christ (the Jubilee starts on Christmas Eve, at midnight). One can play the game of likening the literature of Y2K preparedness to some sort of ersatz liturgy, and this is no doubt great fun, but again, has limited usefulness when trying to construct a reasoned response to possible computer failures. On the other hand, I would hardly call this forum a scientific inquiry: we certainly don't satisfy any tenets of Claude Bernard's scientific method. To wit, we would need a null hypothesis, which we would then seek to disprove. In the case of projected computer-related dysfunction, given the complexity of the model, it appears that no one can reliably model with any degree of statistical validity the likely outcome. And it seems obvious to me that there are compelling interests that keep, for instance, banks, from being entirely forthcoming as to their 'compliance.' I'm pretty disinterested, but I've learned that where money's at stake, people will willfully tell lies. In this case, that raises the emotional stakes. Still, arguments shouldn't turn on profanity: they don't in scientific journals, and they shouldn't here.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), June 07, 1999.

Well, Norm, have you already appointed a successor or are you just bailing on us?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 07, 1999.

More words from the smooth Mr. Decker:

"Instead, they want this forum to become the intellectual equivilent of a post-Apocalypse receipe exchange."

Decker's last Y2K perception management piece has not been deleted. See it by clicking here .

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sT2

-- (quiet@home.view), June 07, 1999.

Hello again!

I saw last evening (over my husband's shoulder) a chat room where you can choose to "ignore" posts from someone (unclear as to whether it is just their "name" or their actual address. You can also then go and choose to "unignore" at a later time if desired. This to me would be much better, letting us INDIVIDUALLY choose what we want to censor from ourselves. This would also take all the fun out of the big-time profanity spewers because most of us would choose to ignore them and not be baited. I don't know if this is technologically feasible on this forum, but the idea appeals to me!

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.Net), June 07, 1999.

Decker, YOU are the one who set the stage with Nazi analogies. After criticizing me for what you have done yourself, you then ascribe to me thoughts, actions and motives which you have grasped from thin air about something that happened sixty years ago. Typical Decker twist.

And you mention "your government." What are you talking about? Are you saying I'm part of the moderating team? Wrong, Decker, just as you're wrong about so many things.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 07, 1999.

Old Git,

My post about Nazi Germany was not an analogy... it is my family's past. My mother was born with a German first name, because infants were not allowed to have French names. Family and friends of my family were killed. Not an analogy... real life.

You, ma'am, are the one who compared Trolls (like me) to goose- stepping Nazi thugs. Personally, I think it's one of the more asinine comparisons I have heard on this forum... and that covers a good bit of ground. Once you suggested censorship as an acceptable alternative (to silencing the "brown shirts") I simply described what "your" (pro-censorship) form of government might look like.

No, I don't think you are a moderator. I think you are a well- intentioned person with a devoted following on this forum. I wish you well in dispensing your country lore. If you had an ounce of country manners you'd apologize.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

Excuse me, but, this entire idea of "cleaning up the forum" has me miffed, to say the least. Church? That is politically incorrect, or so I've been told. School? As in teacher, pupil, please. News Center, perhaps. What's YOU'RE idea of clean? What about Bad language? It's STILL language no matter how you percieve it to be. Thoughtful discourse? I have experienced many heated discussions that were not only insightful, but passionate as well, It's called communicating and it takes many forms. Let's see, as long as people's posts pass the "Thesis 101" criteria (whatever that may be) it will be *allowed*? Will you begin to edit posts for spelling and grammar,next????????? Allow me to put a few people in their places, here. Rethink this cluster**** you are about to create. What will be next, certain people who don't fall into the 3 to 6 catagory on the y2k scale shall be asked to leave? This is big-brained phoo phoo at it's worst. Perhaps eventually, you could be left with a bunch of Mr. Flints who can just analyze "themselves" right up to *JANUARY 2000*. In case some of you puffed up people haven't noticed, this country is full of ALL types of people, with ALL types of opinions, who use ALL forms of verbal expression, that come from ALL types of backgrounds. It's called America. Been in a truck-Stop lately? Is this to become some form of "social club" with a sign on the door that says, "big brains only" That *might* be ok, providing all members actually knew what they were talking about. This is a forum of opinions, Good and bad. Right and wrong. Smart and stupid. If you can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 07, 1999.

After a fascinating luncheon conversation that touched upon nanotechnology, Moore's law, "utility fogs," neural networking, and the Turing test, reading that "a valid comparison can be made between the trolls and the early actions of the Brownshirts" was like being plunged into the howling Dark Ages. I don't know how old you are, Old Git, but judging from this statement, you appear to be tottering on the edge of senility.

Your "valid comparsion" overlooks the obvious: the "mob" of this forum, which pointedly includes you, wishes to beat into silence the minority, or the "trolls." These unfortunates include people like Poole, whose feisty willingness to take repeated blows inspires admiration, and Flint, whose sheer power of ratiocination never fails to dazzle. I would prefer that they be allowed to speak. Call me old- fashioned, but I would rather read one of Mr. Decker's witty analogies than an earnest treatise on the iron content of legumes.

As you are from Britain, and fancy yourself something of a historian, I took the liberty of sharing your writing with a British friend who took his MA in Modern History at Oxford. A wise, experienced, "bottom- line" kind of guy, his summary was succinct: "Whoever wrote this is a nasty piece of work."

Please allow me to enlighten you on a purely personal point. One of my dearest friends is Jewish. With some anger I realized that your thoughtless and wholly irresponsible "valid comparison" forms the kind of ludicrous "thinking" my beloved friend has had to endure his entire life. Mr. Decker is right. If you had a modicum of decency, you'd apologize. But how can we expect a modicum of decency from someone who lacks even a modicum of intelligence?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999.

Decker, you denied using Nazi analogies--please look above, where you wrote

" It seems the new jackboots have concluded the main rabble-rousers are the folks from BFI and Debunker."

What else does "jackboots" suggest, if not Nazi?

" An interesting question many will answer with their silence... another lesson learned from the Nazi terror. "

Not analogies, perhaps, but certainly Nazi references; let's not quibble about semantics.

And for your information, I was born into the cataclysm caused by the Nazis--I didn't hear it from relatives or friends, I LIVED it. My relatives too were killed by the Nazis--you have no monopoly on suffering.

Any further discussion will invariably be turned by you into a miasma of deliberate perversion of meaning and is not worthy of my time, nor is it desired by the majority of people who participate in this forum. You must seek your opportunity for public mental masturbation elsewhere.

Celia, I couldn't read your entire post, dear. It was so soaked in vitriol it was burning smoke-filled holes in my monitor screen. Now, I'd like you to meet Ken Decker. You seem to have much in common, I'm sure you'll get along splendidly.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 07, 1999.

ratiocination: process of logical reasoning.

Thanks Celia. That's a real beauty.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 07, 1999.

Why Old Git, you're so ... so *incoherent* when you're vicious. Let me steer you to some of Milne's posts. He can sling mud without, quite, forgetting where he's aiming. You could learn a lot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

Yeah, Mr. Flint, and that post was one of the better examples of your talent for ratiocination, no doubt. Old Git made her point rather well, but don't bother to address it objectively. Go with your strong suit.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 07, 1999.

Elbow:

I think Old Git's point is very clear. She stepped in it, got called on it, and started shrieking nonsense. She doesn't seem to handle things well when not surrounded by her mob, as Celia so accurately called it.

And as an indication of character, it couldn't be clearer. When I'm wrong, I apologize. I've apologized publicly to Paul Milne. When Old Git is wrong, just LOOK how she responds. If you are defending her, shame on you. She has richly earned the commentary she's getting.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

As for you, Mr. Decker, please enumerate the instances where your posts have been edited, modified, purged or otherwise changed in any fashion so that the fears of the dear readers of this forum may be assuaged; else they might conclude that you are simply suffering from delusions of grandeur and paranoia.

Mr. Elbow Grease

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 07, 1999.

Jackboot

Wordsmyth English Dictionary

DEF: 1. a sturdy leather boot extending above the knee, used by the military, police, and the like. DEF: 2. bullying brutality, esp. by a government or the military:

Merriams Webster's WWW Dictionary

1 : a heavy military boot made of glossy black leather extending above the knee and worn especially during the 17th and 18th centuries 2 : the spirit or policy of militarism or totalitarianism 3 : a laceless military boot reaching to the calf

I think our anonymous censors and their bullying post have truly captured the spirit of totalitarianism, ergo my reference to jackboots.

Here's a little history lesson, Old Git, freedom of speech was not responsible for the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany. Censorship, however, was actively used by the Nazis to maintain a totalitarian regime. The so-called "trolls" on this form have no desire to exert editorial control, even over writing as repugnant as yours.

You made a meanspirited attempt to attack those with whom you disagree. In your attempt, you made a grossly inappropriate comparison. Rather than acknowledge your mistake, you compounded it with a weak defense.

Ms. Thaxter did a thorough job of taking you to the woodshed. For the sake of those who respect you on this forum, I respectfully suggest you quit now, rather than risk a second trip.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

Mr. Elbow Grease,

How predictable. First, perhaps you should elaborate on Old Git's thesis, the "trolls" on this forum are like the "Brownshirts." If that's too much an uphill climb, try justifying the censorship promised by the SysOps. Or you can confess... it's your dream come true! Someone to gag Mr. Decker. (laughter) This is why most people fail Liberty 101, Mr. Elbow Grease. Their antipathy outweights their principles.

Read what the SysOps promised in the original post on this thread. Feel free to comment, Mr. Elbow Grease, but save me the fifth grade debate team tactics.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

You, sir, are down in the mud, and you say shame on me? Mr. Decker has by turns attempted by his posts to press every hot button remotely related to the Y2K subject. He has continued to do so throughout the thread. And Celia jumps in with "senility" and "mob" and "lacks even a modicum of intelligence" but because of her flattery toward you, you defend that crap?

Old Git asks: "What else does "jackboots" suggest, if not Nazi? "

Care to answer?

How are the life experiences as related by Mr. Decker somehow superior to Old Git's?

If you take issue with the substance of her viewpoint, then respond to it substantively. Otherwise, you are participating in one of the basest of ad hominem muggings I have read, on a thread about free speech, no less!

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 07, 1999.

Flint,

I saved you the trouble and posted the definition of jackboot (before I read Mr. Elbow Grease's post). As you can see, he is more invested in attacking than looking objectively at what Old Git actually said or the issue of censorship on this forum.

Feel free to explain how the "trolls" on this forum are not "Brownshirts," but I think it a waste of time.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

"From the above post, it is clear the new SysOps have an agenda far beyond a profanity-free environment. The real goal is to stop the wild and wooly discourse because (gosh!) there are only six months left. Obviously, this is not enough time to search for the facts about Y2K... let's just focus on "preps."

Ken, I am not one of the sysops. But I know from conversations with them that you are just plain wrong, not only that there is some agenda to force discussion only on "preps" but just about everything else you have said as well.

You were the person who introduced the super-heated, derogatory tone into this thread, first with more subtle gibes at those of us who are people of faith and then by comparing the sysops to Hitler's Germany.

If it soothes you, you can go on with your particular brand of "discourse" for as many weeks or months as you would like. It's that simple. Providing you don't become considerably more vile still, I doubt you will be "deleted" by anyone.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 07, 1999.

I'm sorry, Mr. Decker, I don't have much patience for you tonight. My comment to you referred to *your beginning post.* Try responding to that, little man. Gag Mr. Decker? Well, Mr. Decker makes me gag. (laughter) Is that close enough? When have *you* been censored? Furthermore, if I am so predictable, find a reference on this forum wherein I advocated inhibiting anyone's "right" to participate here. I *have* stated my position. Your foolish inferences are indeed pathetic, along with your usual condescension. As I've already said, your thread starts with a large dose of paranoia, and it's downhill from there. If I'm not mistaken, you've ridiculed others here for their "doomer paranoia." Is your brand somehow more noble? Don't kid yourself. It's just part of your certifiable delusion.

Mr. Elbow Grease

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 08, 1999.

"If you want to kill any idea in the world today, get a committee working on it." Charles F. Kettering

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

How sad. What a waste. Mr. Decker, really--"...writing as repugnant as yours...?" And why would a 36 year-old expect an apology from an older lady, in the first place? For someone who prides himself on his equable rationality, why can't you just move on? Why the pathetic little history lessons? And Celia, why smear Old Git with the broad brush of anti-Semitism? To win some useless debating point? You yourself, with your Oxonian friend in tow, betray a lack of human decency by calling her 'a nasty piece of work.' Such vaticination! And in public!

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), June 08, 1999.

BD,

Since I don't have your insider knowledge of the new SysOps, I have to take what they say at face value.

"The constant heckling, harrasing, profanity, flamming--within reason--and the barrage of TROLL attacks trying to disrupt the Forum need to stop. This intent has amply been proven to be the case by a small group of Debunker and Biffy posters, and others. We have given some of the agitators polite warnings. PLEASE STOP THE TROLLING. If continued, your post will be edited for profanity or deleted. Get it?"

I suggest a solution. 1) Have the new SysOps identify themselves and post real email addresses. In addition, I'd like to know what "handles" they have used while posting under on this forum. 2) Have them define exactly what is a "troll" and a "troll attack." I'd also enjoy the explanation about how they have "proven" the "agitators" are from BFI/Debunker. Name names. 3) Have them promise not to edit or censor any post for content or language.

If they do this, I will retract my comments, including the following:

I don't think the SysOps will come out from behind the curtain, no more than you will start using your real name. The tone of their post suggests a clear agenda. As you have acknowledged "off forum" discussions, I feel it reasonable to believe the new SysOps have engaged in these discussions. Given the use of the word "troll," I imagine you and the new SysOps share similar feelings about Y2K.

After attacking me on numerous occasions, slurring my character and questioning my motives... you expect me to trust your opinion of the new SysOps? With all due respect, I don't.

I think you have a double standard, BD. If Poole began talking about censorship of Debunker, you'd rail against him... and so would I. This is the difference between us. For me, principles come first. When CPR started ranting about keeping lists, I spoke out.

For you, however, the most important factor is whether someone is a member in the "Y2K Club." You are quick to attack those who do not share your beliefs, but you have unending tolerance for fellow club members.

Personally, it doesn't matter whether the new SysOps are card- carrying members of your club, or not. They have made a clear statement of intent to censor this forum. Until they retract the statement, they remain jackboots to me, and to every free-thinking person who posts or reads this forum.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 08, 1999.

Decker said [I reply]

"Personally, it doesn't matter whether the new SysOps are card- carrying members of your club, or not. They have made a clear statement of intent to censor this forum. Until they retract the statement, they remain jackboots to me, and to every free-thinking person who posts or reads this forum."

[As always, you weave your words to create maximum disintegrative effect. I don't have a club. Regulating speech is not censoring it (whether or not it should be regulated is another matter and still under discusson this forum, obviously).

"Jackboots" said about people who are volunteering personal time to support your continued right to attack them says it all. Don't worry, Ken, they're still working to ensure you retain that right.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 08, 1999.

I wanrned you all about this ASSHOLE ddecker.

Doing a fine old job isn't he?

Bwwaaaaaahhahahahahaahahahahahahaa

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 08, 1999.

Big Dog:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I see:

1) The anonymous forum moderators have announced an intention to edit or delete posts from "trolls".

2) A "troll" is not defined, being left up to the judgment of the moderators.

3) The little editing we've seen so far addressed content, not profanity, and was directed at one of our optimistic posters.

4) The moderators were self-selected from longtime posters to this forum

5) To my knowledge, NO moderate or optimistic voices were approached to become moderators.

I think you have enough sense to see that this situation could make the more optimistic posters rather nervous. The optimists have reason to feel they are being targeted due to the makeup, selection process, ambiguity, and behavior of these anonymous moderators.

The fact that the moderators are doing this for free is not relevant. I'm quite sure there are many regular posters here who would gladly *pay* for the privilege of censoring opinions they don't like.

Rick Cowles moderates his forum diligently, filtering for both content and presentation. The advantage is, the posts there are always coherent and always on topic. The disadvantage is, there are only two or three posts a day that get through.

Cowles' approach might arguably be appropriate when applied to such a narrowly focused forum. To me, it seems highly inappropriate to a forum where all aspects of y2k are considered.

You yourself seem to be on record as regarding those who disagree as being out to 'destroy' this forum. Would you be so kind as to state your position more clearly? Otherwise, we're left to deduce your orientation indirectly, noting that you attack moderates, defend irrelevancies, and appear quite comfortable with the threat of censorship. You know as well as I that our current moderators, whoever they are, aren't about to mess with *your* opinions.

You'd have to be blind indeed not to notice the pervasive double standard applied by the regulars to this forum. Since I've been here, every mode of argument that has been criticized when used by optimists, is cheered and applauded when used by pessimists. Credentials of engineers must be verified if the engineers report positive facts. Credentials of pig farmers are irrelevant even if the pig farmer is known to fabricate distortions supporting doom. Mild epithets are castigated when optimists use them, while unremitting foul language is enthusiastically encouraged when used by doomers. ("Yeah, go get 'em").

I'm willing to continue to make posts pointing out assumptions, distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, half-truths, and all the other techniques used by the extremists (on both sides). When someone known to support such techniques (even tacitly) is handed the power to unilaterally alter or expunge what I write, and announces the intention to do so, naturally I am concerned. So is Decker.

And the fact that you respond to this threat by attacking *Decker* is deeply disturbing. I know you have a conscience. I think it's time you pause and listen to it. Considering the direction of this thread, I think the appropriate quote here is "They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't say anything."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

Oy vey! Enough with the Jews allready.

-- number six / humpty (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), June 08, 1999.

Flint said [I reply]

1) The anonymous forum moderators have announced an intention to edit or delete posts from "trolls".

[I'm not trying to split hairs, but the only official thing I've seen is on the "New Questions" thing, no? It says obscene language may be cause for deletion? One may well disagree about what constitutes such language, but it is hardly cause for despair.]

2) A "troll" is not defined, being left up to the judgment of the moderators.

[Now, getting to the evident controversy, this is correct. I personally believe that, if the sysop(s) intend to do this (I have never seen any attempt at something formal about this), they should unmask so they can be fully accountable, as well as describe as precisely as possible what forms the basis for their judgment.]

3) The little editing we've seen so far addressed content, not profanity, and was directed at one of our optimistic posters.

[I repeat my reply to 2. above.]

4) The moderators were self-selected from longtime posters to this forum

[Yes and no. Ed selected the sysop. No vote was taken. The sysop asked a bounded group of people to assist in some brainstorming. These people (I am one) take great care not to pressure the sysop. Otherwise, what is the point of Ed having selected someone? I am uncomfortable about the entire arrangement but felt I could help perhaps during this period. By saying I am one of those people, I make myself publicly accountable, which is only right, but keep in mind I make NO decisions about this forum.]

5) To my knowledge, NO moderate or optimistic voices were approached to become moderators.

[That depends on your definition, seriously. I would say some of the people are moderate.]

I think you have enough sense to see that this situation could make the more optimistic posters rather nervous. The optimists have reason to feel they are being targeted due to the makeup, selection process, ambiguity, and behavior of these anonymous moderators.

[I absolutely agree. I would have this perception myself were I a polly.]

The fact that the moderators are doing this for free is not relevant. I'm quite sure there are many regular posters here who would gladly *pay* for the privilege of censoring opinions they don't like.

[Neurotics, maybe, but the sysop only agreed to try this with great reluctance. My reluctance to be part of a brainstorming group is matched by almost everyone else as well. I can't speak for other regulars generally on this board, but you do stand corrected here, IMO.]

Rick Cowles moderates his forum diligently, filtering for both content and presentation. The advantage is, the posts there are always coherent and always on topic. The disadvantage is, there are only two or three posts a day that get through.

Cowles' approach might arguably be appropriate when applied to such a narrowly focused forum. To me, it seems highly inappropriate to a forum where all aspects of y2k are considered.

[Cowles' approach is not under consideration, to my knowledge.]

You yourself seem to be on record as regarding those who disagree as being out to 'destroy' this forum.

[Wrong. Only Decker, Poole and Cherri. There are plenty of others.]

Would you be so kind as to state your position more clearly? Otherwise, we're left to deduce your orientation indirectly, noting that you attack moderates, defend irrelevancies, and appear quite comfortable with the threat of censorship.

[What makes you say I am comfortable with the threat of censorship? For instance, there isn't a single thread of Decker's I would delete were I, in fact, the sysop. Or Poole's. There are some individual postings, mostly profanity (and not just because it is profanity but the way it is used) that I might delete. And announce why, so I could take the heat. What I might do (this is only a personal opinion) is divide the forum between "preps" and "other" so people could make a simple binary choice if they wanted to avoid "other".]

You know as well as I that our current moderators, whoever they are, aren't about to mess with *your* opinions.

[That may be true. My opinions are great. I love them and don't think anyone should mess with them.]

You'd have to be blind indeed not to notice the pervasive double standard applied by the regulars to this forum.

Since I've been here, every argument that has been criticized when used by optimists, is cheered and applauded when used by pessimists. Credentials of engineers must be verified if the engineers report positive facts. Credentials of pig farmers are irrelevant even if the pig farmer is known to fabricate distortions supporting doom.

[I see plenty of this on both sides. Since there are, relatively speaking, more GIs than DGIs who post, of course the percentage will appear skewed. I think most of the attacking on both sides is witless, in the precise sense of the word (without wit). I find wit-ful flaming quite useful, actually.] Mild epithets are castigated when optimists use them, while unremitting foul language is enthusiastically encouraged when used by doomers. ("Yeah, go get 'em").

[If I were deleting foul language, I would go after both sides. Milne, for instance, whom otherwise I frequently agree with.]

I'm willing to continue to make posts pointing out assumptions, distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, half-truths, and all the other techniques used by the extremists (on both sides).

[Are you aware that you are also perceived by all, CPR and Decker, as well as a and Ray, as being on a side?]

When someone known to support such techniques (even tacitly) is handed the power to unilaterally alter or expunge what I write, and announces the intention to do so, naturally I am concerned. So is Decker.

[I think concern is legitimate.]

And the fact that you respond to this threat by attacking *Decker* is deeply disturbing. I know you have a conscience. I think it's time you pause and listen to it.

[Decker was the one who launched attacks here, as I described earlier in this thread. I object strongly to the way he has consistently attacked Yourdon's character and the character of many over the past few months. I don't apologize for it. You may well disagree with my "discernment", but you need to accept that my conscience is entirely clear.

When I can find places to agree with Decker (for instance, his comment in another thread that our culture is drenched in consumerism), I say so. The ball is in his court when it comes to attacks.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 08, 1999.

BD,

"Regulating speech is not censoring it." You do Orwell proud, BD. I am delighted to hear you have a clear conscience. Do tell, are you so impolite in person, or is this behavior reserved for the Internet?

"Why, Decker, you weasel?" "What a total, flaming, cowardly hypocrite." "I don't care who flames me or pleads with me or ends up blaming me for what Decker-Poole are doing. I'm not going to play the game with them any longer or play kissy-poo with those who enjoy the cutesy word games." "Paul Davis, for instance, is about as honest as they come. So is Arlin. You aren't and are lacking in courage." "You are not honorable. Unless you want to keep trying to have the final word, why don't you go post your duplicitous opinions on other threads?" "I am trying to point out that they have a CLEAR agenda that is destructive and deceitful."

You are an angry priest, BD, of a dying faith. Each day, the impartial observers of Y2K chip away at your stone idol, TEOTWAWKI. A man like Flint can see this. He is not blinded with faith, or pride. He is still looking for the facts about Y2K, even if it means challenging some of your cherished assumptions (and heroes.) So am I.

For me (and others), this is a school. For you (and others), it is a church.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 08, 1999.

I remember the trial of a Chinese political dissident a few years back. His defense was that the Chinese constitution guaranteed freedom of speech. The State contended that while speech was free and uncensored, it *was* regulated. The State won.

As for me being perceived as being on a side, I can only chuckle. Among my friends, family, neighbors and coworkers, I'm the doomer nutcase. My family has expressed concern about my stability because of the preparations I've made.

Sometimes on this forum I feel like a tree standing beside the River of Doom. To the river, I'm moving upstream rapidly.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 08, 1999.

Ken -- Clipping statements in which I expressed anger towards you proves ..... ?? How does it alter your opening and sustained attacks on this thread? If TEOTWAWKI is my idol, by all means may it be torn down!! I can't wait and will dance around its ruins. Heck, I'll even do it with you at the Middleton. You still don't understand Y2K or me, alas.

Flint -- I'm not sure what this meant, but I gather you don't disagree with my replies to you. As for you being a nutcase, of course. So am I. Who would disagree? But are you aware of it except in the abstract?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 08, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Is your "church" free market economics? Again I remind you of this quote by you...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

Why do I remind you of this quote from time to time? Because if this is what you truly believe, then facts surrounding Y2K would be irrelevant to you; all that would be important would be to convince others to be less concerned about Y2K than they currently are, so that you wouldn't lose your personal or economic freedoms which you see as being at risk. You yourself apparently have worries about what the government might do.

The church analogy isn't fair when talking about rational pessimists like Big Dog unless you're willing to admit that it could apply to you as well.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 08, 1999.

Dear "Link,"

More than most people, I am aware of the shortcomings of capitalism. I have read countless pages of brilliant critiques of our system... including the grumpy Karl Marx. While a gifted critic, Marx failed miserably when he tried to design a better system.

If you'd like, I can talk at length about market failures, external costs and other common flaws. The primary advantage of capitalism-- it is better than the other economic systems. Like my trusty pickup truck, I appreciate the free market system for what it is... but my respect falls well short of religion.

In case you hadn't noticed, I was right about Y2K. The free market is working rather well solving Y2K problems. Amazing, given the low opinion IT wonks have of the folks who run businesses. Then again, who is working for whom?

The government is not fairing as well as the private sector. The reasons for this are both structural and economic. Of course, I have a different view of government than some. If some federal and/or state agencies stop running, I think there would be a net benefit.

In the past months, I have become less concerned about panic. In my opinion, the fatalists have become increasingly marginalized. On the other hand, I never underestimate the power of government to act stupidly.

The FACTS around Y2K are of great importance to me. Much more so than the Y2K myths that routinely fly about this forum. If you have read my posts, you know that I advocate preparation in the form of "smart living." My assessment of the FACTS so far lead me to believe we will experience a sharp economic downturn, partially due to Y2K problems. I think no debt, plenty of savings and a good job will serve you better than rice and beans.

The real "religious" problem in America is the cult of materialism. It is the ugly, avaricious side of the free market. Unfortunately, I fear it will take hard times to slap some sense into the average American consumer.

Ah, and to the church analogy. It is fair to call me religious (or spiritual) when talking about my personal faith. For me, church is church. If someone developed a better economic system than capitalism, I'd say let's give it a spin around the block. As for a new personal faith, thanks, but I like mine just fine.

You see, good Link, my personal beliefs cannot stand up to cold, scientific inquiry. Y2K, however, is a different matter. We can ask the tough questions. Do metrics really apply? What about embedded chips? What does the "responsible" press say? How good is good enough?

My writing on this forum is not about "convincing" people. It is about encouraging them to think. Like making sausage or legislation, this is not always enjoyable to watch. If you are willing to think, we probably have something to talk about. On a good day, BD is a rational pessimist. I've seen him actually consider good news in a thoughtful manner. And when he turns off RANT MODE, he knows I have done the same with bad news. The reason I started this thread, however, was because on our good or bad days, BD and everyone on this forum deserves a chance to confront the issues head on...

unregulated. Just like a good economy.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 08, 1999.

-------> .

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 09, 1999.