To any moderator of this forum- Please review the following thread before reading further...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0018AY

Currently, that thread has grown to a length of 36 replies. As you have seen, there is a plea for you to step to the plate with a response. As of now, no moderator has yet come forward on that thread. My 2 question at this point are: Had you not yet seen this thread (possible)? -OR- Does your lack of response indicate that you are not willing to address the issues involved (also possible)? Thank you.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999

Answers

CD, you aren't 'scratched', are you?

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 25, 1999.

Naw, WC, just a bit warped from the heat.

Hey, WC. Have you ever gone to a ballgame, say, the Blue team vs. the Grey team, and the game took place on the Blue home ground. And you're a Grey fan and as soon as you get in the stadium, you bitch to the person next to you, who's in Blue, "Hey, I don't like the way this stadium is built, you've got to change the color scheme, I hate the way the urinals are arranged, the Blue uniform sucks, this popcorn tastes like shit, the manager's a wacko and the coach is a maniac and the fans are all morons, now, when you've done this, WC, have you been surprised when somebody grinds their hot-dog in your face?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 25, 1999.

what if the blue team is trying to play soccer at the baseball game?

-- David Michaels (davmik@email.com), July 25, 1999.

CD, somewhere along the line, you clearly missed the fact that i Do happen to be part of the team that is TRYING to see to it that there is SOME decorum left on this board. Unless, of course, YOU chose to ignore what I said on your thread. MOST of the rest understood that what I posted WAS a response from at least ONE of the Moderator's (ad hoc advisory) Team.

chuck, a night driver, and now part time associate moderator of the Prep Forum.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 25, 1999.

CD, first you say the moderators should mind their own business, now you're begging them to intervene in one of your nonsensical threads. Do suffer from the same MPD as Flint?

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

CD,

This issue has been beaten to death, over and over, and over again. Why do you, and the rest of the De Bunkies keep pushing it? (As anyone can read yall discussing it there ad nauseaum).

Read the guidelines. GUIDELINES... not rules. This is essentially a self-moderated forum. And many moderators are simply tired of the constant attempts at mud-wrestling and outside manipulation.

When Ed left most regular posters declared that they wanted little or no moderating. The few deletes resulted in outraged cries of censorship mostly from the folks over at the De Bunker site. (This you and the regulars are well aware of).

So, as a consequence, the TimeBomb 2000 Forum has been getting little or no moderating. With some exceptions as responded to YOUR question here, CD...

System Moderators...Help Please

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0017z2

Do I personally like it that way? NO! Will it remain that way? Not sure yet.

Id use the Delete key often... on all sides. But when it IS used there is a hue and cry... when its NOT used there is a hue and cry. Believe its called being stuck between a rock and a hard place. And the Moderators are as polarized about the issue as the posters are. Catch-22.

Its the regular posters here themselves who really need to look at what they write for posterity and each other, and whats important about WHAT they focus around the Y2K issue.

They have to CHOOSE to refrain from rudeness and flaming. Its about... personal choice and personal responsibility. No one can make someone choose to behave with more decorum... UNLESS there is widespread support for more moderation. (And that does not mean dictated moderation by a group who has consistently attempted to disrupt this forum).

If and when, the guidelines tighten up, and a heavier hand at moderating is taken, then it will be because the regular long-time TBY2K posters--who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people--want it that way.

If you dont like it here, you are free to leave.

Nuf said. Again.

Back to Y2K.

Diane, Sysop

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 25, 1999.

Chuck- (I wish you had identified yourself as a moderator on the other "Truce" thread. I would then not have begun this one.) I reviewed your post on the "Truce" thread and absolutely agree with what you had written there. And you did in fact address the questions Wolv raised. One of your comments particularly stood out to me... "I suggest that a TRUE, CRITICAL evaluation over the past month would show that BOTH sides have been given, if not License, or Carte Blanche in their posting language, and demeanor, then at least, free (or virtually unfettered) rein. I, for one, disagree with and dislike this approach". Addressing the "approach" is *exactly* what the purpose of that thread was all about. There were a number of posts that offered solutions without the need for censorship. If the moderators would take a proactive role and take it upon themselves to actually support some of those suggestions, the noise level in this forum would be greatly reduced. It basically boils down to this.. If you sit mutely on the sidelines and say nothing when the "a"'s, "doomersucks", "Y2kpros" "Outings" etc of this forum spew their PERSONAL attacks, you can expect no less from those whom they are attacking. If you as a moderator say nothing, you are sending the message that you condone the BS and the BS will continue (last 2 words: pun intended). Anyway, thanks for responding Chuck.

"a"- LOL. I can definitely understand why *you* don't like *my* posts. I can also understand why the "Truce" thread bugged *you* so much. After all, you were a hot topic there. It was probably a little embarrasing for ya huh.

Diane- I can understand how you feel you're between a rock and a hard place. But re-read through the "Truce" thread . There are a lot of good suggestions there. You don't HAVE to use the delete key to cut down the noise in here. Lead by example, respond equally to anybody who makes personal attacks, address the "handle thiefs", etc. etc. (See the above comments to Chuck.)

You also said in response to my earlier question (which you linked to above)... "Mostly, for now, its self-moderating. Other options can be considered." Again, that's what the "Truce" thread was all about. Why didn't you chime in over there? Have you even given thought about what was said by the people on that thread? Finally, why do you call me a "De Bunkie"? Are you implying it's ok for a Heller or a Carlos et al to post on that forum but it's not ok for me and select others to even read it? Lot's of people here read DeBunker along with many other forums. It's all about learning Y2k. What's up with this singled out personal attack on me? Now do you see what I and others are trying to tell you -the moderator Diane- about leading by example?

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

Moderators. I would like you to take a look at this post which I see has been added to the "Truce" thread...

=============== May I assume that there are atleast hundreds if not thosands of people like myself who have been following this site for info? I and my wife along with my children and their families have all been forced to do this because the info is not in the normal media chain. We are trying to get info to protect ourselves if that is the way it turns out. There has been enough info from both sides to indicate possible problems coming at all people. How can we(the non-techie's) make sense of your info if you all spend so much time in inane and childish sibling rivalries! We need you and your info. We have no other place to go. If the moderators cannot control the responses any better than they have then both they and the people seeking info from both points of view will lose.

-- Neil G. Lewis (pnglewis@yahoo.com ), July 25, 1999.

===================

Food for thought huh. Here's another thing to think about. It comes from another post on that thread which I have taken the liberty to modify slightly in order to make a point...

"If I were a newbie coming onto this forum for the first time, and had no opinion about y2k one way or another, and was just trying to make up my mind by reading the posters opinions, I can tell you this. I would be so turned off by all the in your face insults and slurs that I would immediately decided I had fallen in with a bunch of fanatical nuts and leave. I would also probably decide that y2k didn't amount to a hoot because everyone who had taken it up are acting like children."

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

CD Thought contagions CD Stephen Poole CHALLENGE

-- (food@for.thought), July 25, 1999.

Two questions for the coward hiding behind the anonymous handle "food@forthought"...

1. Are you "OutingsR"? (If not, I extend my apologies for so badly slandering you)

2. [After following the links you provided] Yeah? So what's your point?

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

I think OutingsR's analogy about the ballgame is a good one. I think of a forum as a social gathering in the living room of the host. This forum, as originally conceived, is hosted by Ed Yourdon. He posted a sign on the front door that says, "This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people" Ed Yourdon, and his views on Y2K, are well-known to those who find their way here. If not, the intended purpose makes it quite clear what the nature of this social gathering was meant to be.

The Debunking Y2K forum is hosted by Doc Paulie, so the living room there is his. The sign posted on the front door makes it pretty clear what the nature of the social gathering there is intended to be. I don't see regulars from this forum posting at the Debunker forum, which indicates to me that, as a group, we have the intelligence to comprehend posted guidelines and the conventions of hosted social gatherings.

Now, the question might be, why is it that so many from Doc Paulie's living room, who strongly disagree with Ed Yourdon's view of Y2K, and the intended purpose of TB2000, choose to come here? Why are they here telling us how stupid/foolish we are, how ignorant our host is, how shabby our treatment of them is, how poor our moderating service is, etc.?

I have often wondered what the reaction at the Debunking Y2K forum would be if we behaved in a similar fashion. What if a handful of our regulars (I'd nominate will continue, "a", and King of Spain) who enjoy sarcasm, and perhaps have more taste for the fight, took up some new handles: Y2KProphylactic, PollySucks, Sandy Raywell, you get the idea. Then they all logged onto www.anonymizer.com and got anonymous IP numbers (like the Debunkers who post here), and started posting on a regular basis at the Debunking forum; at least 2 or three of them would need to post there multiple times on a daily basis. When the regulars at Debunker start flaming them, what if our group started long, multiple threads there complaining of their rude treatment? What if our regulars kept up this behavior for, oh, 6 or 7 months, like what has happened here?

You tell me, CD, what do you think would happen? Do you think Doc Paulie might offer them an apology for the rudeness? Change the guidelines of his forum? Tell his regulars to be nicer to them? Reprimand mutha nachu for being sarcastic? Delete cpr's posting privileges?

-- Concerned Citizen (more@foodfight.com), July 25, 1999.

Concerned Citizen, Amen.

CD,

The range of opinion on this forum is evident daily. The constant carping (not just yours) about the moderators worrys me. If you or those you know have been edited or have had posts deleted please let us know. Examples please. Otherwise, this moderator problem seems contrived to perhaps discredit a *pro-prep* forum as a whole. You run a danger here. I don't think you would shill but trying to discredit this forum is exactly what a shill would do. Newbies ya know. Gotta help/protect those newbies.

Everybody is a red blooded American hero here. Just ask 'em.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 25, 1999.

Citizen- I have re-read your post 3 times. In the first sentence you state you like the ballgame analogy. The rest of the first paragraph is devoted to restating what is already known about the intended purpose of this forum. The remaining 4 paragraphs you devote to comments, questions, and criticisms of the Debunker board and comments, questions and criticisms about those who post over there. I don't mean to sound sarcastic here, (unless you are the anonymous author above called "foodforthought") but why are you directing this to me and what exactly was your point in posting that message? Was there one? And for the record, are *you* a moderator? I don't know. I ask because I opened this thread with the hopes that I would hear *their* responses.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

I vote, NADDA on the "living room' analogy! I'll admit I get carried away, but seldom without coming from a humorous point of view, I've even been known to compliment the other 'living room' when they have displayed a good yuk rather than 'yucky'!

There seem to be a select few who have no sense of humor. Reminds me of the way Adrian Cronauer was attacked in "Good Morning Vietnam". Many of the 'doomers' happen to be very funny, that is of course, unless you prefer Polkas. It's a morale thing, when faced daily by the clueless, laugh or loose it! I honestly believe many lurkers stop in, hoping for an occasional laugh (intentional.....and NOT). Not much funny about this subject, in case you hadn't noticed!

Anyone who would let 'children' scan this forum, probably allows them to view 'R' rated movies as well? Reality check, please. ANYONE who could consider this forum to be more offensive than the subject, just doesn't GI. Wake up, before Y2K slaps you into next week.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 25, 1999.

Carlos- I do understand how some people would/could feel discussions such as these might be nothing more than some contrived scheme. For what it's worth, I can tell you I am not in on "the scheme". I am allowing myself to be exposed to ridicule on this thread out of support for what Sysman, Wolve, and Chuck (in the past) had started. That is, improving this forum for *everybody*. Do you not believe it could be improved?

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

Will- I definitely agree with one thing you said... This forum could use a whole lot more humour!

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

CD,

Still need examples that confirm your fears. As I posted on the latest "Can't, can't we just get along" thread, show me the abuses you decry. Otherwise, where can you go with this except to look troublesome?

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 25, 1999.

CD: why do you think I would have been embarrassed by the Truce thread? Did it have pictures of nekid ladies at some point? And why are you calling people "cowards" on a thread where you ask folks not to namecall? Have you discussed MPD with your therapist?

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

Carlos- All the examples/abuses you could possibly ask for are over on the "Truce" thread. [linked at top of this page] I ask that you take some time to read through *all* the posts there. You'll also see the questions/suggestions don't involve *deleted posts*.

Man, I have posted a zillion messages to this thread today. My fingers are gettin' laryngitis. I'll check back in here at another time.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 25, 1999.

CD,

Not true. Read them all. Question stands. Good luck with the fingers.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 25, 1999.

Carlos mentions

"Everybody is a red blooded American hero here. Just ask 'em."

Well I am a Canadian hick and proud of it :o)

CD

Are the other childern bothering you? Does mommy and daddy have to punish them? I think some how you can defend your opinions without having someone hold your hand. Diane should be deleting violent and very tasteless posts. I do admire your stance on the personal attacts. But IMHO babysitting should be done at home and if it is to hot for you (which I doubt) then you know where the door is.

I think Diane has been light on the delete key and the opinions. This is the way it should be. The vast precentage of the posters here are very intelligent and relitively polite. This squeaky wheel bit is getting pretty thin.

If you need your own forum please contact me and I will help you set one up. It would be my pleasure. The internet thrives on freedom of speach. If you wish to have that taken away start your own and comment on others posts. Pull the ones that upset you. Then no one will come play at your house.

Other wise I would prefer if you stay, pull up a seat and join in the common discussion.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 25, 1999.

a: There are no nekid lady pictures on that thread, at least not as of now. Were there any? Did anyone see them?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 25, 1999.

King: I think so, but I hear you couldn't see much because of all the mud.

-- a (a@a.a), July 25, 1999.

Carlos (if you're still around to read this),

Re: examples/abuses. You say they aren't there, and I say they are. Let's just agree to disagree on that issue and move on.

You wrote: "contrived to perhaps discredit a *pro-prep* forum" -and- "but trying to discredit this forum is exactly what a shill would do".

I really don't know whether you did or did not mean to imply "conspiracy", but when I had first read those comments, I assumed that's what you had meant. Today I was thinking about "the conspiracy" and it led me to these thoughts...

I'd like to run a hypothetical scenerio past you. I offer this merely as an mental exercise and do not mean to imply I feel the scenerio is true. I only view it as an interesting thought and do not wish for it to evolve into a debate. I'f you'll just play along with me here, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Hypothetical conspiracy scenerio: An author (we'll come him Ed Smith) writes a book about a looming crisis involving nuclear war. Mr Smith states this crisis is unavoidable and urges his readers to prepare with bomb shelters, iodine tablets etc. He also opens a web site and invites his readers to discuss the issues. Soon there are many people on the forum discussing all aspects of the crisis. The issue of nuclear winter (which was espoused in the book) is raised by one of the contributors and many people point to this as yet another reason to prepare. Then one day a "troublemaker" comes to the forum and makes the statement that Carl Sagan's theory of nuclear winter has been disproven by many reputable scientists. This leads to an outcrying of "BLASPHEMY!" from the other members. An investigation into the "facts" is undertaken by all. Soon it becomes apparent that nuclear winter cannot be absolutely proven one way or the other. A number of scientists disagree about the "theory". Depending on who you site as your "scientist source" you can sway and/or reinforce other people's opinions. Since most people on the forum choose to believe in Mr Smith's nuclear winter statements, an agreement is made amongst themselves that the "troublemaker" should be silenced via ridicule and/or personal attacks. He should be "run off" cuz he's such a don't get it jerk! Not only that, but the newbies will just get confused! Not being privy to this "conspiracy" of the forum regulars, the "troublemaker" continues to point out various bits of information. The regulars begin to heckle him with lots of personal attacks. The regulars also begin posting news articles, often taken from very out of the mainstream [read highly slanted/bizarre] media sources in order to "prove" their position is "true". The troublemaker stays in spite of all the "noise". The members now decide to search out and post comments from the guy which were made long, long ago in a far away forum. Taken out of context? Sure. But nobody cared as long as it somehow serves to discredit him. Besides, the new threads can be used to further attack his personality. Time passed and some new people come to the forum. If any of these newbies mentions support of Mr Troublemaker's opinions, the regulars are alerted and they send out the "Personal Attack Team". [Newbies learn quickly to bite their tongues] More time passed and more people came to the forum. The newbies are becoming numerous and some are becoming quite vocal. Eventually some voices are heard to cry foul at the regular's unsavory tactics. Other newbies agree and also speak up. A plea is raised for the moderators to put a stop to the nonsense. The moderators recognize a dangerous situation is developing and huddle behind closed doors to formulate a plan. Word on the plan is emailed out to the most loyal crew of regulars. The message simply states: Hey gang, when we put this to a discussion, just scream outrage! and just say no! They'll never no what hit 'em LOL. A seperate letter is emailed to Mr Ed Smith and it reads: "Dear Mr Smith, Thank you for making me moderator. Let me show you how fair I am by posting a public solicitation for input on how we should moderate this forum. Oh by the way, please don't bother to personally ask for peace on the forum. We have it all under control ;-) Sincerely, Donna.

Carlos- As I mentioned above, I'm just trying to have fun here. Please take it in that light. Just wanted to show you how a conspiracy-minded person could maybe read things differently.

Sorry for the long length of this post. If it's any consolation, it will probably be my last for awhile. I got a letter from a friend yesterday. The message in it really hit home for me and I now have a different perspective on how to best spend my time. I'll still be in and out of here at times, but hey, life's too short to spend too much time in front of a computer when you don't have to.

To anybody but Carlos who may wish to reply (or flame) to me or my post, please know that I'll not be responding back to you. Nothing personal. Just not really up to it right now.

-- CD (not@here.come), July 26, 1999.

A while back, I got an e-mail from someone who was critical of the position I take on this forum. Well, fair enough, so I asked which posts I'd made were the problem, and offered to treat any specific criticism seriously.

The next day, I got a message back saying that person had in fact *never read* anything I'd posted. He'd just found some threads attacking me, and assumed the attacks were valid. After reading a few dozen of my posts, he apologized for his criticism, explaining that what I actually said and what I was *accused* of saying were so different as to be beyond belief.

To my knowledge, this is a pure lurker, and has never posted here. CD's hypothetical discussion strikes home.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 26, 1999.

Flint, you and CD are simply wimps. Your arguments should stand on their own legs. I can't believe you are implying that there is a conspiracy to silence the pollies. My god you sound like Andy.

CD's hypothetical is nonsense. We on this forum continue to present evidence that we are headed for crisis, and you folks continue to poo poo it and cite meaningless status reports. BTW, one thread just today discusses William Cohen warning a biological terrorism attack is imminent and Washington post revealing that India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war last month. So ignore the writing at your peril.

Furthermore, there is a lot of disagreement between Yourdonites. I am usually always at odds with Robert, INVAR, Andy, and others. And even though many here may regard me as an asshole, we don't argue too much when an argument is developed and presented logically.

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

CD,

Since I'm the one that started this whole truce thing, please give me my $.02

The orientation of this forum is well known. So is that of Biffy, and Bunky. Now, I'm sorry, and I'm sure I will have a thousand "mudballs" (thank you George (for the term)) thrown at me, but I just don't get it. I've visited those sites many times, and have even gone as far as posting a few "troll" remarks at Biffy. Go ahead guys, "out" me if you want...

The point is that I don't see any evidence on these sites that supports their point of view. All I see is the name-calling kindergarten level stuff. The swamp, the flying pig... I could dig up a million. Well, maybe not: they just don't have the traffic.....

But, we do have the traffic here. This is a popular forum. Damn it, this is the best fucking Y2K forum on the net (sorry folks, I hate to swear...)!!! I can't find a better place for Y2K opinions, information and news. If you have found a better site, please start a dozen new threads, telling us all about it!!!!!

Now, let's talk about moderation. I'm not, and don't want to be, a moderator on this forum. But I do give the moderators a "hi-five" for leaving this forum run it's own course. I really don't think I've ever seen a post "DELETED" because it was a polly post. If ANYONE has an example, please let us know. Right here, right now.

So I guess what I am saying, is that if the "optimists" want to have their say, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I welcome it. I'm interested in ALL points of view on this issue. I would like, no, love, to see the optimistic point of view presented in a logical manner, without all the (sorry, Doomers@suck.com, not directed at you, we do have a truce...) doomers suck non-sense! Show us your facts. Tell us why you feel the way that you do. Back up your opinion with something other than "you're a moron!."

Let's move on folks. It's still Y2K.

Don't we have enough to discuss about Y2K without getting into all this other BS? I think so. <:)=

PS - Doomers do suck, sometimes...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 27, 1999.