There's gonna be a change in the Weather around here. Diane has asked me to help out a bit with the moderator task here, and she has agreed with me that we need to do something to try to restore some order to the chaos that currently seems to be the rule here, or at least the perception of the rule here. To that end, I will remind everyone of the posting guidelines:

TimeBomb 2000 Forum Posting Guidelines:

 Y2K--preparation and related issues--are recommended discussion topics

 We ask that vendors refrain from posting direct information about their products and services

 Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames

 If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post

 Post using your own name or handle--stealing may result in deletion

 Once 3-5 regular posters request DELETE--pointless threads may be removed

 Refrain from using profane/obscene language--or post will be deleted

 Dont feed the trolls--please

 Delete assessment of TBY2K SYSOP(s)--is final

IN ADDITION, since I am now the "Pimp in the box" the following will be used for delete criteria:

 HAVE a Take

 Don't suck

 Be Civil about your point



(Oh, and no Orenthal Faxes please)

[With absolutely NO apologies to Jim Rome and his Jungle]



If your post does NOT have a point which forwards the discussion of the topic if it's an answer, or Year 2000 if it's a new thread, it will vanish . I really don't care WHAT position the posts espouse, if they are phrased in a civil manner, avoid a slanderous approach, and forward the discussion, they will stay. However, if they DO NOT, they will vanish without a trace, and WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Start a thread about WHY DID MY POST GO AWAY, and IT TOO will vanish. If you wish to discuss WHY a post or thread went away, my e-mail address is at the bottom of every one of my posts, and it works. Since I DO work for a living, you may not get an instant response to your question, but I will TRY to get back as soon as I can.

I CLEARLY do not have time to read every post, so if I miss one that needs to go, you will have to flag me, best at my own e-mail. MAKE SURE THAT YOUR E-MAIL HAS " *****DELETION REQUEST**** " as the subject, as I am now averaging just less that 100 e's a day and am TRYING to stay caught up.

I understand thread Drift and will NOT even TRY to have an effect on this, except to point it out where I think needed.

This is by way of an experiment, as the group seems to have lost its ability to control itself (singly and en-group), so we are going to try to re-learn/re-teach where the boundaries of civility lie.

Yours in Bowdlerization (LOL);

Chuck

Who seems to have misplaced his nomex undies, but HAS received his order of cyber-kevlar.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999

Answers

Those of you who are hurrying to the Post an Answer button

STOP

The answer to "What about Andy ands the NWO stuff" and "What about a@a.a and... and... and..." is that Y2K DOES NOT OCCUR IN A VACCUUM. I will be fairly lenient, so long as the poster can relate it to the topic. I FIRMLY believe that how China and Taiwan settle things has a bearing on Y2K, as do a number of other world events. Chuck, the new pimp in the box

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

Hey Chuck, delete THIS!

We aren't kindergartners around here we don't Mommy Squire to tell us to be good little kids and "don't suck!". "Play nice or don't play at all!".

In short, if your not a Doomer, go away and leave us to stew in our juices without any interuption from the real world.

-- (a@a@x.com), August 02, 1999.

See thread...

Forum Note: Taking A Y2K-Time Out During The Next Couple Weeks/ Month In August

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001B1O

;-D

Diane

And don't forget to categorize your new threads!

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.

uproarious applause and whistles! stomps in the bleachers!

-- happy happy joy joy (happy@days.are_here_again), August 02, 1999.

Chuck and Diane,

Thanks for doing this work...

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.

The restoration of order and civility is GREATLY appreciated! Thank you both. Love the way you express yourself, Chuck!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 02, 1999.

Nah, a@a@x.com I won't be deleting that, it just makes the point for me. You were reasonably civil, you have a take, and we disagree. Oh well. I can get over it, I hope you are as adult as you suggest and can too.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

Just as those in the northeast are sighing in relief (cooler weather,) there are many on this forum who are sighing in relief, too!! :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 02, 1999.

This is a good thread and all but isn't the weather slightly off topic for a y2k forum?

-- Butt Nugget (nugbuttet@better.mousetrap), August 02, 1999.

Chuck

Just wanted to contribute a sincere expression of good luck to you on this new project.

I hope very much that you will be able to take posts on merit, and mete out justice regardless of position. It was all I was ever asking for all the way along. (figured you realised that anyway)

I considered pledging that under this new administrative methodology, I will return and post where my opinion may be appreciated, but I figure the policy will be a hard enough sell to your "regular / extremist" community as it is, so I wont make your job any harder. {G}

Suffice to say that the environment is set to improve immesurably if you are succesful.

Kindest Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.

A drought of trolls?

-- hopeful (for@miracle.TB2K), August 02, 1999.

so posts that are openly O.T. will be deleted?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.

Whoopee! We're going on vacation.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), August 02, 1999.

GOD has spoken!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 02, 1999.

Hi Chuck

On one of the glossary threads, I was thinking of the following tongue-in-cheek definition:

Andy (v.) (1) To ascribe all misfortunes to conspiracies; to manufacture, misrepresent or predict otherwise nonexistent misfortunes for the purpose of creating conspiracies to explain them; (2) To argue one's case purely by the application of (usually profane) attacks against other posters, without regard for the topic of the thread. USAGE: Another promising thread got Andied to death.

Are we now to understand that you intend to rescue threads from rampant Andying? If so, I fear you have undertaken an imposing task. I'll be very curious to see the outcome.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 02, 1999.

Well Flint, who is going to rescue threads from rampant Flinting??

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 02, 1999.

I'LL RESCUE BOTH of you from rampant ANYTHING!! < additional comments refrained from > Anyone know the phone number of God Complex Anonymous??

GO---errrr--Chuck

Laugh WITH or AT me but YOU WILL laugh, while we take care of business here.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

Chuck,

As a matter of principle, I am against censorship. Aside from the philophical arguments, in practice it rarely works. On this forum, I think the usual suspects can easily overwhelm even a hard-working moderator. Say what you will about them, but "Will Continue," "Andy," "King of Spain," etc. have endurance. This said, I you do seem more "middle of the road" than BD or Diane. I remember fondly a post where you actually stood tall in your Nomex PJs against the forum bullies. As you choose to "referee" this contest, Chuck, you have a chance to earn the respect of thoughtful people on both sides. You'll know you've been successful when the "thoughtless" rail against you. While I cannot support you as a censor; I can respect you as an "ump."

Play ball.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 02, 1999.

OK Chuck, you got me laughing for now!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@ttoacc.com), August 02, 1999.

Flint (v.) (1) To drone on and on about vague generalities, completely ignoring the details of the issue at hand; (2) to argue one's case lamelessly, voluminously, and repititiously, without having put forth anything of substance. USAGE: Yet another well documented Y2K incident managed to get Flinted. Gawd!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 02, 1999.

So, Chuck, are you a good witch or a bad witch? I really wanna know... (big grin)

Hope that you do maintain your sense of humor. Best wishes.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 02, 1999.

Thanks Chuck. I have full confidence in your ability to differentiate wheat from chaff.

One question: does Mrs. Driver have ANY idea how time consuming this task will be? This is gonna cost you BIGTIME!

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), August 02, 1999.

Actually, she won't know the whole story until she gets home. i may, of course begin posting from under a bridge in downtown Cleveland on Tuesday...... Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

Decker (v.) (1) To mesmerize, spellbind, charismatize against Y2K preparation; (2) to deceive, mislead, especially by dishonest means, using voluminous verbage and puffery; (3) to pretend to be an authority on a Y2K related subject when in actuality be a complete moron. USAGE: That lady finally understood the need and urgency to begin Y2K preparation, but got Deckered. SEE ALSO: Hitler, Adolph, circa 1920s-1940s Germany; The Devil, a.k.a. Satan, a.k.a. The Serpant, circa -4000BC (est) Garden of Eden.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 02, 1999.

KoS: borderline, try to get with the program, please.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

Hahaha, KoS gots the program tagged! Y2K definitions appreciated, KoS; please add to Forum Glossary ;^) Way to immortalize us pioneering posters heh heh heh

-- laughing lurker (on@topic.yes), August 02, 1999.

Chuck ---- Does this mean you people are not going to form a new forum as you suggested about a week ago. I sure hope not. My suggestion still is to put the posters name at the top of the post rather than at the bottom. Please reply. Thanks.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), August 02, 1999.

"WEfolks" ain't as monolithic as it looks. Check with bigDog on that one. He was the one floating the idea. C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

We need to display the poster's ISP #. This will cut down in the number of trolls. Guaranteed.

-- Post The ISP# (lose@the.trolls), August 02, 1999.

Would also cut down on the number of posters. Let the trolls post, I would just like to see there handle at the top of the post, and then do my own sensorship. It's called strolling down to the next post.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), August 02, 1999.

Good luck Chuck!

And to clear up a few conserns,,,, Chuck or Diane can't change the structure of the forum. That problem lies with Phil Greenspun and I am sure that there is only so much that he would choose to do.

So it there are requests for the structure of the forum to change you would have to inquire to Phil and he will tell you to read his book.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 02, 1999.

Flint you gigantic ass I strenuously object to you constantly taking my name in vain.

I have feelings too you know...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 02, 1999.

It's August. It's about time.

Once more, with humor!

Thanks, Chuck.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), August 02, 1999.

Since this is all tcl and perl CGI scripts, just writing in the environment variables from CGI would display quite a bit of information.

A few examples:

REMOTE_HOST - host name of computer requesting page from Web Server. REMOTE_ADDR - IP Address of computer requesting page. REMOTE_USER - login name of remote user if applicable. REMOTE_IDENT - if remote machine supports user ID, this is user name.

Those are just a few of the CGI environment variables that appear on almost every Internet/Intranet server. And if he turned them all on and posted them to these pages - you could not get a soul to post. And they would go to all the boards on this machine - not just the TB2000 board.

Good luck on cleaning up this place, Chuck. Removing the personal attacks WITHOUT BIAS would go a long way towards returning this place to a discussion group, instead of the current 'rant and rave' pit it has become.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.

I didn't know you were a C-town Clone Chuck. Props for the hard work.

-- Jenks (troutfishin@thesierras.com), August 02, 1999.

Is religion OT? If it is half the post on here should be deleted!

-- SgtSchultz (SgtHansSchultz@stalag13.com), August 02, 1999.

ANDY, me-lad, if'n you were to lo-o-ok before leaping, you'd of seen that Flint certainly got MORE than he gave. LAY OFF! go read the top of the thread again!

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver at work (rienzoo@en.com), August 02, 1999.

thinkIcan --

Chuck's efforts here are entirely independent of the question (benefits/tradeoffs) about launching a third forum (probably devoted to Y2K Recovery considerations). I haven't decided about that yet. Though I've made no secret of being on the "mod advice" team here, everyone, just like yoursef, is quite independent and it is Chuck's "editorial hand" that you will see over the next time period, not mine. And not Diane's.

I am inclined to wait a couple of weeks to see what new shape, if any, this TB2K "classic" forum takes. While I am all for "letting a thousand fora bloom," there is no reason to do a new forum just to "do it." Quite the contrary.

I'll post a thread updating my thinking and giving folks a chance to respond sometime during the next two weeks or so.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 02, 1999.

Chuck,

I appreciate your sense of humor. Moderating looks like a tough job - and I think Diane did her best, really. I think you will do better, and wish you the best.

To echo other post-ers to this thread, a little more humor and a little less bias will probably do more to steer the conversation towards a forum, and away from a "hysterium." Kudos for taking the job.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), August 02, 1999.

FLAME, FLAME, FLAME!!!

Seriously, though...Good reminder of good posting practices. This should cut down on some of the extaneous bovine excretia that is occasionally posted.

Thanks for doing a difficult job.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 02, 1999.

Chuck I truely wish you the best of luck! and Monk don't take my name in vain. Didn't you learn that in the monkery?

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 02, 1999.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, !

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 02, 1999.

Well, I GUESS there's a take there, probably has something to do with a lower expectation, or something. It's reasonable civil. But it just doesn't contribute to the discussion, so, instead of deleting it, we'll just use it as a perfect example of the sort of stuff I have already deleted from elsewhere.

It's kind of funny, but it IS on topic.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

Ok Chuck, thanks, but what the world needs now, is not an editor/moderator or whatever youall want to call it, but a concentration of common goals, derived by wisdom and not editing.

Thank you, the rest is blah, blah, hot air. IMHO

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

And HOPEFULLY, this will come with time. If we can, as Dean Ing has one of his characters say about getting a wood range to work "cuss and cajole" the folks into thimjnking in those paths, we will have succeeded.

the goal is to, first, make the distinction between apropriate and inapropriate posting, and THEN get the focus back.

ACTUALLY, I'm trying for the kind of fun it was when I got here in the Summer of 1998, when we were able to discuss heavy weight stuff and still have some fun, instead of being so totally defensive and/or offensive and/or offended.

And I am fully aware of Kerouack (sp) and his theory, and its bases and proofs, having done a few myself, but still, I think we can do it here.

'Course, I may have to find an instant spell-check or I'LL be the one providing the comic relief, unintentionally.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

Invar, Dieter, King of Spain, A, and Andy. They're the reason I come here every day. Maintaining a separate prep forum was a great idea, however I think we could all use some laugher and even some challenge in our lives. Just because a post is "different" doesn't mean it has no value. I think we all know who the real trolls are and always have the option of ignoring them completely.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

Ditto Gia,

Chuck, I don't want to get into a pissing match with you, but I have to respond.

You said>>"the goal is to, first, make the distinction between apropriate and inapropriate posting, and THEN get the focus back"

Is this your personal goal?

How about this goal>> TEOTWAWKI may be happening soon. Let's discuss preperation for said theory, or any and all theories about why this may or may not be happening. Included in these discussions, let's discuss why these theories are misguided or why they are prescient.

I'm not picking a fight with you. I hate the idea of censorship at all levels, unless someone tries to insert code that alters the program.(remember AR's gift the other day?)

Why can't you as a moderator(note I didn't say editor) post ISP #'s in post? How about demanding a real email?? The masses tend to edit themselves when responsibility is included in the actions.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

DoeS DIetER COnsIDer ITselF WarNEd??????? jA!!!!!! dOES thE DIEter caRE???????? NeIn!!!!! NeiN!!!!!! diETEr caRES Not!!!! JACkAL!!!! hyENAS WiLL stiLL bE expOSEd fOR THe fOOLs thEY ARE!!!!! INfidELS muST stILL Be tarNIshED, MusT THeY NoT?????? wELL??????? PepPERonI!!!!!! thE SKuLLmucKerY OF IDIot BUnghOLEs muST stILL BE exPOSED, dO YoU Not SEe IT???????? oF COurSE!!!!! inFIdel!!!!!!

diETeR GOeS NOt aWAy!!!!!!! geT OvER iT!!!!!!

i HATe yOu!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), August 03, 1999.

R Wright

Initially, on reading you on this thread, it seemed to me that your apparent fondness for unfounded assumption as the basis for an argument served to explain your seeming lack of openness to concepts beyond your own opinion. But now I'm not so sure. Clarification required. Specifically . .

"blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, !"

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 02, 1999.

Hmm . . . OK . . not sure what this might be referring to, but it doesnt sound very positive or supportive.

Lets read on . .

"Ok Chuck, thanks, but what the world needs now, is not an editor/moderator or whatever you all want to call it, but a concentration of common goals, derived by wisdom and not editing."

Oh. Is that what we need ? Well, good job we had you around to let us know, or wed've been in big trouble. {G} Maybe we could organise a collection to express our heartfelt thanks.

And as if we didnt KNOW this was coming . . .

"TEOTWAWKI may be happening soon."

Unlimited free ice cream for all children in the world MAY be coming soon. I doubt it, but it MAY. In your world view, do those of us who think Y2K may be less than TEOTWAWKI have the right to comment ? Lets see . .

"Let's discuss preperation for said theory, or any and all theories about why this may or may not be happening. Included in these discussions, let's discuss why these theories are misguided or why they are prescient."

You do. OK, good. But in the light of your previous postings complaining about Chuck's new stance, I think you're contradicting yourself.

"Let's discuss preperation for said theory, or any and all theories about why this may or may not be happening" . . . um . . yeah ..let's.

You want to see more discussion on whether or not Y2K=TEOTWAWKI, and the best way to prepare for whatever scenario seems most likely ?

Well hey, it seems that that's exactly what Chuck IS trying to set up here. A forum where that can happen, instead of the normal intolerance to any opinion which may vary from the "end of the world" extremism which a few individuals have foisted upon the moderate folk in this place.

And your final gambit . .

"Why can't you as a moderator (note I didn't say editor) post ISP #'s in post? How about demanding a real email?? The masses tend to edit themselves when responsibility is included in the actions."

Um, for someone who's "against censorship at any level", that doesn't sound like a very liberal alternative. You want to be able to trace poster's IP addresses and real e-mail addresses. Why ? What would you do with them if you had them ? I think we should be told.

So, maybe you could clarify your position. Are you in favour of fair and open discussion on this forum or not ? I confess that after reading your several postings to this thread, I'm even more confused.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 03, 1999.

Thanks, W. MORE or LESS an accurate assessment of what I'm trying to do and where I am. Primarily trying to reset the forum as a matrix into which and within which we can discuss ALL of the various colors of the Y2K rainbow, much the way we were able to do a year ago, when the forum was both informative, and fun to be associated with.

THANK YOU DEITER!! I THINK I've been blessed. I guess I've arrived.

Chuck

Y'see, ya haven't arrived until DeiTEr BlESseS wHAt You ArE TRyiNG to Do.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

BtW: We ProViDe WhaT DRATZ!

We provide what Phil's software lets us provide, and, if I have this correct, IP addresses are available in the Admin views only, which I have no problem with. Life, here, like out in the non-cyber world requires a bit of adulthood. Oh well. Have fun and cover the topic, or ....., explore other options.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

Chuck,

You should run for President - you sound like another control freak. Censorship sucks, big brother. Do us all a favor and delete yourself.

-- @ (@@@.@), August 03, 1999.

Has a take, done reasonably civilly, on topic, OK I just disagree. NOW, folks, don't ask me to delete THIS ONE TOO! OK? MAYBE this will help people see where I'm coming from.

CHuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 03, 1999.

W,

You wrote>>"Um, for someone who's "against censorship at any level", that doesn't sound like a very liberal alternative. You want to be able to trace poster's IP addresses and real e-mail addresses. Why ? What would you do with them if you had them ? I think we should be told."

I do not want to trace posters. I want to read peoples opinion on....well just about everything.(unless I'm researching something specific) If IP's were included in posts, everyone would know who the poster is while reading the troll post. The troll post is ok, and welcolme to me, as long as it includes responsibility for the post.

Case in point, on another thread about Paul Milne, INVAR probaly thinks he beat the tar out of me pretty good. Ok let him think it. I made my point, he made his. He also called me a few choice names in the process. So be it. I know he did it. He didn't need to troll. He was and is responsible for his words.

Now lets say cpr trolled in with "your all doomers, and doomers are the one's that deserve to die." If that happened, hey, ok, if he signs it cpr. But if he signed it doomerseatcrap@horsecrap.pattie, well it meant nothing. But if the isp is present, not only do I know it's cpr, I can also see the humor in the name/adress.

The other day someone put a gift in a post to this forumn. This one pissed me off to no end, and still does. I consider the web the last bastion of free speech in society. I believe Chuck knows what post I'm talking about. This is the only kind of delete I can aprove of. I am also aware Chuck has the keys to the kingdom, and I can only state my opinion.

Oh well. It's a constant debate I guess. Every couple weeks here of late, I see posts from the moderator's about deleting. Bad forumn. Bad Bad Bad. I think the eleventh commandment should be, though shall not edit. IMHO

PS: Can you provide a link to the ice cream rumor?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

As a regular lurker, I feel even Chuck's benign(?) and humorous censorship is still censorship. When I come across rubbish, it only takes a quick scroll to pass it by. THAT'S censorship. But it's mine, not imposed by someone else. Chuck has strong views. Notwithstanding his avowed intent to be 'fair', how long before power does what power will do, and we only get to hear what fits in, broadly, with what Chuck feels fits in? No. I'm against other people telling me what I can or can't read. It's the thin end of the wedge.

Maybe I'll lurk somewhere else. As a fairly newbie on the Net, can anyone recommend a y2k related newsgroup where there are'nt self appointed censors? Thanks.

-- Lurking 2 (Lurking @downunder.com), August 04, 1999.

Mr Wright

A well reasoned and lucid response, thank you. I should clarify that I am not in favour of censorship in principle either, which may sound strange in the light of my stated support for Chuck.

What I mean to say is that the mild and responsible kind of censorship which is being applied now is a lesser evil than either of the two alternatives which I have seen . . namely

1) where no censorship occurs at all, the guidelines for posters are ignored, and any attempt at debate becomes drowned out and fillibustered by the "attack dogs" and their distracting ad-hom frenzies, and

2) where censorious policies are applied to support the guidelines, but in a totally biased way, similarly stifling free debate.

I'm prepared to swallow my objections to censorship on principle if the prize is to see this forum become a strong debating environment, where people can discuss their point of view, civilly, logically, and without having to fear the bullies. I say let's give him, and the concept, a chance.

As to the ice cream, keep your eye on "Ben and Gerry's" stocks . . maybe if they start out-performing Microsoft there could be a payoff. {laugh}

Also, to the silent lurker who dislikes censorship and is looking for somewhere else to lurk. The de-bunking forum, for all its bad publicity here, is simply another place where views are aired. It is not censored, but IP addresses of all posters are shown.

I'm sure you would be made welcome, so long as you are prepared to back up your position civilly, and logically, with current facts and figures. Dont be put off by the bad publicity which all this adversorialism engenders, if it truly was a den of raving lunatics, I wouldnt go there myself (and nor would Mr Decker or Mr P Davis, both of whom, I believe, behave well when permitted the space and courtesy required for civil discourse).

Just a thought

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 04, 1999.

Lurking 2: If you go to www.coolpages.net/2000 you will find a bunch of Y2K forums. But, if you look at the dates of the posts, they are generally old, with the exception of one forum: this one. TimeBomb 2000 appears to be the only dedicated Y2K discussion forum that not only has remained active, but has a tremendous range of human resources that seem knowledgeable about virtually any question you might have.

Gia: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

W,

Yes, maybee some editing is due. I probally will never notice it, if a moderate hand is used.

You wrote>>"I'm prepared to swallow my objections to censorship on principle if the prize is to see this forum become a strong debating environment, where people can discuss their point of view, civilly, logically, and without having to fear the bullies. I say let's give him, and the concept, a chance."

I agree. Compromise I will, if the debating environment is stimulating. Thanks for the bit of schooling..

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 05, 1999.

that WOULD be a description of the goal.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 05, 1999.