I have noticed over the past few days threads where people are commenting on a Y2K Pro post in the same thread, but Pro's post isn't actually in the thread.

This begs a few questions that the sysops might care to answer:

1) Have some (or all) of Pro's posts been deleted in the past few days?

2) If they have been deleted why isn't a note of the deletion posted in the relevant thread(s) so that some sort of continuity can be maintined?

3) If Pro's posts are being deleted, is this now a blanket policy (i.e. he/she is banned from the forum) or is each post deleted on its "merits" (i.e. it breaches one or more of the forum guidelines)?

The "censorship" thing has been endlessly (over)debated recently, but consistency and transparency of action by sysops is necessary. Otherwise, the forum will lose whatever "intellectual honesty" it possessed heretofore.

(For the record, I am completely opposed to "spamming" the board. Such actions should result in banishment for the perpetrators. Offering a differing opinion from the TB2000 mainstream, or questioning the actions of those with the "keys", as long as it is done in a civil manner, should not be reasons for deletion.)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999

Answers

Johnny,

Four posters repeatedly took part in spamming and DOS "denial of service" attacks for about three days running last weekend and early this week. They are most commonly known as...

 (Doomers@suck.big time!!)
 You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com)

Supported by...

 Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com)
 Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com)

They are all currently deleted on sight.

Nuf' said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

Johnny:

"Offering a differing opinion from the TB2000 mainstream, or questioning the actions of those with the "keys", as long as it is done in a civil manner, should not be reasons for deletion."

I think that Flint and such fill that purpose.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

Johnny mentioned

(For the record, I am completely opposed to "spamming" the board. Such actions should result in banishment for the perpetrators. Offering a differing opinion from the TB2000 mainstream, or questioning the actions of those with the "keys", as long as it is done in a civil manner, should not be reasons for deletion.)

Johnny

For the record I seen Y2K Pro do exactly that. While it was only 3 or 4 at once he should never have done it. While I think the optimists don't get a fair shake on the forum it should never be done supporting forum disruptions.

And as far as disenting views to the forum, I recently stuck my neck (and my name) on the line "debunking" samIam's posts about BC Hydro that were less than well informed. Now I have a "Brian Imager@home.com is a moron" floating around the "Recent Answers". (He maybe right but that is not the point :o)

Now I used INFORMATION to clear up the error and samIam and myself have come to terms. Pro mainly uses less than clear methods for judging Y2K issues. The bulk of his posts just attack with no give and take.

There is little civility in his posts and I am not in sympathy with his plight. Oddly enough while Chatting off forum I liked Pro. To bad he can't handle himself in a respectful manner.

I mean what does he think we are doing here? Playing hockey?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 26, 1999.

Brian:

After what has happened in the last few weeks, it is good to see two Canadians discussing things in a rational manner. It renews my confidence in our neighbors to the great white north.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

I have a question for you Brian. You seem pretty confident that BC Hydro will weather this Y2K storm, based on their press releases etc. Do you really take their word at face value, or do you know something I don't?

-- samIam (dr@seu.ss), November 26, 1999.

samIam:

People in Victoria can depend on the power system in Washington. Can all of BC? Probably. But I think that they will be fine. Hydropower is an idiot proof system; unlike fossil fuel plants.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

samIam

I have been following Y2K since the Quebec icestorm. My experiance in the Arctic has given me a clear insight on what it means to freeze to death (or dam close). The power corps. have been scrutinized more than any other industry. Rick Cowles has a forum dedicated to the power industry and BC Hydro has been thoughly reviewed on that forum. Even the "doomers" (and there are BC doomers of some repute) agree that BC Hydro has a been a model for the industry. Unfortunately the forum is restricted (actually almost dead) and you would have to contact Rick to get the password. My assessment if BC Hydro goes down then the rest of North America is in BAD shape. You wouldn't even want to think about that.

The thought of power loss is what brought me into figuring out Y2K cause of my past experiances and watching the pitifull attemps of the blacked out folks back east. They had very little in the way of dealing with a power outage in the dead of winter.

There are areas that still worry me but BC Hydro is not one of them.

The big concern is the Chemical and Oil plants. My sister is in Sherwood Park and that REALLY concerns me. There is didly squat coming from Canadian sources about this area and it bothers me. Thankfully she won't be home for the rollover so I am personally more relaxed.

You are right, I have contacts that you might not.

And if you want to hear scary, bio containment facilities in hospitals and universities. They are behind. And that is from VERY high up in the Y2K pecking order.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 26, 1999.

Diane -

Thank you for your prompt repsonse. Can you clarify a couple more things so that I (and anybody else interested in this issue) know where the sysops stand.

You wrote:

" (Doomers@suck.big time!!)
 You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com)

Supported by...

 Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com)
 Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com)

They are all currently deleted on sight. "

Is this a permanent ban? If it is a time limited ban, will they be "re-instated" if they agree to abide by forum guidelines?

Is it correct to assume that even if they post something that meets the forum guidelines that post will still be deleted on sight?

Regards

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

As Jimmy Stewart says in "It's a Wonderful Life"...

YYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 26, 1999.

Many thanks to the Sysops for deleting any and all y2k Amateur posts.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), November 26, 1999.

and I also point out the lies and deceptions that y2kultists are trying to pull off.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

Super Polly

Gee Whiz I have seen little from you disputing what I have posted. (And it has been considerable in the past) Guess you don't check out the GAO reports eh?

Where are your sources? Tell me about health, state, city, and county remediations, Chemical and Oil industries, waste water systems, international risks, ports, shipping, JIT risks and on and on. Somehow your warm fuzzies have not touched me yet.

I have pretty much stopped the research end of it myself but the risks above have been well documented by US Gov sources (and Canadian) yet you are saying there is "no" risk. I find this hard to believe. If you thought that it is all hype then where were you when I was posting all this information?

Now as a Canadian alot of forum members have ideas about the US political manipulations of the Y2K problem which aren't my area of concern. If that is where you are at then disregard the above.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 26, 1999.

OK, but BC Hydro is not an island unto itself. Let's say the banks have real problems. How do you pay the Hyrdo employees to keep running the utility? How do the workers put gas in their vehicles if the pumps aren't compliant? What about timing the grid? What if the GPS satellites malfunction? Obviously, my point is that even though BC Hyrdo itself is in good shape (we hope), can we realistically expect something as huge as a power grid infrastructure to be able to sustain itself, when everything else is going into the tank...

-- samIam (dr@seu.ss), November 26, 1999.

samIam:

People in Victoria can depend on the power system in Washington. Can all of BC? Probably. But I think that they will be fine. Hydropower is an idiot proof system; unlike fossil fuel plants.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

Z1X4Y7

Thanks for your kind thought about Canada :o)

Now I believe Washington depends on us for power not the other way around. We supply some power to the US west coast although there is only one noninteruptable customer so we can turn off the juice if there are problems down there.

It apparently did happen that we had to draw power from the states because of a major glich up here but that is the exception and not the rule. BC Hydro has no intentions on islanding though, and only can export 7% of the power we can generate. Only so many power lines I guess.

Still it is a simple fact that water runs down hill (and there is lots of hills and water here) this simplifies the generation of power compared to other methods. But Hydro only supplies 4% of all the power in the US. There are alot more serious concerns than gravity not being Y2K compliant

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 26, 1999.

Johnny,

Discussing it. It's a holiday weekend. Patience.

*Some* persistent troll-like hecklers are snipped too. Zero troll tolerance after last weekend's time-consuming mess.

Truely... Nuf' Said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

Contrast that to many of your Doomer brethren on who say things like:

"Another Polly is dead. Good riddance. The rest will follow shortly anyway when TSHTF. (its@coming.soon), August 15, 1999.

...and I feel confident I have nothing to apologize to them for. Best regards,

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro@censored.com), November 26, 1999.

Now how do you determine that they are my "doomer breathern"? It is this kind of attitude of lumping all forum members as a single entity that pisses me off. I have tried to provide info, some bad, some good. You will never have seen me encourage this kind of responce (dead pollies) and I have repeatedly stated that my personal fears are minimal to nil in regards to my situation and life and Y2K.

Unlike some of the folk on the forum (more than likely yourself included) I have been through extreme conditions, REAL survival. There are alot of "want to be's" on this forum, most haven't gone past the comfort of a warm bed every night. I just want to see people

Keep their liners dry.

And survive in their warm beds.

So if you would like to contribute to the discussion of how an urban enviorment can handle utility failures during the dead of winter I would love to hear it but I doubt that you have ever gone past you little comfee fart bag to learn what it is really like to have your life in serious risk.

Ignorance causes fear and fear causes panic, and panic is life threatening. My part has always been to dispell ignorance. That is all.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 26, 1999.

Diane -

I forgot it was a holiday weekend (business as usual in my part of the world yesterday and today).

No problem waiting for your reply. Only request I would make is that if the reply comes in a day or two perhaps you could start a new thread. This one will likely be buried by then.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 26, 1999.

Brian:

I meant to say that if BC has trouble, well, they can depend on power from Washington. If a decision is made between BC and California how do you think we will go. A no brainer.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

Diane:

I am fully behind your decision to deny service to anyone who tries to deny it to others (via hacking, spamming, malicious java, or whatever).

I don't know what you mean by "support" in this context, though. Can you explain? Expressing approval of such efforts? Or actually engaging in them? I don't think y2k pro ever had anything worthwhile to add to the discussions here, but if just being dumb (without attacking the forum itself) is grounds for expulsion, then y2k is surrounded by (locally) august company.

The threat of expulsion merely for expressing approval of mischief has a chilling effect on debate. I suspect that from y2k pro's point of view, 90% of what's posted here qualifies as spam.

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

Flint:

It is good to see that the salmon expert is still checking in.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

While I fortunately was not around for the 'wars' I do have just one question in light of the Andy Ray deletion of yesterday, and in light of one poster's belief that he ' does not want good news' up above: does the idea of respect necessarily go hand in hand with genuflecting as others on the doom side say their peace to their heart's content? Unlike those in both camps, I think I am still able to use my mind in all of this and as such, alleviate myself of hysterical, emotional responses.

That said, are you intimating that y2k preparation does, in fact, include planning for a neighbor's demise, laughing at someone who is unprepared and shooting neighborhood children who have wandered onto your property? These beliefs have been propogated here repeatedly.

I understand that this board is not something subsidized by my tax dollars, and I know that I do not support it whatsoever in a monetary sense. Yet, the talking out of both sides of the mouth is becoming a little troublesome.It seems to denote the belief that one can relate reprehensible, unconscionable and less-than-human beliefs, as long as they share the same general y2k outlook as the rest of us.

It's alright to be sanctimonious, as long as it is a consistent holier than thou approach. And that doesn't seem to be the case. Erasing the posts of people simply vandalizing a site is understandable, and yet it seem to me that in some cases, doing the thinking FOR the public is more often the case.

regards.

Oh, and to my friend 'good company'....yes....I have 3 months worth of preps.

All ready to be donated to charity.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 26, 1999.

This forum, right up until today, allows more points of view than any forum I have ever seen, real or virtual -- both at the top of threads and as posts within threads.

Hoffmeister, Flint and other pollies are free to post to their heart's content on how dumb the rest of us are and why -- and they do so. It so happens that the pollen, I mean, polly count is lower than the doomer count.

That's show biz.

This entire issue of "good news/bad news" is just the most ridiculous canard. Apart from the reasonable point made by others that we get the "good news" endlessly ANYWAY from the media/PR sources and come here for the "other" kind of news ON PURPOSE (whoa, there's a concept), I repeat that good news can be, has been and will be posted to this forum.

The deletion and prohibited entry of a very few people who have disqualified themselves from participating has NOTHING to do with issues of "good news". When they post good news, it is generally with a view to mocking and belittling the entire forum -- great cover for disruption but that's all.

If anyone thinks that the "good news" quartet of trolls needs YOU to come alongside and post every last little bit of PR and media spin, go right ahead. No one HAS ever stopped that or WILL.

As for "beliefs that have been propagated here repeatedly," the vast majority of those "beliefs" have dealt with helping family members and neighbors, even though most of them have mocked us for going-on two years now ... and helping our communities.

The idea that this forum, REPRESENTATIVELY (for such was your smear, "Bad Company"), "PLANS" for the demise of neighbors or the shooting of children is disgusting. Every once in a while, someone makes a despicable comment which is condemned almost immediately. And, I will add, since almost all of those comments are made by anonymous posters (YOU, maybe?), they may be made by people trying to wreck this forum. Some of the "polly" trolls have admitted posting "doomer" posts just for kicks.

The "sanctimonious" character is within you, Bad Company. An apology to the many dozens of people I have come to know personally here, dads and moms with kids who have prepared for them, their parents and neighbors, would be a good place to start.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Sorry, Dog, you have mixed me in with the cowardly types that I so despise. No, I won't hit and run, and as sstated yesterday, I enjoy BOTH this forum and the debunking forum. Over on the other site, cpr is quite good at acknowledging addresses from which 'spam' and 'flames' eminate from. I would dare you---or any sysop---to compare my address with anyone flaming here or deliberately trying to vandalize this forum.

As for your ideas about a smear campaign, I can only regretfully say that you misread the idea completely. It is quite easy to be defensive of someone who is in agreement with your own mindset and speak without thinking. No, what I was alluding to is an apparent sysop tactic that may be too all-encompassing.

Lastly, I do not owe YOU---whom I do not know and have never had the honor of 'speaking' with before---nor any other poster an apology as I have never chastised anyone for taking care of their family's interests. It would be folly NOT to prepare for possible disaster. I do not owe YOU--or any other poster an apology for disagreeing with your viewpoints nor do I feel sorry for not agreeing with the tactic of torpedoing positive news stories as being spin or a public relations, placate the masses tactic.

Sir, you are someone who does not know me. Do not lump me in with the troublemakers and their ilk....and I in turn will try to not lump you in with the boors who equate the honorable task of preparing their families with killing neighbors or laughing as neighbor children starve. You let your emotion get the best of you.

Regards, as always.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 26, 1999.

Bad Company -- If I misinterpreted your post, show me where and please reference my answers back to you. Otherwise, it implies that your charges should stand uncorrected, both about the "good news" and the way that the forum "plans" for people's deaths.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

["susan" a.k.a (Doomers@suck.big time!!) you've been banned for forum spamming & DOS attacks--leave!--playing new names games doesn't hide who you are--Sysop]

-- susan (reaper1@minsspring.com), November 26, 1999.

The post from "its@coming.soon" was not made by me or anyone else you would recognize. It was made by a troll, probably a polly troll bent on mocking us and very possibly one of the trolls who have been banished from the forum.

If it was made by a "doomer troll", that only further reinforces the point.

A specific group of real people have tried to destroy this forum in various ways throughout 1999, whether they post "polly" or "doomer" hand grenades. For at least some of them, time's up.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Dog, the misrepresentation came in terms of me equating those who prepare their families for possible hardships with those who would be what we commonly call extremists, i.e., those looking to do irreparable harm to others given any excuse. I have no doubt that what you say is true, that many of this forum share ideas of how to make preparations, why preparations are prudent and offer tried and true do's and don't's when it comes to ideas like storage.

My comments were not for the latter group.

I also have no doubt that just as there are people like me who now see real, live light at the end of this tunnel and who reason to be optimistic, there are those so entrenched in their polly mentalities that coming here and wrecking threads and the entire viability of the board is not an out-of-bounds tactic.

In this regard, my comments were also not about the latter group.

It escapes me now, but somewhere in your original post you talk about the issue NOT being us versus them (or something along those lines). That is right on target. But Dog, know this: the internet does not mirror life int he real world. Most people ARE riding the fence on this issue, and will do so right down to the wire. Most people are procrastinators by nature, and even now, have no clue as to the reasons why preparations ARE prudent, y2k or not.

It behooves the sysops of this forum...of any forum that states it wants to rationally discuss an issue...to be appreciative of both sides of the argument. In this case, it is vital because so many are on the fence.

I am not standing up for the low-intelligence moron who has nothing better to do that cause trouble. But I remember y2kPro as being someone who simply wanted to relate the flip side of the coin last summer, not a troublemaker. Tell me, is this the type of voice you would silence? Is it more important to squelch this type of opinion than to hear another possible scenario? Is this issue so politically charged that censorship now should take center stage.

Dog, I will apologize if I did not expound enough. We seem to both be anti-boors lodged in both camps.

regards.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 26, 1999.

Bad Company,

I have said on this forum that the doomers may find, next year, that there are polly "heroes" in REAL LIFE, if Y2K turns doomer, say, a Flint, Decker of Hoffmeister. I can't be any clearer than that about the false divisions that sometimes get set up.

Thanks for clarifying your post.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Y2K Pro is a sassy Weibschen.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 26, 1999.

So is Flint a polly? I thought he was just being realistic in his own way.

Flint where are you on the 1-10 scale? Not that it matters, just curious why you are getting lumped in there with the polly's.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), November 26, 1999.

When you post to any forum or bulletin board or participate in a chat room, simply by virtue of posting you agree to the policies attached thereto. One of the policy statements of this board has to do with sysops delete decisions being final. If you do not agree, do not post to this forum. The sysops are not saying Y2K Pro cannot post anywhere, they are saying just not on this forum, which is an unsuitable venue for his subject matter. He is free to disseminate his information on an infinite number of venues on the Web.

-- Old (timer@helping.out), November 26, 1999.

Sysops, I do not know why Y2KPro's posting (above) was originally deleted, but I salute the fact that you have allowed it to return. Let's face the facts, shall we. By virtue of the '3 or 4' postings he made that got your goat, he became a target...but not someone whose message should be relegated to oblivion. His message grounded me early on and was one of the elements that led me to believe that there was reason for optimism.

After all, 'Old' does not 'get it'. His statement above reminds one of the jackboots and storm troopers of yesteryear. In essence he states, when you join a forum, say things that will make the thought police happy. I never got the idea that is what this forum was all about. There always were a lot of diverse voices, and that has an appeal all to itself.Meanwhile, I don't think anyone would begrudge the deletion of a hooligan.

Regards.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 26, 1999.

Nowhere did I say "say things that will make the thought police happy." If that's how badly you misinterpret the written word then I can understand why you don't consider Y2K Pro a hooligan, Bad Company. And I want you to watch those Nazi references, son, people are real sensitive about that around here. You probably picked it up from cpr over at Deunking--he's real fond of calling Diane Squire Fuhrina and the rest of us Nazis. Comparing us favorably with stormtroopers and jackbooters is not going to earn you any friends.

-- Old (timer@elping.out), November 27, 1999.

My thought on this is as follows:

The TB2000 forum is owned by an entity, just as my wife and I own our home. We are allowed to "visit" TB2000 as "guests" and present our points of view. "Guests" to our home are allowed to present their points of view. However, as the owner of my home, I have rules that supercede our constitution. It is not censorship. It is common sense. Discussing the physical attributes of my wife or daughter would certainly be considered out of bounds and you would be asked to leave. That is not censorship. That is owners rights. The owners of TB2000 have every right to monitor their "property" and establish rules that, in some cases, may be considered a violation of an individuals freedom of expression. But common sense tells us that as a "guest" of this forum, we may voice our opinions as long as it is thoughtful and respectful. I oppose censorship of any kind. I tune out and turn off what I don't like. Including the rambling, moronic posts within TB2000. But I also understand that the SYSOPS and owners of TB2000 have every right to establish rules and regulations for the forum. That is not censorship. That is common sense. Every football game has a referee...

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Tminus34&counting.down), November 27, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Johnny Canuck said: if the reply comes in a day or two perhaps you could start a new thread. This one will likely be buried by then. .

Check out the New Answers view of the forum, where recently answered threads are arranged according to when they were most recently answered. Threads that make it back up to that list generally last there for about a week before scrolling off, and stay alive or revitialize so long as anybody answers them. There's a link to this page on the Top Level (main page) of the forum.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 27, 1999.

Wow, what intellectualism here as of late. 'Bad Company is a debunky bunghole. Beware.' Pretty funny stuff and what a revelation. Yesterday I stated that I enjoyed the site and that cpr and his crew consistently win the debate. Your prepubescent blather illustrates why. Better to speak in emotion-laden, pseudo-intellectual circles than to debate, eh? And hey, let's revise history as we go, for it appears few remember the old anymore.

And as far as the mental masturbatory line of reasoning that included the word 'nazi', as someone well-versed in history, it is a great honor to watch King of Spain and others piss all over themselves in wondering where pollies would align themselves if this were Germany, circa 1933. To make that contrast is telling in itself but to equate someone who does not see a cataclysmic climax in y2k as being comparable to those who denied that trains were taking Jews to deathcamps is downright criminal and further illustrates the point that there are certain inidividuals who, because of their position on y2k, can say such atrocious, outrageous thoughts aloud with impugnity. 'Anything goes', right Old? King of Spain and others on that thread would revise history to catapult an argument for the brethren here, but there are some bedrocks that can't change, and there are some events which have no comparison. Such a thought process is an affront to any survivor or anyone who died in the camps...and any surviving family.

Old, censorship does not denote the scourge of mankind, nazism. No, instead it appeared last night that the board moderators were allowing Y2KPro's latest post to be resurrected. How foolish of me...instead it appears they were asleep at the switch.My honest 'tip of the cap' can be replaced with an apologetic "I should have known better.'

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 27, 1999.

Wow, what intellectualism here as of late. 'Bad Company is a debunky bunghole. Beware.' Pretty funny stuff and what a revelation. Yesterday I stated that I enjoyed the site and that cpr and his crew consistently win the debate.

--Bad Company

Too bad, "Bad"; you just lost all credibility, if you had any left. For newcomers, this is an example of the "winning tactics" of CPR and his "crew".

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 27, 1999.

Thanks Steve. At least I am becoming adept at anticipating what the nervous masses will jump on. Mission accomplished. And as far as 'credibility' goes, it's all a matter of one's perceptions again, right? Your credible source is my quack, and vice versa, no? Guess that also applies to the general posting public.

Regards, as always.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 27, 1999.

Incidentally, and just to drag the thread back onto the subject raised in the header . .

-Yes, postsers are being selected for deletion based on "handle" or identity and regardless of post content.

-No there is no justification for this policy other than to censor the forum, and to decide for the moderate and lurker readers what is "sanitized" and "suitable" for their consumption. In addition, the sysops have confirmed, in writing, that in regards to this policy "no discussion will be permitted". (that means you too)

-Yes, I am also, apparently, part of the list of black-listed posters, as I recently posted a thread containing a question - which in itself was not in breach of any posting guidelines, and found it was summarily deleted.

-No, to my knowledge, I have never been guilty of any behaviour which, under the sysops own stated policy, qualifies me for this summary deletion.

Heres the text that got me banned. . . I believe it is still pertinent.

{snip}

EXAMPLE 1 -

Big Gubbmint Spokesman (from Washington) . . :- "These anti- establishment elements can be dangerous. Why, they dont believe a word we government folks say. They think they have the right to disrupt our efforts to run the country for what we believe to be the benefit of the majority of the population. They must be sought out, monitored, and wherever possible silenced. They may be terrorist extremists."

TB200 Forum :- "Resist !! Buy Guns !! Evil gubbmint forces want to declare martial law and deny us our rights. The horror . . the humanity"

EXAMPLE 2 :-

Diane Squire (from a sacred space) :- "These polly-troll elements can be dangerous. Why, they dont believe a word we sysops say. They think they have the right to disrupt our efforts to run the forum for what we believe to be the benefit of the majority of the readers. They must be sought out, monitored, and wherever possible silenced. They may be debunky extremists."

TB2000 forum :- "Hoorah, Go Diane, you're our hero . . go get em girl, Woohoo. Squash the polly trolls."

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE.

{end snip}

Dangerous stuff eh ? Delete that dangerous vandal !! Shut him up !!

How long are you freedom-loving libertarians gonna sit by in silence while the boot boys speak on your behalf and decide what you're "grown up" enough to read?

W

PS - Brian, you are a moderate and eloquent individual, and I always read your posts with interest. To address a point . .you wrote . .

"Now how do you determine that they are my "doomer breathern"? It is this kind of attitude of lumping all forum members as a single entity that pisses me off. I have tried to provide info, some bad, some good. You will never have seen me encourage this kind of responce (dead pollies) and I have repeatedly stated that my personal fears are minimal to nil in regards to my situation and life and Y2K."

Yes brian, I agree, in this "debate" there is far too much polarization, and a tendancy to view everyone within narrow and opposing "camps". It is the stunning silence from the moderate TB2000 readers which actually LENDS CREDENCE to this concept, and I think you and people like you would do nothing but good by standing up and being counted on this issue. The policy of sitting quietly while the hardliners whoop and crow in support of prejudicial censorship does nothing to support your argument that something other than extremism is represented here.

Uncle Bob . . LOVE the analogy. "Every football game has a referee."

YES ! But how relevant is the game, and the result, when the referee is playing for one side and against the other ? Arent they sposed to be . . like . . IMPARTIAL ??? Isn't that what we've been . . like . . SAYING ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

SYSOPS: Please DELETE the above post by the piss-ant Y2K Pro. -- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 26, 1999. Interesting. That didn't get deleted.

Besides, there are several shift workers here at where I work, we all use this computer under different user names in our workstation, but it has the same IP address. We all know and love this forum. What if one of us got blackballed? Would that cause us all to be tarred and feathered by the self-elected, self important "sysops" with supreme executive power? Help, help, I'm being opressed..... Eric Idle, Month Python and the Holy Grail

-- chelsea (chelsea@cyberfieds.com), November 27, 1999.

W01234xx...: This isn't a ballgame, you pathetic moron. MAYBE if you and your [less mud please KOS--Sysop] troll buddies would stop TREATING it as if it were, you would get a lot further at being taken seriously.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 27, 1999.

chelsea: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 27, 1999.

Only with King Arthur. (and maybe Sir Robin)...

-- chelsea (chelsea@cyberfieds.com), November 27, 1999.

I was told via email by a forum sysop that there was no evidence individuals would be summarily booted merely on indentity alone. But it has come to that now. It is shocking that Andy Ray is being deleted on a wholesale basis. Like the soviets who banished dissident poets to the Siberian wilderness, the censors have banished even moderate dissident voices such as Andy Ray's.

Will "W" now be deleted as well for speaking out consistently and rationally against censorship?

The brute tactics of Diane are pathetic. She is snipping happily, her little mind tightly closed. Why? Because certain individuals are irritants? What about KOS above, who assails every female poster with the same boorish question about mud wrestling? What about the incessant chanting of Stan on preps? What about the distasteful insults of Will Continue and Invar? Are those not irritants?

That is the double standard, folks.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

Like the soviets who banished dissident poets to the Siberian wilderness, the censors have banished even moderate dissident voices such as Andy Ray's.

Celia,

Um, which of Andy Ray's voices are you referring to?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012Td

[snip]

:)

'Tis true, I have posted on other message boards, and under different aliases. Some of the aliases are on your side. ;) Sometimes, one alias argues vehemently with another - that adds credibility to the "doomer" alias, and gets him or her "in."

As I have stated before, 'tis all in the interests of securing information for a post-Y2K book with the working title "ShowDown @ the Y2K Corral: a study in 'cybernoia'." I have also entertained donating proceeds from the profits to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Microsoft or Apple. Any preferences?

You have been such wonderful participants in my information mining!

:) Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 27, 1999.

To clarify Wolverine W0lv3r1n3,

Your... EXAMPLE 2 :- is nothing I ever said. But dont let the truth get in your way. (You rarely do).

Are *most* of us posting here, including Sysops and Moderators Y2K impartial? No.

Was Ed Yourdon when he started the TimeBomb 2000 Forum? No.

(Read the About message. Still holds).

We all think its gonna be a problem. AND... Who knows? Is also the other shared understanding.

Trolls are zapped, especially now. Those who support the trolls during a time of extreme trollishness, spamming and DOS attacks... * may*... and did... get zapped. Tough. You werent part of the team that had to repeatedly clean up the spamming and DOS denial of service messes going on for days... HOURS and HOURS worth. What a waste of time. And yes *some* of us were pretty furious. Moi included. Any wonder?

Its been said ad naseaum... if you dont like it here... youre free to leave. Your choice.

chelsea,

What if one of us got blackballed? Do you, or one of your co- workers spam or DOS attack here? Its a case-by-case basis.

Celia... you're an "irritant" and you're not snipped... are you?

Spamming and DOS attacks and their participants are a whole 'nother thing. But you wouldn't "get" that would you?

Peace.

Basically... Nuf said.

34 Days.

GI?

BTW... Thanks for sharing your concerns.

Diane, calmer now too

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

Celia Thaxter mentioned

"It is shocking that Andy Ray is being deleted on a wholesale basis."

Andy Ray is more interested in getting this forum screwed up by anymeans possible than real debate. His intentions have been made crystal clear on the debunker forum.

Its "shocking" that you don't care about this Celia.

AR should have been kicked out 6 months ago.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 27, 1999.

Also see these threads...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019fd

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019i0

Civil discourse is one thing. This is about more than just "civil discourse." I'm surprised that the sysops had as much patience as they did and waited as long as they did before dealing with this issue.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 27, 1999.

Brian:

I think you're missing something here (along with Diane).

Let's say we get a post (or new thread) that sparks useful and informative discussion. OK, this is (IMAO -- in my arrogant opinion) what we'd like to see. It provides a vehicle for a wide variety of viewpoints to be presented and supported. Certainly some of the more pessimistic among us do an admittedly excellent job of providing supporting information, carefully selected and interpreted though it is. Without a good prod from an opposing view, this information may well not be presented so clearly.

NOW, some moderator looks at the IP address of this useful post, and identifies it as the same source address of a denial-of-service attack previously. What's the proper course of action here? Permit the post to stand since it's useful, or delete it as punishment for prior actions? It seems quite clear from what's been said that, had this post been submitted from an unknown address and signed by an unknown handle, it would gladly be allowed to stand.

So what we're seeing isn't really "protection" of the forum against attacks (which I support), but rather vengeful (and counterproductive) retaliation against individuals. I believe that in so doing, the moderators are shooting themselves in the foot out of spiteful small-mindedness, and we all suffer the consequences. I would favor allowing ALL thought-provoking posts to stand regardless of poster. (and BTW, I don't consider mud-wrestling thought- provoking).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 27, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3 mentioned

"Yes brian, I agree, in this "debate" there is far too much polarization, and a tendancy to view everyone within narrow and opposing "camps". It is the stunning silence from the moderate TB2000 readers which actually LENDS CREDENCE to this concept, and I think you and people like you would do nothing but good by standing up and being counted on this issue.

Wolfie

Well thanks for the comments. Inregards to Y2K it is hard to tell where common sense stops and extreme starts. I do know what Extreme weather is like so that is my basis, ground zero. Most folks have this really woossy attitude about weather. But if there are serious problems then it is not likely the programmers that have the experiance to deal with such matters. This is something that chokes me is the fact that while some may say a "bump on the road" they also would have trouble handling a serious Ice Storm or arctic front when there are utility failures at anytime. This bothers me.

As a Canadian I can imagine the worst extreme reaction for the optimists would be the commentary about the US Government going down, and some would welcome it. This is something I can do little about, it would be up to you to prove your case in this regards. As the bulk of the members on the forum are from the States my influence in this matter is minimal. Actually Eastern Canada is out of my bounds of commentary.

But if folks are up on Y2K then they should be aware of their backyards right now. Do you have accurate info about your area? Why not if you don't? This should be everyones focus now. And if you or others are commenting about anything without knowing your own backyard well shame on you. And if you are assured that your backyard is good then you should share that info with information backing it up.

W0lv3r1n3 I sure hope that you have checked up on your backyard and whatever the result you share it with others. This is a failure of many folks, Pessimists and Optimists alike. I keep a very close watch on my back yard and would encourage others to do like wise. This is the most important aspect of Y2K and "Real life".

Thank you for you kind thoughts on my views. They were not easily gained I will tell you. It would be really difficult to discribe what it is like to light a woodsove in 40-. Something I have done to many times.

Keep your liners dry folks

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 27, 1999.

Diane, what my concern is that there are many people here who could post from this same computer, defined by this IP address. The different "user names" or nicks used on this forum would all fall under the same computer identifier (location). It would appear that a single person would be posting as different people, when in fact we are different people using the same computer. Therefore, there may be instances when your assessment of "who" is posting is wrong. That would mean that censorship actions against one person in a group that accesses a single computer location would wrongfully censor the rest of the group with no basis. Case by case or not.

True, the amount of waste material that can come from some people is truly enough to fertilize the Green Giant fields, however, I know how to scroll, skip, and censor my own reading without moaning to other people about it.

So - I'm going back to finishing up our new wood stove project research on my breaktime.

-- chelsea (chelsea@cyberfieds.com), November 27, 1999.

Flint -- exactly.

-- chelsea (chelsea@cyberfieds.com), November 27, 1999.

Flint

I would favor allowing ALL thought-provoking posts to stand regardless of poster.

Well I guess that is why Ken has some respect here, he may have a stance against many forum members and myself at times but his methods show that he is interested in intelligent debate for the most part. I would hate to see Ken get knocked off for this approach (besides he creates a great "fixed position" to attack :o)

But certian posters just can't connect resonable debate and Y2K. This is of course on both sides of the debate so the "doomers" can be as guilty as the others. It has to be clear to you that the time is past for childish attitudes. The US Tday is a time line that has been crossed and one that is very important IMHO. Christmas and all the fruitcakeyness that goes along with it is upon us. That will take up the bulk of folks attention. Y2K would have to be on primetime regular to wake up the masses.

It has occured to me many moons ago that one of the reasons that Y2K developed into a problem was the lack of understanding the issue of time and change.

We have run out of time and the last thing we need is silly posturing of our side of the issue with little information to back a position.

So yes Flint if anyone can provide accurate info on the state of affairs Y2K wise, this would be welcome. But the past is the past and we have to shake our heads and look towards the future pretty bloody quick.

As I mentioned in my responce to Wolfie above, it is your local area that most should be consern about. Optimists and Pessimists alike. This should be the focus. Anyone that can provide accurate information in this regards would be welcome in my books.

Debating the past is now a waste of time.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 27, 1999.

Flint Alabama is your backyard eh?

I find it odd that the forums most noted rationalist is also from the least prepared area in North America.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 27, 1999.

Brian,

I am neither threatened nor shocked by what individuals post on the Debunking forum, and I do not visit that board. I find it dismaying that many here are so easily intimidated and outraged by the actions of a few rebels from an "enemy camp." Let them express themselves freely in that particularly venue or here. This forum will stand whether it is spammed by debunkers or not. Plainly, to find their "plots" or "conspiracies" threatening says more about one's insecurity regarding one's beliefs on Y2k than it does about their motives. Even if this forum were out-and-out beleaguered by Debunkers it would withstand it, as the number of sincere pessimists and optimists here far outnumber the number of insincere spammers.

What is stated or implied on other fora has no bearing on the issue of banning individuals outright, a blanket form of censorship. Censorship is tantamount to tyranny, which is repugnant in all its forms. Obscene and mindless content should be moderated, not individuals. We ought to be able to stand calmly and steadfastly amidst various and opposing views and patiently withstand childish assaults.

The idea to be aimed for is "inclusive," not "exclusive."

Now, Diane may brand me an "irritant" for expressing the above opinions. And perhaps our forefathers were "irritants" because they fought for free speech and justice for all. Nevertheless, the proposition that ALL individuals are created equal implies equal chance to express oneself fairly within the bounds of decency. Even in this little public forum, I will plea for the principle of free expression.

I own that even our smallest noble efforts contribute to the greater evolution of mankind toward its highest capacities. This forum *can* and *should* respect those greater principles of free speech that we who live under the tolerant sun of democracy all too apparently take for granted.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), November 27, 1999.

Celia Thaxter

I will support the freedom of everyones opinion but not the freedom to try and burn down the house.

Big differance. And there are some that would like to burn down this house.

There has to be a time when folks realize this and there are posters that are trying to acheive this. Not the random comments but a full scale attack. We had a war here and Martial law was applied. Even the agravators were giving the chance to express their views and they abused the privilage and are now getting yanked. Tough.

I don't know how many times I have offered to start a forum for those folks and they have refused. This is the example of free speach. Sometimes I think folks are just not used to the net and forget that. Its FREE!!!!! All of us can have our soapbox to stand on and yell.

What is the problem here? They don't have the guts to do it. So they have to shit on this forum. Well GROW UP!!! That is my main beef.

NO doubt if they started a forum and the same tactics were being used you can bet that they would do the same things and yang the posts.

Childern

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 27, 1999.

Gawd, the frigging nerve!!! And Y2K Pro, while asking for PROBATION consideration in a new thread, comes back to THIS thread and hurls yet MORE insults!!! Y2K Pro, of all the urine-ants, you are surely one of the most vile.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 27, 1999.

Of course KOS is much too polite to insult anyone!

Y2K pro, obnoxious as he may be, makes a good point here. KOS also never contributes anything informative or thoughtful, and nearly all KOS posts are nothing but inflammatory insults. KOS's only saving grace, so to speak, is that his childish behavior is vented for the "right" (read: moderator's) opinions.

I wonder why KOS doesn't go over to the debunker forum and try to do some good? Of course, posting against the tide takes balls. Y2k pro has them, KOS does not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 27, 1999.

Who is Celia? Has she ever posted anything remotely connected with the purpose of this forum? Same goes for Johnny Canuck, Bad Company and many more of the polly troll bunch. When did it turn into a "Let's debate the pros and cons and minute minutae of what people think is meant by freedom of speech" board? I want what was promised -- information to help me get through any problems caused by Y2K -- and I have a hard time finding it for plowing through all these unrelated posts. At least King of Spain makes me laugh -- all these others do is try to hide the useable information from those of us trying to find it.

-- Who (are@these.people?), November 28, 1999.

Here's a question for you, Who: do you enjoy hearing all sides of the argument? Do you want a total rendering of what the truth might be? Doesn't free speech---that gets trumpeted here regularly--include hearing voices that YOU personally might not agree with? Are you a fan of George Orwell's '1984'.

Let me say again that the type of question you ask is irrelevant to answering the questions put forth here. While Ms.Squire is quite correct in asserting that no forum should be subject to vandalism, all I am asking for is the effort to disavow tunnel vision. That is, reprehensible postings that revise history, place 'pollys' on a level with some of history's most grotesque characters or rejoice in the possibility of wathcing neighbors starve or killing others also need to be subject to the delete button---for even-handedness sake.

If the aforementioned items are things YOU come to this forum to read about, then perhaps YOU are part of the problem, as well. As far as KOS' ignorant and ridiculous re-rendering of history, well....such illustrations are disturbing, and not humorous.

Here's hoping you get a clue.

Regards, as always.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 28, 1999.

Flint is a lost cause, in bed with the trolls.

-- Flint flunked (test@30.days), November 28, 1999.

From the Notebook of "Who":

Rule One of Exclusivity and Disinformation: Question identity of those you disagree with, even those who have been participating in forum for well over a year. Even if you yourself are an "unknown" with an unknown history, point fingers. Remember to use a fake email address when doing so.

Rule Two for Exclusivity and Disinformation: Accuse those who raise hard questions of distracting the board from "relevant" topics (i.e., prepping, how bad it's going to be, etc.)

Rule Three for Exclusivity and Disinformation: Ignore the titles of threads. Even if the subject of a thread makes the content clear, go well into the thread and loudly complain that you cannot find the information you are seeking.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), November 28, 1999.

Who is 'Y2K Pro'?

-- Ready (4@it.com), November 28, 1999.

Rule Four make TimeBomb posts only when censorship topic raised.

-- (CeliaThaxter@transparent.gripes), November 28, 1999.

It's amazing that some people on THIS thread are claiming that I did "revisionist history", yet on THAT thread, there is nary a peep of protest. In fact, on THAT thread Flint does not dispute any of my assumptions nor for that matter my conclusions, OTHER than his claim that there are no lessons to be learned, because one would need perfect hindsight. The thread in question is:

Hoff, bks, Flint & Decker Can't Lose

Furthermore, Flint, I have long pointed out the complete luncacy of the morons from "debunking" Y2K sites coming to THIS forum -- a Y2K preparation forum -- to spout off their crap. Andy Ray, Y2K Pro, et al should stick to "de-bunking" forums for de-bunking. THEREFORE, I have no intention of going to ONE of those forums to try to upset their applecart. Comprehende??

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 28, 1999.

Sorry "Gripe," but I've posted on many other topics than censorship. Censorship, however, is a topic particularly dear to my heart, partly because I'm an American. If you're not American, you may not understand this. If you are an American, I suggest you give some thought to the right of freedom of speech, and consider what it means when it's chipped away at, even in little public forums like this.

By the way, you might want to refrain from using others' names to sign your posts. It doesn't lend credibility to your thought. But then, your thought had no credibility to begin with.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), November 28, 1999.