The cool thing about the Internet is the ability to spawn and respawn forums for speech that are vastly different from one another in many respects and, yet, overlapping in others.

I often said (and meant it) that I could have cared less who wins/won Y2K debates on impacts, except that I hoped for the sake of my family, community and world that the pollies would. I'm reasonably confident that they have, though not yet completely confident (I've always been slow to sift stuff and can't help it at this late stage of my life).

Likewise, I could care less who wins any "forum wars". Life is too short for that stuff.

The point-of-divide, in my opinion, is not between Timebomb pollies-doomers, etc., but between a media "managed" view of the world or one that is citizen-directed. Obviously, many of you view the new EZBoard as "management" of an even worse order. Hey, that's your right. I don't. So what. Go at it. As a variety of speech "models" are explored on the Internet (accompanied by a set of trade-offs that are learned through those experiments), everyone will benefit.

I would expect Decker, Flint, Hoffmann, Schenker and others here to drive lively discussions on a variety of topics that will appeal to a wide set of participants.

Best of luck on this new venture.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000

Answers

Russ, your message is most gracious and your participation on this forum would surely ratchet the class up a notch or two. If you plan to return to actively posting I suspect you will quickly tire of your new crowd and the restrictive atmosphere. The fact that you could post here with no questions asked speaks volumes on the issue.

Im personally interested in your input regarding where you see Y2K generated problems in the near future. Also, Ive often wondered why the thoughts brought forth by Ted K. have not been discussed on these forums. After all, in his Unabomber manifesto he painted a gloomy picture for our technological world. This alone could keep us busy for a few months. Please come back here where you belong.

For those who have not read the manifesto go here:

http://www.unabombertrial.com/manifesto

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 04, 2000.

Hey, Big Dog ... I have read your answer here and on the EZBoard. It is easier for me to read here. Thanks for the comments. Please continue to contribute here, as you are able.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

Just once...

Final Classic TBY2K Thread...
Alternative LUSENET TB2k Forum
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002hpU

My response:

Well Genius you figure it out...

(Posted over on Ed Yourdons new TBY2K successor ezBoard)...
http:// pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=200.topic

Find it delicious irony that the initiator of the new...

TB2K Spinoff Uncensored new forum
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002hnj

... may well be Y2K Pro a.k.a. Mr. Polly, who also relentlessy spammed the TBY2K forum daily, but is also the one who coached LadyLogic on how spam and take down the forum. Either that or Y2K Pro is claiming hes you. You may want to take your rant to him.

LOL! Isnt Karma intriguing? Clearly the ones who go there now, from both sides of the Y2K equation, have something to teach one another.

;-D

The gordian knot is released.

Truly a FRUITCAKE ending, in any case, if there ever was one!

Choices, choices... lessons, lessons.

*Mona Lisa Smile*

Fare the well and blessings all. Off to a sustainable future.

Good luck.. to the ALL new uncensored forumites, Polly's, Trolls 'n Doomers extraordinaire... may your heart's desires ALL come true.

Diane

(BTW, I'm quite sure it's Y2k Pro that started the uncensored forum... and the one's who hated his actions now join him... all in the name of "censorship." The very one's who went after MIT to close us down are now on MIT. LOL! Doan'cha just LUV it?).

'''''''''''''''

Leavin... On A Jet Plane... Dont Know When Ill Be Back Again...
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002h5y

FORUM IS MOVING TO NEW HOME ON EZBOARD
-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 02, 2000
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002hHU

Musings on the art of transitioning from Faculty to Emeritus Sysop/ moderator
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 22, 2000
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002cxP

'''''''''''''''

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

Hi, Big Dog.

Thanks for your gracious blessings. I agree with you.

Completely without malice, I ask in all sincerity if you'd feel this way about the "benefit" conferred on those not permitted to participate. In all honesty, do you think your attitude would be "Hey, so what" if your voice were silenced? Would you say, "Well, I've been shut out and nobody will tell me why, and I'm being attacked and not permitted to defend myself, but hey, it's just another "speech model", so "everyone benefits"?

If I were even partially responsible for making sure those I didn't like couldn't be heard, I'd have a bit of an ethical problem labeling this a universal benefit.

However, it's good to hear your voice, and I hope you find your role as active participant more rewarding than your role as Prohibitor of Wrong Opinions. And you know, I think you will.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

I participated as one of the sysops in the new forum on the decisions that were made about you and others. I honestly don't see anything to be gained by explaining the details of why or how those decisions were reached.

I can't answer your question from personal experience. I suspect I would feel hurt and angry, emotionally, and offended, intellectually.

However, I do believe that it is completely legitimate for Internet forums to determine the composition of their members.

We can argue all day about what "censorship" is or isn't, but it is scarcely difficult for anything from the other forum to be posted here or elsewhere on the Internet - so "secrecy" is certainly not the point (nor have you suggested it is).

Different "communities" have their own histories. Ed and the other moderators made a decision on EZBoard that stemmed from THEIR histories and experience (personal, by definiton) on TB2K Classic.

You and the others who may post regularly here will develop your own history and your own response to the evolution of the forum. That is what I was referring to when describing the positive impact of a variety of speech models. As we watch the varied consequences of human decisions on these matters over the coming decades, I suspect a fairly broad consensus will emerge on the best practices for Internet forums.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

Whoever Old TB2K forum regular "really" is his/her actions here speak for themselves. I like what I'm hearing.

It is entirely possible true freedom of speech brings out the very best in us.

-- Debra (??@??.com), March 04, 2000.

Oh great. More stuff to eat into my time! Thank heaven for bookmarks ;-)

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), March 04, 2000.

BD

Why did HDy2k go private? Most disheartening to lurkers when it happened.

-- testing (the_w@ter.now), March 04, 2000.

BigDog, it's good to see you here. This is not "Flint's venture", but mine, a fan of yours. I hope you'll come here often too to contribute again, and Diane, and Chuck and all the Old Timers! :-)

Don't look at it as a "forum war", look at it as options. EVERYONE wins.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

Although there were many sysops, it took between four and twenty hours a day (total) to delete Y2K Pro, LL, etc. Life is too short for that nonsense.

It is very easy to lurk on the EZBoard. You can still use anonymous registration.

In fact, it's no secret that Y2K Pro and others like him/her can still be destructive, it's simply significantly more difficult and EZBoard is proactive in going to the ISPs of such people as well as initiating legal action in certain cases.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

Heh, Diane sounds miffed...

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), March 04, 2000.

Old TB2K forum regular: I too am a fan of Diane, Chuck, Big Dog, all the Old Timers, the Doomers, Ed and ... especially you. You Get It.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

Russ,

Flint is simply more gracious than I. Your dismissive attitude and work as forum "bouncer" will not soon be forgotten. Nor will I lose the words to your favorite tune, "The Code is Broken" and the "B" side, "We Started Too Late." (chuckle)

Yourdon's recent behavior has confirmed Hoffman's charges. Yourdon never accepted any responsibility for his profound Y2K errors. Perhaps he realized he cashed in his IT reputation for a place in the neo-survivalist world. Ed Yourdon, official IT consultant to the Militias of America. (laughter)

Enjoy your new forum, Russ... and say "Hello" to Arlin Adams and your other compatriots for me.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 2000.

Does anyone know what was in:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hnj

?

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 04, 2000.

"Although there were many sysops, it took between four and twenty hours a day (total) to delete Y2K Pro, LL, etc. Life is too short for that nonsense". -cut- "In fact, it's no secret that Y2K Pro and others like him/her can still be destructive, it's simply significantly more difficult and EZBoard is proactive in going to the ISPs of such people as well as initiating legal action in certain cases." -BigDog

Greetings again BigDog-

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the opinion stated by "hmmm" which can be found at this link...

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=002htV

In essence, "hmmm" is saying that the sysops "created the monster" themselves through their own mismanagment of the situation. Having seen/experienced first hand what bias and inconsistency in a sysops team can lead to, I would definitely agree with this conclusion. Your thoughts?

Thanks BD.

And as others have mentioned, I too hope you become a "regular" on this forum. This place has an altogether different "feel" from what I remembered of the old days. It would appear that "Old TB2K forum regular", whomever he/she may be, has managed to put the fun back in the forum for *everybody*. (Debra- Excellent point by the way!)

Sincerely,

-- CD (not@here.com), March 04, 2000.

I don't think it's possible to discuss in this venue the very complex reasons behind the trajectory that the board took last year, reasons tied more than a little bit to the passions that the imminent arrival of Y2K were arousing around the country, let alone on the board on all sides.

It is obviously true that more forceful moderation encouraged many who wanted TB2K destroyed in any case to launch even more aggressive attacks based on the "justification" that they were being "censored."

I will leave as an exercise for the reader whether the same people weren't already spamming and trolling the forum with the same objective, as well as whether those attempts would have intensified in any case - as I say, it's not possible to discuss the history of this in adequate detail here.

My answer to the question raised above as to why the forum was taken private, using a mode where people like the ones referred to can be blocked at the IP level or made subject to legal action, is fairly straightforward.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

Thanks for the well wishes,Big Dog. I hope this place maintains "let's open the windows and get some air!"

One of the thoughts that had crossed my mind many times in the old TB2000 forum, especially when general yelling matches that took place from time to time when many posters objected to the OT-ness of someone's post,or the mean spirit-ness of someone's post, and then watching the deletions occur and then the subsequent questions, flames, general bad mouthing, etc. was this: why wasn't it a possibility that one or more of the moderators who might have had a personal war with one particular poster go underground and post anonymously or with a fake name and email to sabotage that thread especially during a flaming firestorm and then deem it worthy of deletion? Please note that this is a question and not an accusation of any sort. Any thoughts out there?

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 04, 2000.

The thought of doing that was abhorrent to any of the moderators. Besides, all had complete visibility into the IPs.

It may well be true that some of the moderators posted anonymously but never to provoke or set-up a deletion.

If one of the moderators had done that even once, they would have been denied sysop privileges instantly. What you speculate about simply never happened.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

(sarcasm mode still off) "However, I do believe that it is completely legitimate for Internet forums to determine the composition of their members."

Exactly, it is completely legitmate, but it is also restrictive of speech, which means it is restrictive of truth. The original purpose of this forum was to get at the truth of Y2K.

I see TB2K spinoff uncensored as a forum to get at truth in general, which is an even more important goal. I don't think we should really fret about other boards who do not have the goal of seeking a wider truth about life in the US, the world and the universe.

Many do not seek the truth, but only re-assurance of the accuracy of their own beliefs. The search for the truth will bring out varied opinions which conflict and may never even resolve. Such is the ying/ yang, black/white, good/evil dual nature of our world.

Now this duality is expressing itself as seeking truth/not seeking truth. I propose we accept this duality as a fact of our existence and continue our search for a truth which will set us free....

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), March 04, 2000.

If one doesn't have freedom of speech, nothing else matters. If deleting all those bad boys and LL took so much time, why bother.

Diane thinks Y2K Pro started this forum--that's fine with me. I didn't have any problem with him, or Flint, or LL anyway. I'll betcha' a case of name brand tuna that LL will not spam this board. There are many posts on here that make her welcome.

I like it here.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 04, 2000.

"My answer to the question raised above as to why the forum was taken private, using a mode where people like the ones referred to can be blocked at the IP level or made subject to legal action, is fairly straightforward. -- BigDog"

You missed the question. It was about HumptyDumptyY2K.... Still would like an answer. That forum was closed so that it could not even be read by non-registered users!

One of the many reasons I'm asking is that I'm suspecting the last step in the current process is that the new EZboard will also eventually become that private; that is, not even readable by lurkers. Twice already Yourdon has made the comment that the new forum is "readable by the world." He's on a road toward the end of that concept, too.

-- testing (the_w@ter.now), March 04, 2000.

You have to feel sorry for someone like *sigh* squire. Her world is collapsing and all she can do is utter inanities:

"... may well be Y2K Pro a.k.a. Mr. Polly, who also relentlessy spammed the TBY2K forum daily, but is also the one who coached LadyLogic on how spam and take down the forum. Either that or Y2K Pro is claiming hes you. You may want to take your rant to him. "

I NEVER spammed the old forum. I would post, and if that post was deleted, I would post it again. One message at a time. That is not spamming. And as far as "coaching" LL on how to "take the forum down" - that is so much paranoid nonsense. I never wanted to see the forum pulled down, I simply wanted them to stop censoring.

I think LL spamming was wrong, unhealthy and totally counterproductive. I think squire has much in common with LL's mental state. Perhaps they are one and the same?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 04, 2000.

Heh, Diane sounds miffed... -- kritter

Oh I simply can't resist any longer...

Kritter - Why don't you suggest to Diane that she "can go elsewhere if she doesn't like it here". "Or not".

Sigh

Off to have a Latte...

VBG

-- CD (not@here.com), March 04, 2000.

p.s. I didn't start this forum. I was neither industrious enough, nor did I have the requisite vision. Whoever did, I tip my hat...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 04, 2000.

Do you all remember the time when some of the posters on Time Bomb went private by emailing posts. I was included only because at that time Old Git threw my name in the pot. But it came down to the same old crap, and censorship became the most important topic, of what could be said and how to say it. I stated my opinion of censors, picked up my marbles and left. Besides that, all the emails jammed up my email for days.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 04, 2000.

You would have to ask Ed why he took Humpty private. I really don't know. If you would like to participate or lurk, send him an email.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

BigDog,

"My answer to the question raised above as to why the forum was taken private, using a mode where people like the ones referred to can be blocked at the IP level or made subject to legal action, is fairly straightforward."

Your final statement as I have copied here is the reason why I object to censorship as now practiced on the new EZboard forum.

Ed and all the sysops, including most of us here, were tired of all the spamming which occured on the old forum. The change to their new location would allow BLOCKING such tactics in the future. I'm 100% for this! My heart went out to all sysops for having to clean up the mess. I don't question Ed's decision to move the Board.

So what is my problem? CENSORSHIP, plain and simple. In due respect for Ed, you and all sysops of TB2000, many reasonable voices expressed a desire NOT to begin this move by using censorship against those who expressed different view points from our own. We gained control at the new Board by passwording and the ability to BLOCK, then we "BLEW IT" with censorship from the get-go.

Sorry, Pal, I have the highest respect for you, but this old horse has had his bridle removed and I am free to roam where ever the high road goes.

HAPPY Trails!

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), March 04, 2000.

Big Dog, thanks for input. Does that mean that it was considered as an option and considered abhorrent behavior or just generally considered as unprofessional conduct? I'm not a techno/computer person, what does complete visibility into the IPs mean in terms of the moderators and their access to all postings of other moderators? Does it mean they would have read every post of every thread to check? I'm probably asking too much but would you mind explaining? I understand if you decline, but maybe someone else might explain it if they have the knowledge. The only thing that I wonder about now is the is the "never" part. When I see hear or see "never" and it's something that I have wondered about, I try to learn more so I can understand why the "never" could be applied. I have no body of personal knowledge of the individuals themselves so I can't know whether or not individually they might choose to actively engage in such action. Most likely you do have that personal knowledge. Seems to me that if control is the point, any tactical manuevers to that end might be considered by whoever was dodging the incoming firebombs at the time if they could do so without being outed. Like I said, I admit my ignorance and would be interested in more info and more than one thought or reference on this speculation.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 04, 2000.

Tommy - I disagree with your characterization but I respect your position and hope you enjoy the forum that has been started here.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

"p.s. I didn't start this forum. I was neither industrious enough, nor did I have the requisite vision. Whoever did, I tip my hat... " ---Y2K Pro

Thanks Pro. No offense, but I don't like at all being mistaken for you.

I've been biting my fingers since yesterday when Diane made this acusation. It is a most difficult test of my self-control to attempt to set the record straight without giving away my identity.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

What's the problem with giving away your identity?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

If I give it away I'll be ostricized. I've made too many good friends who would disagree with me starting this forum again. I'd be given the cold shoulder on EZboard and chat rooms.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

Just a quick observation from a 2 year lurker and sometime poster (under the name cantbelievit). After Y2k turned into pretty much of a dud, I deleted every bookmark except the tb2000 forum. It saddens me to have the forum split in two based upon several people's perverse opinion of who is appropriate to be let into the club.

In my opinion, Flint and Hoffmeister made valuable contributions to the forum and to see them banned upsets me. So much for free speech and free expression of thought. Mr. Yourdan and related sysops that made this decision---you deserve whatever microview you achieve by censoring your new forum.

Debate has always been a healthy thing and I value the opinions of all--even those who kick anthills. The views of Flint and Hoffmeister actually mean more to me now after y2k because they were the one's that were generally right about it--just a tiny bump.

I know this probably won't reach the eyes of those over on the new Mind-Control-and-Thought Molding-forum--but I feel better having said something.

Back to my post-y2k life now.

-- greg holmberg (drgah@earthlink.com), March 04, 2000.

Old Regular - Not by me and if anyone tries, I'll let them have it. It's JUST THE INTERNET. Of course, some of us reinvent personas on the Net every few months, which is fine, but I think it would be better for all if you decloaked.

AS IF everyone/anyone doesn't have the right to start a forum! Not.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

Greg - I would prefer not to discuss "anthills" here, but certainly Flint and Hoffman made some valuable contributions to the forum. If Y2K continues as it apparently has to date, I believe Hoffman's theory last year will prove to have been one of the reasons.

Since I am one of the sysops on the Mind Control forum, you can feel better that your comments reached my eyes. I will now try to avert them ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 04, 2000.

BigDog, email me if you want to discuss this further in private. I don't get your "but I think it would be better for all if you decloaked." I'm not looking for a cult following, I simply want this forum to be free and go where it wants to go. I see myself as the ENABLER of it, I have no wish to be its Head Figure, that is why I chose such a vague name.

(my complete email is freespeech_y2k@yahoo.com)

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

DIVERSITY - that is the reason I am on the net! Whatever the disagreements or differing views if I don't hear/see them all I am blind. I have to work in a environment like that, I have to see narrow vision on TV and in the newspapers, I don't want to see censorship on the net. How can I stay balanced or well informed without ALL of you?

-- Sammie (sammie0x@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

Sammie:

Hopefully, over time, we can usefully disagree about what you say. I will certainly grant that we get a wide variety of viewpoints here, much moreso than our usual sources. Quite right.

But I respectfully submit that the "blindness" you imagine yourself experiencing is nowhere near as serious as you think. What makes the vision presented by TV and newspapers so "narrow" is that they must actually *check out* what they present, and are answerable both directly (lawsuits) and indirectly (loss of circulation/viewership) if their reports are consistently incorrect. Most of the sources of the great variety of material you find here are neither balanced nor informed. Imaginative, to be sure.

And I too find myself drawn to this forum by that imagination, by what I often regard as the paranoid fantasies of the disaffected. I confess I'm fascinated that the human power to see what one *chooses* to see, and tune out what one chooses *not* to see, is far stronger than mere reality can overcome. So while I'm no better informed about the real world, I'm far better informed about the extremes of human nature. Fascinating, as Spock says.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

Diane, you said,

"(BTW, I'm quite sure it's Y2k Pro that started the uncensored forum."

The point is, so what if it's Pro? He lets everyone post here doesn't he? That's more than Mr. Yourdan can say.

I thought you did a good job on TB2000 BTW, and hope you'll see fit to post here as time allows.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 04, 2000.

[I honestly don't see anything to be gained by explaining the details of why or how those decisions were reached.]

Sounds like "I admit I stole that money, but I honestly don't see anything to be gained by giving it back." Or how about "I admit my patient died of internal bleeding and my scalpal vanished during the operation, but I honestly don't see anything to be gained by an autopsy."

I guess it makes a difference WHO gains or doesn't, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

Flint:

Your banning didn't come as a surprise to me. I couldn't help but notice the regular threads introduced by Russ on the old forum that seemed to say nothing other than "Listen to me. Ignore Flint." I found it very disappointing, and said so at the time.

I could also say that Jonathan's banning didn't come as much of a surprise. Jonathan was quite open on the issue of censorship.

Hoff's banning, on the other hand, still has me baffled.

[The above opinions are mine and mine alone. It's kindof like the whole Y2k thing that came before, ya know. When folks give NO information, we tend to come up with theories on our own.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 04, 2000.

Anita:

Hoff's crime, I'll betcha, was in his increasingly persuasive contention that Yourdon knew exactly what was going down, and got in it strictly for the money. Hoff sincerely believes that countless millions were wasted on foolish contingencies because Yourdon (unlike deJager) refused to risk a single shekel telling it like it was. And has said so several times.

And ask yourself this. What earthly reason could Yourdon have for spending his time actively censoring away reasonable opinions while completing his manuscript on how to recover from what, uh, never happened? Finances must not be what they used to be in the Yourdon household, eh? The only competing theory I've seen is that he's lost it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

As an illustration of Big Dog's "thinking" process, which is really a study in totalitarian egotism, see the following exchange with Mr. Farley. Big Dog's rancid gusts are astericked.

* There is a balance between underdefining and overdefining criteria that is delicate.

Define "is".

* Also, people like yourself are not asking sincerely, but only wish to have something to pull apart, attack and mock.

Build a strawman, then knock him down. How do YOU know the measure of my sincerity? As I see it, anything that questions party line is automatically defined as "insincere" and "mocking", and then immediately discounted and attacked.

* It would be foolish to hand you such criteria.

Of course it would. That was precisely my point. Letting people know WHAT the acceptable bounds are would be counterproductive for The Rulers. As long as they DON'T know what the bounds of acceptable behavior are, they'll do their damndest to stay as FAR from any POSSIBLE limits as they can. Thin ice and eggshells make for a polite stalinist society.

Imagine a jurisdiction where the traffic signs simply said "No Speeding", but didn't give a speed limit. How fast will people drive? I'd bet a LOT of them will drive VERY slowly.

Now imagine that in that jurisdiction, the police were empowered to arrest you if they didn't like your attitude. So, when you get pulled over for doing, say, 35 MPH in a no speeding zone, if you asked, "how much over the speed limit was I driving", the cop proclaims that you're insincere, challenging his authority, and only trying to cause trouble, so off you go.

What would life be like in that society?

It would be like life in Stalinst Russia. Everyone would live on eggshells on top of thin ice. Never a challenging word in public. But growing cynicism and contempt, fertilized by the iron fist in the velvet glove.

* Finally, the responsibility for defining and/or adjusting criteria is dynamic, just as the Internet is.

Hogwash. You POSTED your criteria, and then demonstrated that they meant nothing. Perhaps if you had added, "or, if we just feel like banning your sorry ass", it would have been more accurate. But that would have meant taking the iron fist OUT of the velvet glove. Can't have THAT, can we?

* Some situations are unexpected.

It appears that likewise, some situations are expected. Such as what seems to have happened here.

* Being locked-in to a particular set of criteria is foolish.

Selective enforcement at its best.

So why bother posting any rules at all, when you now in essence admit that you rule by fiat, and the "guests" are allowed to speak on the sole basis of your whim du jour?

Oh, that's right. The velvet glove.

* Most of the participants here already have (and have long had) a "feeling" for what is acceptable. And the range of acceptability appears to be enough to satisfy them, so far.

That's odd. It seemed to me that in all of the threads that called for something along the lines of a show of hands, the consensus was OPPOSED to the iron fistery, and the reply by The Rulers was along the lines of "tough luck, we ruled, so shut up".

* If folks aren't satisfied, they'll vote with their mouse by leaving this forum and, say, joining one that you prefer.

Or, they'll vote with their keyboards by countering the absurd charges raised against them (i.e., disagreeing equates to insincerety) here, just as I'm doing now.

Perhaps you can simply put up a banner saying "Hooliganisim among the proletariat will not be tolerated."

-- The Chaplain (snotty@handkerchief.com), March 05, 2000.

Speakin of the senate

Shamsheer

watch out for redlof

-- imme (¿¿¿??@greenspun.com), January 21, 2003.