I am disappointed to learn of the thread manipulations by the current sysop... and even more disappointed to hear the intellectually immature defense of said behavior. I am curious... would you gentle readers be interested in a legitimate uncensored forum? At this point I'm not sure if I trust anyone to keep their fingers off the delete keys, but I think there are some long time regulars who are free speech advocates. I suggest an open forum with a few simple ground rules. Perhaps Jim C., Flint and Brian Mc would care to discuss this.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000

Answers

Oh, lest I seem ungracious... I have enjoyed the spinoff forum. I was just dismayed by the response of OTFR to the outcry regarding Diane Squire's web site. I did not critize the TB 2000 simply becaues I disagreed with them about Y2K. When I read OTFR's response, I heard echoes of the logic used by Russ Lipton and Diane Squire.

Chilling.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

LOL

You're kidding, right?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

As a member of a 12-step fellowship, I will share an oft-repeated refrain: "all that is needed to start a new meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot."

What I have found in most cases is both the meetings, the old and the new, thrive. I for one, when in these situations, have tended to stay with the old. I understand people make mistakes, are not consistent, and I am therefore tolerable of all but the most egregious behavior.

I will be staying on this forum-just to put in my vote. I do not agree with OTBFR, but I am cutting her slack over her decision, as I do not expect perfection.

I have mostly enjoyed your posts, Ken, and would miss them here, but I do not believe in taking my ball and going home every time I disagree with how the game was played.

I believe this is what is going on here. And by all means, those who have a better set of rules, or who believe they have a better set of rules, should move on if they so desire. I just cannot personally pick up and move every time I disagree-Think how many employers I would have.

The world is full of humans, and humans will always, at least once, do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. No one is perfectly consistent.

Each individual has to assess for themself what "crime" has been committed by OTBR, and wether or not it is unforgiveable. I have made my decision to be tolerant and patient.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.

"Oh, lest I seem ungracious... I have enjoyed the spinoff forum."

You are most welcome. I am happy I could give you the venue to express your views when you had been banned from the new Timebomb2000. Even at the expense of listening to your denigrating comments and criticisms about me. Free speech has been served.

Good luck and best wishes with your own forum. This door will always be opened to you, as long as the forum lives.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000.

I, atleast, have no problem with the current administration of this forum.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 02, 2000.

...a, E.H. Porter, and hmm are all the same person.

Quit stuffing the ballot box, asshole.

-- (oink f@irness.met), May 02, 2000.

I suggest an open forum with a few simple ground rules.

Exactly what will be your "simple ground rules" on your "open" and "legitimate uncensored forum?"

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

Don't bother coming back as Ra and Sifting, because we know you're them too.

-- (oink f@irness .met), May 02, 2000.

...a, E.H. Porter, and hmm are all the same person.

Not only that, but we're also Flint, Ken Decker, OTFR, Anita, Lady Logic, both Lisa's, and in our spare time, we run a soup kitchen for the homeless.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

How many times are you going to comment on this, ..a, hmm, Porter, Ra, Sifting??

-- (oink f@irness .met), May 02, 2000.

No their not. Just you and your other "personalities".

-- (oink F@irness .met), May 02, 2000.

Don't bother coming back as Ra and Sifting, because we know you're them too.

Did I mention we were also Manny and Hawk?

In fact, there are really only two people on this forum. You and me. It's all been an elaborate hoax. Everything has been leading up to this point, this climax, the piece of resistance. You have been fooled, these thousands of messages placed here just to trick you into believing this was a real forum populated by real people. It's all a big joke and you're the sucker who believed it all. Ha ha on you.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

I don't feel the need to migrate to a new forum. However, seeing Ken's invite to sit and jaw, I will not withold my opinion on any proposed ground rules for such a forum.

It would be like attending the Constitutional Convention among the Founders (that is, if the Constitutional Convention had been held around a cracker barrel and the Founders were a bunch of squinting, spitting, scratching, mumbling boneheads like myself.)

Cain't see no harm in it (he says, as he hitches his galluses and spits into the woodbox). Name yer poison, Ken.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.

I'll be happy to help you gents out. I'll set up the space, and you guys can move in. (I already e-mailed Flint yesterday and offered to do that.)

-- (I know @ you .know), May 02, 2000.

Ken:

I just loved the part where Chris wrote that "criticism of the administration of this forum serves no useful purpose". Haven't we heard that "explanation" before somewhere?

FutureShock:

[The world is full of humans, and humans will always, at least once, do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. No one is perfectly consistent.]

This is a good point. And I don't particularly relish the idea of yet another reduction in the gene pool around here. But I must ask: when YOU make a clear stupid but correctable error, what do you do? Do you admit it? Chris is STILL finding excuses, and flat *refuses* to admit it. And do you correct your error? Chris *defends* rather than corrects, even when the defense is neither rational nor relevant. And do you make a resolution to try to avoid that error in the future? Chris defends *repeating* the error. And if others suffer the consequences of your error, do you apologize? Chris tells them to shut up and go away!

So while I agree that people make mistakes and nobody's perfect, how they deal with their mistakes says a LOT. And I must say I don't like what I'm hearing. We've heard this before. We're witnessing how power corrupts in our own little microcosm. How very very sad.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

This is a good forum. Let's not diffuse it.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 02, 2000.

I'm still waiting to see what sort of ground rules one can have on a supposedly open and legitimate uncensored forum.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

hmm:

I proposed some ground rules on one of these threads. In short, leave any and all content alone (except as externally constrained by forum software or legal requirements), and moderate form (like malicious HTML and spamming) only when it hinders others either reading or making posts.

What suggestions do you have?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

Just so you know, Lars; one of my threads to you was deleted. It had no profanity or html in it and I think she just thought it was superfluous? I don't know. I still don't have any idea why she did that. It was a thread I started to you because you asked me to, remember? We were having fun that night talking about you jumping out the first floor window, so I started a thread and said something like, "No! Don't jump out the window! You might land on a squirrel!! Or, something close to that. It was totally innocuous!

I'm still wondering why you deleted that, OTFR. Why?

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 02, 2000.

My god . . . Fame! Oink accuses me of being someone else.

Unfortunately, for whatever it's worth, I post here on this handle and no other.

By the way, since it is a handle, I'm surprised no one has commented on who the original "E.H. Porter" was.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 02, 2000.

Hello, folks.

Ironically, I did not have a problem until the sysop began explaining his/her position. The more I read, the more concerned I became. His/her defense of the Diane Squire incident was troubling. What might have been a simple mistake was compounded by a pathetic defense that lacked even modest critical thinking or self awareness.

You may find this "denigrating," "Chris," but is my considered opinion. When you chose to moderate an open forum, you chose to accept responsibility for your actions as sysop. "Allowing" me to post this does not demonstrate anything, save that you have enough self control to allow some degree of dissent. Three cheers and a tiger for you. Even the old TB 2000 sysops allowed some questioning. Not exactly distinguished company. Well, enough of that....

As for a new forum, I think it must be framed around a new question. Perhaps we can start with:

"Be it resolved that America is nearing an economic and social collapse requiring prudent citizens to engage in significant personal preparation."

Once we have a broad question, we set our a few simple ground rules. Personally, I prefer real names and email addresses... but I'm willing to compromise. (I do chuckle thinking of the Declaration of Independence signed by John Doe.) The first rule of the forum would to encourage free and open discourse. The second rule would be to allow posts except those that were clearly redundant. (Denial of service-type posts... unless the "sysops" decided they constituted a form of protest performance art.) All deleted posts would be moved to the "Deleted Posts" forum... with a reference link. Finally, the "sysops" would use moral 'suasion to encourage focusing on the forum questions... lead by example, and all that.

Of course, I could be wrong.... (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Flint:

You obviously know my on-line persona very well-I have admitted error on this forum, have extended apologies, and try not to repeat them. I feel this is the way to live, period.

We are all however, at different points in our spiritual and emotional growth. I want to share another gem I have come across in my spiritual readings:

"Finally we begin to see that all people , including ourselves, are to some extent emotionally ill, as well as frequently wrong, and then we approach true tolerance and we see what real love for our fellows means. It will become more and more evident as we go forward that it is pointless to become angry, or to get hurt by people who, like us, are suffering from the pains of growing up."

Some people can see quickly when they are wrong; others it takes them a lot longer, and only after repeated bad results. I think we need to give OTBFR the benefit of the doubt during this experience-after all, she cannot have had much experience administrating a board.

Bill Wilson

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.

"Be it resolved that America is nearing an economic and social collapse requiring prudent citizens to engage in significant personal preparation."

If you start a forum based on one question, you'll fizzle out within a week. How much can you write on one subject? How many people will be willing to be confined to one subject? You'd have to password protect your site to ban folks who want to discuss other subjects, and even then, you'll have to delete your own remarks that are tangential.

We need a forum where ANYTHING can be discussed without censorship. Maybe OTFR has learned that by now?

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 02, 2000.

Let me get this straight...Flint and Decker, banned from the new board for their antics, are now unhappy with their foster home?

LOL

-- (@ .), May 02, 2000.

I proposed some ground rules on one of these threads. In short, leave any and all content alone (except as externally constrained by forum software or legal requirements), and moderate form (like malicious HTML and spamming) only when it hinders others either reading or making posts.

What suggestions do you have?

I suggest that you avoid making any rules, lest you be accused of censorship. Take Ken's proposed rules, for example:

Personally, I prefer real names and email addresses... but I'm willing to compromise.

Possible censorship based on identity.

The first rule of the forum would to encourage free and open discourse.

Good rule. Too bad it contradicts the previous one.

The second rule would be to allow posts except those that were clearly redundant.

Censorship based on content. And clearly redundant to whom? The sysops?

(Denial of service-type posts... unless the "sysops" decided they constituted a form of protest performance art.)

Censorship based on sysop consensus to be determined at the time of posting. Will I get deleted this time or not?

Finally, the "sysops" would use moral 'suasion to encourage focusing on the forum questions... lead by example, and all that.

LOL. When censorship won't do, just try intimidation. Don't forget to mention that it's YOUR forum and that YOU hold the delete key, so STAY ON TOPIC, DAMMIT!!!

Sounds like a winner to me.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

FutureShock:

As Ken and I have both pointed out in our own ways, we continued to extend the benefit of the doubt while there *was* any doubt. But Chris has effectively nullified that strategem, both by repeated actions and stubborn weaseling when caught. Now the question being asked is, do we want competent forum administration. Your answer is no, you don't. OK, your choice. Be thankful you are still permitted to make that choice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

Jesus Christ, are we going to go through this kind of thing again? I lived through spam, et. al. on the old forum for the better part of two years. Look, if it isn't mallicious (sp) put it up.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), May 02, 2000.

>In fact, there are really only two people on this forum.

If either of you are me, how about cleaning up my apartment and doing a load of laundry while you're at it?

As for the emotional rants about "free speech" on this forum, GET OVER IT! Doesn't anyone have a real life? This is a FORUM on the Internet, not your RL (real life).

I'm off to see if any women are doing their tan maintenance thing. I suggest that some of you would do well to get out and enjoy the spring.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000.

K8,

You silly goose, make it #3, there are 3 of us? Sheesh and all this time I've been posting to 2 others beside me? Oh my. Loved the part about the tan maintenance (sp?).

Btw, If that is the case, could one of the 2 of you when you are done of course, come and cook dinner at my home? i'm tired of cooking and hubby needs dinner.

As for the OTFR, IF chris is really the moderator, why in heavens name do any feel the need to disclose that? Perhaps this was in jest? I sure hope so.

I prefer staying here, think OTFR has done their level best and been more than patient with ALL of US.

Furthermore, thanks there Ken and Flint for giving the other board and chance to see this one suffer because you cant/wont cooperate with OTFR request to do this through email.

But, I guess it IS what you desired right? So you can choose to right?

Go ahead, sure you'll be missed (not by me, not that you care), but remember the S and how that flopped.? Forget so soon?

Please go ahead that way you TOO can experience the Joy (sarcasim on) that OTFR has.

OTFR,

Keep your chin up, you have done your best, although we can agree to disagree, you cant please everyone.

I for one will be staying...so lets see 2+1 = 3 ? *snicker, tee-hee*

Future Shock,

I agree <<
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Got cut off there.

Future Shock,

I agree, and am passing you the Maxwell House, can you please hand the can to Ken and Flint, I do believe its there turn to do coffee duty tonite, is it not?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

I agree with Future Shock here: "The world is full of humans, and humans will always, at least once, do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. No one is perfectly consistent.

"Each individual has to assess for themself what "crime" has been committed by OTBR, and wether or not it is unforgiveable. I have made my decision to be tolerant and patient."

Although I don't think deleting Diane Squire's web site was appropriate, the current sysop has by and large moderated the forum in a laudable fashion. Splitting it up yet again might spell its demise.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000.

If I ran this forum, it would be a reign of terror compared to this place. For starters, accusations of gerbil stuffing would be deleted on sight.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 02, 2000.

Seems like a lot of intellectual monkey-spanking going on here today. So far the forum as suited my needs fine. Splitting it up would only destroy it.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 02, 2000.

P.S. -- E.H., who was the REAL E.H. Porter???

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 02, 2000.

Folks:

I leave town and once again. And I thought that Yugoslavia had problems. Who wants to change their handle to Milosevic ? :o)

May go back to Kosovo, where there is some tolerance.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Realizing that I'm on the "C" list, with little or nothing to offer other than comments from time to time, I find no fault with this forum.

I don't always like or agree with every post or answer, but then isn't that the object of this forum in the first place? Whatever the SYSOP does is their business - not mine.

During the old Y2K days there were some forums that it wasn't even safe to press the "ender" button. As far as I can see here, language, grammer, spelling are non requisites. When I go into a post here that has what is for me an interesting topic I pop in and if what is said rubs me the wrong way, got another button to use, it's marked "end" and that's that.

This will do for me thanks.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), May 02, 2000.

Celia:

I basically answered your post on another thread. But I agree, splitting again is a cure worse than the disease *so far*. I just worry because the old censors started slowly and innocuously, and they also did it with the best of intentions, and they also could not admit it was an error to do so. Sound familiar? Ultimately, it killed the forum. The question is, when is the best time to treat the cancer? I agree that it's no big deal right now in terms of damage done. Only a few cancer cells so far. Maybe we should all cross our fingers, ignore it and hope it goes into remission? I don't know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

Flash, E.H. Porter was the woman who wrote the book "Pollyana".

Contrary to popular belief, the book is based on the life of a real little girl who lived in Indiana. In fact, researchers have recently located her grave. The headstone reads "I'm glad I'm dead".

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 02, 2000.

Peter, thanks for the update. What a great handle for a group of Pollies and Doomers!

-- Flash (Flash@flash.hq), May 02, 2000.

Let me say once again, freedom of speech does provide an added bonus. It makes finding the idiots much easier. On the subject, "a," I never bothered applying for an EZB password... so I never found out if I made the blacklist. Why bother?

Hmmm,

Develop a sense of humor. I realize most folks (you included) do not use real names online. There is merit to using a real name in that it allows one to verify claims of personal expertise. Whatever my disagreements with Steve Heller or Ed Yourdon, at least they had "real life" IT experience. If someone wants to use an alias, fine... just don't expect me to believe they are secretly a Nobel Prize winner.

Second, real email addresses allow one to contact individuals. This has proven useful, at least to me. Would I require it? No. Consider it a suggestion.

By the way, if multiple posts contain the same information, deleting excess threads is not eliminating access to information ergo it is not censorship. It simply makes the forum easier to read while preserving the original message... no matter how pointless.

By the way, it's pretty hard to "intimidate" an anonymous poster on an obscure internet forum. What do you think a sysop would do... hurt your tender feelings? If you are trying to be an obstructionist, Hmmm, you might try improving your arguments.

As Flint suggests, I do not want "perfect" administration. I'll settle for competent administration. And in an open forum is exactly the place to have this debate.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Well, so far it looks as if Flint,Ken and Pam are gonna have one helluva big time at the new place,guess all that ultra-intellectualism comes in handy; ) Have fun.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 02, 2000.

consumer:

I haven't started any of these threads. And I spent 4 hours writing an email to OTFR, and set it privately. I received a quick reply calling me a pompous asshole! Now, that might well be an excellent description, but serious communication about a serious issue it ain't. NOW what do you suggest?

And I ask you, do you really agree that vigorous discussion of forum policy "serves no useful purpose here", as OTFR mimicked Big Dog in saying? Why do censors somehow fail to see any utility in criticism of their censorship? Forum policy on the old TB2K was decided offline, and see where THAT got us?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

Develop a sense of humor.

I have one, thanks. I've found your arguments quite hilarious, for example.

I realize most folks (you included) do not use real names online. There is merit to using a real name in that it allows one to verify claims of personal expertise. Whatever my disagreements with Steve Heller or Ed Yourdon, at least they had "real life" IT experience. If someone wants to use an alias, fine... just don't expect me to believe they are secretly a Nobel Prize winner.

Still, you did suggest censorship based on identity.

Second, real email addresses allow one to contact individuals. This has proven useful, at least to me. Would I require it? No. Consider it a suggestion.

Yes, of course, a "suggestion" from the almighty Sysop. I can see that will work out splendidly.

By the way, if multiple posts contain the same information, deleting excess threads is not eliminating access to information ergo it is not censorship.

LOL. See, I do have a sense of humor. Who is going to decide if the posts contain the same information? You? Flint? "Sysop #3?"

It simply makes the forum easier to read while preserving the original message... no matter how pointless.

Yes, of course, you aren't "censoring," just making it easier to read!! That sounds much less harmful, doesn't it?

By the way, it's pretty hard to "intimidate" an anonymous poster on an obscure internet forum. What do you think a sysop would do... hurt your tender feelings?

I'm sure with enough lambasting from you and Flint, you could probably get those who do not agree to keep quiet. After all, you ARE the sysops.

If you are trying to be an obstructionist, Hmmm, you might try improving your arguments.

Thanks, I will.

As Flint suggests, I do not want "perfect" administration. I'll settle for competent administration.

Which apparently includes possible censorship based on identity and content. Understood.

And in an open forum is exactly the place to have this debate.

Yes, which is exactly where we're having it.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

Laura,

Sorry I missed your jumping-out-the-window post. I don't understand why that would be deleted. Maybe sysops thought we really were suicidal and was just trying to save our lives. Don't worry sysops, I may be homicidal or even fungicidal but I'm not suicidal.

That said, I agree with Flash.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 02, 2000.

Some people here seem to think they have a right to decide policy.

Sorry, you don't.

Some people here seem to think they have a right to post here.

Sorry, you don't.

Posting here is a privilege.

The sysop decides the policy.

-- Simple, straightforward.. (Get@life.folks), May 02, 2000.

Flint:

Tell me you ARE kidding, 4 hours of email???? WTF??

Geez oh man, she/he called you a pompous asshole? I'm sorry, I am laughing, I think 4 hours speaks for itself, honestly I do.

Four hours? No, I am laughing so hard i am crying, serious...

Dude, time to take a break or something. you said the wife is lonely, hmmmmm; 4 hours, think what you could do in 4 hours to make her REAL happy... I can..

Email me privately and I'll tell ya. *wink* snicker, and whatever else comes to mind.

Sorry, this was worth the weight in gold....

---with tears in my eyes, i signoff till tommorow,

a pompous asshole, LSHIASC? sorry.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Hey Oink, you stupid mother fucker, there is only one person posting as Ra and Sifting and I are he. This great forum has taken an ugly turn for the worse and much to the joy of many I think Ill just move on down the road. The very fact that censorship has started forces me to say adios. Thanks for your efforts OTFR but you blew it big time. Especially sorry to see you protecting DS.

-- Ra & Sifting (Hawk@was.right), May 02, 2000.

Flint said:

"Now the question being asked is, do we want competent forum administration. Your answer is no, you don't. OK, your choice. Be thankful you are still permitted to make that choice.

Hey there Flint. How do you reduce my sincere replies on this and other threads to the ridiculous conclusion that I choose not to have a competent administrator? In Baseball, a guy who makes an out 7 out of every ten times at bat is considered a star, and not incompetent.

Did you really expect any forum admin to bat a thousand? I think what you are looking for is validation of your concerns-I am going to try and do that and ignore the faulty logic with which you have categorized my wishes for this forum.

I was around for the break-up and I saw what happened. I agree with you it is logical to be concerned, even afraid, of behavior which seems similar to the old sysops. You see the deletions as capricious, and you may well be right-I am not denying that-but I do want to point out what might be faulty logic on your part:

Your premise is that OTBR's behavior mimics the old sysops before the fall-and that if we let her get away with this, then worse things will happen. The only way your conclusion can possibly work, if it were to work at all, would be if OTBFR was motivated by the same things which motivated the old sysops. It would also help if otbfr had the same psychological make-up as the old sysop.

Not all children who start with gateway drugs like alcohol and marijuana end up using heroin or cocaine. What? Good metaphor, I think. Just give it some thought.

I would like to know what you wish to accomplish by continuing to be vocal on these deletions. Is it to persuade us of otbfr wrongness and bring us to bear upon her to change her ways? Is it to change otbfr's mind so an apology is posted? I do not think many of us change minds around here.

I will say this, though, I think OTBFR will be a little more hesitant to hit the delete key next time. This is why I think your mission is done, Flint. Further debating the point is not going to change minds.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.

I disagree with the premise of this proposed new forum, therefore I intend to start my own 100% guaranteed, absolutely positively no-doubt-about it Uncensored Forum.

There are just a few teeny tiny little rules.

My New Totally Completely Uncensored Forum Rules

1) No post is allowed to begin with the letter "L"

2) No post is allowed from anyone who's real name MIGHT be Dan.

3) No posting on Wednesday's after 7:00 PM. Ever.

4) Posts must be no more than 1500 characters in length and no more than 24 characters in width.

5) Pornography is allowed, but only hardcore.

6) Personal attacks are encouraged, except when I decide they aren't. Then they will be deleted on sight with no warning.

7) Spamming is allowed, but posts about spamming are not, unless you spam a post about spamming, in which case I will leave it up to a randomly selected forum member to decide the fate of the post.

8) Posts that predict the end of the world are strongly encouraged, no DEMANDED at least once per day. Failure to provide such a post will force me to select one poster at random and have him/her killed.

9) Posts must contain the phrase "lunkheaded gardenweasel" somewhere within the text.

10) You MUST sign your posts "with all my love." Use of "sincerely" is NOT acceptable and any poster who uses such will be subject to a fine.

11) Credit card numbers and expiration dates should NOT be posted. EVER. Instead, they should be emailed to my private address.

12) Failure to abide by these and any other rules will subject the poster to reading a new and improved list of the Rules.

I look forward to seeing you all on my new forum!!

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

Mr. Decker--I would be interested in trying an uncensored forum.

capnfun--perhaps so. OTBFR made a compact with the posters here and then broke the compact. I'm not angry but I am uncomfortable. Something quite nice was broken and I doubt if it can be put together again.

Z--tolerance from system administrators or tolerance from posters?

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), May 02, 2000.

Hmmm....

Please... try reading. I did not suggest censorship based on identity. I suggested it might be beneficial if people used their real names and email addresses, then immediately dismissed the idea.

And yes, it is possible to suggest without mandating. Slippery concept, I know, but give it time to sink in.

Let's try an advanced math concept. A = A If a post contain the EXACT same information, as in a DOS attack, then its repetition serves no purpose... at least in my opinion. Given your difficulty with reading, however, I can see where you might benefit from multiple copies of the same post.

Future,

You miss the point. We have no idea what the sysop will do in the immediate future. An important element of moderation (if it must exist) is consistency. Another concern is the overall weakness in Chris' defense of his/her actions. If the aftermath suggested some degree of learning, my concerns might be allayed.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Please... try reading. I did not suggest censorship based on identity. I suggested it might be beneficial if people used their real names and email addresses, then immediately dismissed the idea.

Good plan. Suggest an idea and then immmediately dismiss it. Do you plan to do this a lot on your new forum? I think people might find it a bit disconcerting, what with you being the sysop and all.

And yes, it is possible to suggest without mandating. Slippery concept, I know, but give it time to sink in.

Okay.

Let's try an advanced math concept. A = A If a post contain the EXACT same information, as in a DOS attack, then its repetition serves no purpose... at least in my opinion. Given your difficulty with reading, however, I can see where you might benefit from multiple copies of the same post.

Oooh, good one. One problem though. The Greenspun database software is apparently designed to reject duplicate posts. That's why the spammers always had to make a change to the message body each time they posted in order for it to show up. So your A = A example would never actually happen. But that's okay. I have every confidence that you will devise some appropriate censorship criteria at least as good as what we have here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 02, 2000.

Cap,

By the way, you squealed like a stuck pig over the censorship at EZB. Is this brand more to your liking? It ain't "intellectualism," Cap. It's called consistency.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Ken,Flint,

I find that your supposition as to the identity of OTFR as Chris to be illogical.If you KNOW it as a fact say it and prove it,if it is a GUESS you must state so.To try and be so esoteric when not is illogical.This indeed lends me to doubt if you are up to engaging in the administration of any fora.

Please adhere to the factual premises,no human emotion is conducive to the relay of information.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 02, 2000.

Hmmm...

If I do moderate a forum, you will provide an excellent litmus test. Please vist. If I can restrain myself from deleting an horse's ass like you... I can resist any temptation. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Ken,

I would suggest that you read all pertinent material before confronting me,then I believe you might have all the facts you need to continue in addressing me.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 02, 2000.

Ken:

I am not so sure I miss the point. It all depends on how we define certain terms. I do not think any one of us can be 100% sure how we are going to act in the future-hence it is the human condition that we do not know exactly how OTBR will act in the future. It is only my opinion that she will be more hesitant on the delete key-based on my experience.

That said, we all make predictions of what future behavior might entail-if my wife acts a certain way in a certain situation a number of times, I may be hesitant to approach that situation in the same manner in the future. But surprises do happen; No human being is ENTIRELY predictable. I am on the record stating that I am concerned about the deletes-but I am willing to give otbfr the benefit of the doubt. It is painfully obvious she is responding from a purely emotional frame of mind-not the best time to respond.

And this leads me to another thing we need to define, "aftermath". Do we dare put a timeframe on it? If you want to say "immediate response", then okay-point taken-otbr's responses have been emotionally loaded and less than empathetic to those who have expressed concern; there is away to disagree with detractors without invalidating their feelings. Not everyone has this skill-it is a rarity, but it can be done.

I choose to see the aftermath as what takes place for the next month and beyond. We have had 21,000 posts here(or close to it) and a total of how many were deleted? I realize your point is that number should be zero, and hell, maybe you are right. But, I think we should allow otbr her humanness and give her time to reassess what has happened.

On the point of consistency, up until this weekend she was the model of consistency, as far as I can see. This forum has flourished, and I have seen threats of violence that remained on the board(Ra/Hawk exchange).

I will ask you what I asked Flint-What can we do to make this forum "Better" in your opinion-isn't this why we are still debating? Would it take a statement from OTBFR saying that your fears are acknowledged and validated but her mind didn't change?

What exactly are you guys looking for?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.

Cap,

I apologize. I tried to use "Chris" in quotations to suggest the uncertainty of his/her actual name, but I missed a few instances. Now, since you are serving as logic police... help me out on the difference between censorship at EZB and censorship here. I assure you my amusement will not impede my understanding....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 2000.

Future,

One more post before bedtime... I raised the issue not to reach a specific resolution, but to openly discuss the issue. Frankly, I don't have a burning interest to start a new forum. I was concerned by not only the sysops actions... but by the weak justification. When will the sysop step in again to save us from ourselves?

Cap,

I don't really expect an answer.... nor do I have idea what you mean when you say "pertinent material." I've read your posts barking about free speech. Apparently, you are not concerned about recent activities. So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

Cap,

Don't be too rough on Ken. Anita stated in a previous post that OTFR is Chris. She's been hanging around with her and some others since before the rollover. I'll look up the post tomorrow if you'd like.

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 03, 2000.

Good night, Ken. I am also on the east coast and should really be in bed. We will pick this up again tomorrow.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 03, 2000.

But Flint,

You ARE a pompous asshole. So what's your beef?

Sounds like Kenny has grown bored with the magazines you guys keep in your bathroom over here. If you have any sense at all, you'll hand him a Hustler and show him the door.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), May 03, 2000.

kind of fun watching a dump implode! you sure have flint figured will, maybe he and kenny should have a two-person forum, where they can dazzle each other with brilliance, which would be baffling each other with bullshit to the rest of the world. hahahahaha

-- kenny & flint (home@together.again), May 03, 2000.

Ken,

I usually have no desire to serve as the logic police,but that seems to be what you and Flint respond to best,only trying to meet you where you are more comfortable.This does take more work for me as you guys are fluent in intellectualism or at least portend to be.

I am not here for your amusement and your understanding is entirely up to you.

Now in regard to your question"the difference between censorship at EZB and censorship here"

Here we have two distinct instances of percieved censorship(see the heavy handed thread and my reply to Flint) that will get you amd I on equal footing.

As far as "pertinent material" goes, I was referring to all the threads that have lead us to this point.If you have read my posts on censorship you do know that I am ALL for free speech and not just on my convienient terms and I would be concerned if I didn't see in plain sight the backround of each,one of which I happen to reluctantly be directly involved in.

Laura,

If it can be proven then so be it or if OTFR confirms it OK,until then it is heresay and supposition,I'm open for input but until then.....

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 03, 2000.

If I do moderate a forum, you will provide an excellent litmus test. Please vist. If I can restrain myself from deleting an horse's ass like you... I can resist any temptation. (laughter)

Looks like you have yet to master the art of restraining yourself from calling people names. So it goes. LOL.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 03, 2000.

Then there is Manny.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 03, 2000.

kicking anthills.

r u getting bored?

-- if you don't like it (leave@once.fools!), May 03, 2000.

As already stated on another thread, Flintc is uniquely suited to the task of an uncensored, unmoderated forum on the Greenspun software. He's the best man for the job. Period. If Flint is the only moderator, I'd move to a new forum in a NY minute. If Ken is the co-moderator, I won't go near it.

-- (my @two.cents), May 03, 2000.

Geeze I hate to wake the Mrs up laughing so hard!

Gotta go work on the starboard gun comp. but this was a great break!

Joss

-- Joss Metadi (warhammer@Pride.of.Mandeyne), May 03, 2000.

I'd be interested, myself, in seeing the post you mentioned, Laura. If Chris IS OTFR, I'm sure she'll be amused by my position on this issue: " It's not important enough to me to dig out my big guns."

This is an internet forum. The fun factor of engaging lies somewhere between cleaning the toilet and having sex. I've never said anything here so important that it couldn't have been deleted with absolutely no effects on anyone's life, including mine.

It seems to me that the whole problem revolves around the forum name. "Uncensored." For some folks, that means "post anything." I think the original intent was to suggest that no one would be banned.

I already started another forum right after TB2000 moved. My field of vision at the time was limited to Y2k aftermath. There was no interest for various reasons. A few other folks started new fora at the same time. This is the only one that was successful.

I couldn't do a better job as forum administrator, and I know it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Would the proposed new forum be called "For The New Intellectual", or perhaps "Intellectual Monkey Spanking"?

-- drdoom (drdoom@get.ready.for.may05), May 03, 2000.

How about "Kenny & Manny's Place"?

-- Observer (observer@lotsto.observe), May 03, 2000.

"and even more disappointed to hear the intellectually immature defense of said behavior."

The whole world doesn't run on pure intellect, Ken. Some people have HEART, too.

What comes to mind is that old Star Trek episode about the Thralls, where the brains under glass were wagering who would win in gladiatorial contests.

Hopefully we'll still manage to keep our human side somehow, and not end up like the brains under glass.

-- Dr. Shrink (drshrink@shrink.asc), May 03, 2000.

hmmmm:

Your posting guidelines are too extreme. We only need two:

1. Truncate all Flint posts to 50,000 words.

2. Replace all occurences of (laughter) in Ken's posts with (I am a condescending blowhard)

-- (@ .), May 03, 2000.

Anita,

I don't have time this morning to look through all those threads. I was referring to your post where you explained why Netghost was upset that OTFR left her husband last year because she thought Y2k was going to be bad. I think it was in the thread "Hey Netghost" but when I looked in that thread, it wasn't there.

Maybe you could help me understand here....are you denying you said that?

Maybe you didn't say the name "Chris" in it, but I was lurking in Bok's last year when people were talking about her running away. I didn't know who she or Hardliner were (I still don't really. I only came in at the tail end of the year.) so I didn't pay attention to the details. It was only after Netghost brought it up that I put 2 and 2 together and maybe I'm coming up with 3...I don't know. The only reason I think this is important is to establish the relationship of the sysop with other members of the forum (particularily Diane and the FRLians at the moment, because she deleted those links. Neither one was to a private site as she claims, and I'd like to remind you all, she didn't delete the link to Mariannes PRIVATE site when it was posted a while back. [NO! I'm not going to go look that up either. Either you guys remember this stuff or you don't.])

Also, this is a little cryptic:

" It's not important enough to me to dig out my big guns."

What did you mean by that?

I'm not meaning to hassle you, Anita. If you don't want to answer that, don't. I'm only asking because I know that you are one of the few people who have hung out on both sides of the fence, and YOU are the most objective person I've known that could do that. (Despite our fisticuffs!)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), May 03, 2000.

The name the admin chose, Old Time Forum Regular, and his/her insistence to keep anonymous, is starting to make clear sense to me. S/he probably had the foresight and anticipated that who s/he was would unduly influence some people's thinking too much. This current riot over 2 deletions did not happen before Chris was thought to be the admin, although deletions took place then too.

-- (y@x.x), May 03, 2000.

Flint,

You wrote:

I just worry because the old censors started slowly and innocuously, and they also did it with the best of intentions, and they also could not admit it was an error to do so. Sound familiar? Ultimately, it killed the forum. The question is, when is the best time to treat the cancer? I agree that it's no big deal right now in terms of damage done. Only a few cancer cells so far. Maybe we should all cross our fingers, ignore it and hope it goes into remission?

I understand your concern here. When Congress instituted federal income taxes in 1913, they said, "Don't worry, it won't get worse" ... and look what happened!

As you recall from the old days, I was pretty outspoken about the TB2000 censorship. I see, however, an important difference here. To my knowledge, the sysop has yet to delete a post based on identity or ideology. Posts appear to have been deleted based on judgment alone, or what has been referred to as "sensitivity." In the case of the Squire web site, I agree with you that the judgment was flawed.

The sysop refusing to admit the judgment was faulty simply means that the sysop still thinks it was a good call. It's like watching an umpire. We will not always agree with the calls. Often, they appear clearly outlandish. But the umpire perceives his call to be correct, and the game goes on despite howls of protest from the crowd.

I trust the sysop hears the cries from the stands, and will act in the future with more restraint. Also, I think it might help clear things up if the sysop simply acknowledged that he or she has registered the complaints. This might help build "closure."

In the meantime, I say lets play ball.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

Laura:

Netghost IMPLIED that OTFR was the forum member who went through the scandal last year. I simply related the story that went along with the forum members involved. I never said I knew the identity of OTFR, and [to be honest], I do NOT.

Regarding the "big guns", I use this expression to discern importance. Chris and I debated a shoe advertisement in one thread. We didn't agree on much of anything, but she wondered why I didn't place the same importance on the issue as she. She asked me if I ever took a stand on ANYTHING, going on to ask if I voted, attended local community meetings, etc. I explained to her that, having raised three kids through the teen years, I learned well the difference between issues. I respond quite differently to a plate left unrinsed on the sink and drinking and driving, for instance. For something like drinking and driving, I'd bring out my BIG GUNS , which means I'd have a STRONG, perhaps even inflexible opinion on the matter.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Celia-amen:

"I trust the sysop hears the cries from the stands, and will act in the future with more restraint"

This is what I have been saying.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 03, 2000.

Celia:

I sincerely hope you're right. Umpires do make judgment calls. They do NOT violate explicit rules of the game to avoid hurt feelings. And there is umpire oversight, so bad ones don't last long.

But the game does go on.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 03, 2000.

How about "Kenny & Manny's Place"?

-- Observer (observer@lotsto.observe), May 03, 2000.

My guess is that you are saying that Ken is Manny. Very Interesting Very.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Z, NO, I didn't mean to imply at all that Ken is Manny. I wouldn't dream of insulting ANY forum member by accusing them of being Manny! It was meant as a joke. I apologize to Ken and anyone else who might interpret it that way.

-- Observer (observer@lotsto.observe), May 03, 2000.

Man I know what Z means. You go away for a little while and the next thing you know things are going to hell in a hanbasket.

It seems there has been a lot of unauthorized monkey spanking going on around here. Just a quick scan of the threads show that. Since I have been gone I'm going to take some time to read up on the issue. However, I can see that there is one area of confusion that I think I can clear up.

OTFR, Decker is the Pompous Ass, Flint is the long winded one. Four hours on an e-mail. I'm impressed.

By the way is my old friend Hawk around. I love that guy, he's so reflecting.

-- Monkey Spanker (spanking@wayoncemore.com), May 04, 2000.

What I'm looking for is PERFECTION. A 100%perfectly uncensored forum. Which, of course, would have interesting discussions and be naturally free of spam, pornography, rude posters and CFE's

This quest for perfection is not new. I'd actually rather be "right" than happy. Many of my life's decisions were made when I was sure I was "right." And, from the perspective I have now, those decisions would have been better if tempered with a little "generousness of heart."

So, while I have thoroughly enjoyed the past few days discussions about censorship, I am now going to enjoy what I have in TB2000 Uncensored. It's not perfect -- nor am I.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), May 04, 2000.

M.S. -- Great to have you back! There's been a great deal of unauthorized monkey-spanking going on here, what with you not being around to moderate things.

-- Observer (obs@lots.to.observe), May 04, 2000.