I have been under fire the last couple of days for my administration decisions. For a background on the uproar, refer to these threads:

Psssst! Look quick!

Shame,shame, OTFR....

This place is mucked up!

Please take the time to study those threads carefully. And then, for a perspective on how other forums and internet communication services run theirs, read the MSN Code of Conduct, and Aol.com Terms of Service from which a large number of posters here are loging.

My aim is not to duplicate those examples, but to show you just how censored and restricted these services have become, because of past litigation.

I am using MIT's server and software services to run this forum. I have a responsibility toward MIT, and toward all the posters on this forum. My decisions aren't impulsive and taken lightly. I have a great deal of experience on the internet, and have been at it longer than the majority of you.

I encourage free speech, heated debates and discussions, but not anarchy and illegal activities. As the administrator I am responsible to decide which is which. So far, those of you who have been the most critical do not have experience with administrating a busy forum such as this, as far as I know.

I started this thread for informational purposes, and I'm encouraging free discussions on it. But I will not take part in the debates.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech_y2k@yahoo.com), May 02, 2000

Answers

To the top.

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

Oh please, tell us what kind of "illegal" activity you're talking about, and what kind of anarchy. And don't you dare give us that, "I started this thread for informational purposes, and I'm encouraging free discussions on it. But I will not take part in the debates." bullshit. You can't start a post like this and back out.

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

Chris:

So you have been reduced to defending your decision to protect your buddies at our expense on the grounds that some other, unrelated behavior is illegal? This isn't even a *rational* defense, it's merely whatever crosses the mind of a stubborn child.

Can't you understand that the very existence of this forum stems ENTIRELY from your promise not to censor? You weren't cheered on for your compassion or for your blatant cronyism, you know. You were cheered because, in the very *worst* case, we could now be as mean as we wanted to anyone and everyone without fear. This doesn't mean we WANT to be mean, or that we act that way very often. It means we CAN, because the forum is UNCENSORED. Until now.

As a clue, LOOK who's backing you up here -- none other than one of the prime bullies from the old days. Aren't you proud of that?

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

Flint,

"So you have been reduced to defending your decision to protect your buddies"

I may and do, like and respect OTFR but we aren't what you would call buddies,one e-mail does not constitute such.I don't even know a true identity and have never really been concerned with finding out.

We all know what happens when we ASSUME things and it seems someone as keen as yourself would be careful about making such critical mistakes in logic and judgement.You may even open yourself up to criticism for an error you believed to be correct,not what you knew to be absolutely fact.You might even then believe that there was potential harm,but then again,you are the one who assumed.

Logic and critical thinking are fine things to possess but in the long run a good dose of common sense will get you alot further.

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

>> As a clue, LOOK who's backing you up here -- none other than one of the prime bullies from the old days. Aren't you proud of that? <<

Is OTFR supposed to conduct herself in such a way as never to elicit such support, even accidentally?

This is simple guilt by association. Nothing better. Aren't you proud of that?

I am sorry to say, Flint, but you're starting to act like you've gone over the edge a bit. I trust this is a temporary condition.

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

capnfun:

I was actually referring to Diane Squire, not you. And I'm basing the "buddies" on what Chris said about Diane's request, and on essentially identical behavior when faced with offensive posts. Chris disabling a link to Diane's site reminds me a lot of Ford pardoning Nixon - a good ole boy network in action. There was absolutely no reason to censor that post, and a LOT of good reason NOT to. Apparently Chris worries that some of us might actually hold Diane responsible for her actions. Can't have that!

And now Chris makes the indirect claim that it was *illegal* to be insensitive to your feelings. And when challenged on this absurdity, she runs away. Cap, we got problems here.

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

Flint:

Can you be fair here now? You said 'old bullies', then you said you were referring to Diane S. Is that bully or bullies? If bullies, please disclose Who the other bullies are. Honest question, I'd like to know.

As for the deletion of the Diane S link, I was Not aware this was done, somehow must of missed it.

But, for those who wish to find it, hint, sometimes the answer is right under our noses. no big mystery, I was NO fan of Diane's, nope never was.

My understanding is she chose to have a closed forum, is this correct? If so, then I take a little issue with the link being deleted, in all fairness. Hows that for open-minded?

But I will not/ can not, berate OTFR, Flint, I feel OTFR has done the best under the conditions. I do not understand the 'uproar'.

I am not so dumb that i dont get 'it', I just dont see it. What I see happening here is an attempt to pull this board down, that hurts, because I like this place.

I asked you on another thread about disclosing OTFR name, If it is Chris, and you and us knew OTFR wished to remain annonymous, what was the point, or is this a joke?

I've been intolerant of you lately, but I would like some answers, in an honest attempt to 'understand'. Is it possible to get answers from you or will you ignore me?

regards, consumer

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

Brian:

[Is OTFR supposed to conduct herself in such a way as never to elicit such support, even accidentally?

This is simple guilt by association. Nothing better. Aren't you proud of that?]

Well, rather than a reflexive knee-jerk response, let's look at this a bit, OK? I called this a clue, not an indictment. Are you seriously arguing that it is NOT a clue? I suppose you could take the position that all forum contributors are identical, interchangeable parts. But I think few would agree with you.

There seem to be three schools of thought here. I feel (along with some others like Ken) that Chris' behavior is frightening. The censorship is arbitrary and personal, and the defense of that censorship is childish, stubborn and thought-free. This bodes ill for the forum itself.

A second view (such as yours, and that of FutureShock and perhaps the majority of others) is that these errors aren't terminal, and haven't done any material damage yet, and maybe Chris will learn better given time to reflect rather than react. And besides, another forum split is probably a cure worse than the disease. And I can only hope you're right.

The third view is that censorship is just fine provided "the enemy" objects, as exemplified by our old friend 'a' here. If it were possible for you to search this and the prior forum for every post 'a' ever made, I doubt you could find more than one or two that didn't attack, mock or belittle some optimist in some way. Your implication that this track record is meaningless falls rather flat.

Finally, guilt by association is disallowed in court as a matter of principle, and so it should be. As a matter of *practice*, it is an indespensible law enforcement tool. Where there is smoke there isn't *sure* to be a fire, but that's the first place to look, and it works almost every time. As a clue, it's extremely informative. As proof, it's inadequate.

The old forum died for the same sins Chris is just starting to commit. And the old censors also started slowly, and they also did so with the best of intentions, and they also could not admit error. Are we not supposed to learn from the mistakes of those who turned the old forum into history? Your defense of this behavior baffles me.

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

Flint,

Thanks for the response, I mean the 'ignore', are you going to answer me or not? If not, I hope you understand why I defend, since you cant/wont explain yourself.

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

1. If you don't like it, leave.

2. If you don't like it, leave.

3. Start your own forum.

4. Start your own forum.

This forum is maintained by OTFR. There is no way that OTFR is required to explain any actions to anyone.

-- Get a clue! (get@life.man), May 02, 2000.

Flint,

I wish I could see evidence of "Chris" learning. (By the way, is this the same person who wanted to improve my behavior? Egads!) I found the defense much as you did... reminiscent of the old sysops. To the extent we drift away from EZB, there may be few problems. If we continue to have cross-posting, however, we may see an unpleasant pattern emerge.

Oh, you'll have to forgive Brian, Flint. He sometimes gets so distracted posting on this forum while simultaneously changing water to wine, healing lepers and raising the dead. (chuckle)

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

Flint,

In regards to the"urgent request" post:In my somewhat simplistic way of looking at things that post was not my post it was Sadies'post,a post for a prayer (for a little girl who may still die)"FOR THOSE INCLINED"(read thread).

Should that post have denigrated into a cat call in regards to my intentions or character? Logically, would that have defeated the purpose of the post?Would it be different if it were your daughter and someone outright accused you of lying about it? thus taking the emphasis away from what was direly needed,be it BLOOD OR PRAYER?

In as much as we ballyhoo about free speech and rights,does common human decency hold as high an esteem? Do you not look at todays society and wonder where our ethos has dissapeared to? Is there no such thing as doing the good and right thing? Or is it ALL boiled down into doing the logical thing?

While OTFR's actions may be called censorship it could also be described as having a soul or a conscience,it seems you would have us demonize and chastise those actions,in my simplistic way of looking at things I am perplexed by your outrage.

NEXT TOPIC;re Diane

If someone from this board were to go to D's "house" and pull whatever kind of vandalism is possible via this medium and it was later determined that the culprit came from this "house" with directions to that address would it reflect positively or negatively on this "house" as a whole?

Would it bother you if you knew you could have stopped it? or would you have condoned it?

"some of us might actually hold Diane responsible for her actions"

Those are your words Flint,so now you have gone even further than censorship,NOW YOU HAVE BECOME THE JUDGE.

There is a time to let the past go,as the polly saying states,get a life.The way you are acting its as if Diane is a nazi war criminal and it's your job to see to it that she is hunted down and tried and that OTFR just allowed her to slip through your fingers.

Chew on that for awhile,Iv'e got a couple of things to do real quick and I'll be right back with ya.

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

Flint:

There seem to be three schools of thought here. I feel (along with some others like Ken) that Chris' behavior is frightening.

I haven't been here, so I don't know the basis of this whole "explosion". But if your statement is true, it doesn't take a whole lot to frighten folks in Alabama.

Best wishes,,,,

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

consumer:

No, I didn't mean to ignore you. Your post snuck in while I was replying to someone else. I'll do my best to respond here.

[Can you be fair here now? You said 'old bullies', then you said you were referring to Diane S. Is that bully or bullies? If bullies, please disclose Who the other bullies are. Honest question, I'd like to know.]

I referred both an old bully and buddies. I regard 'a' as one of the old bullies. Whether Diane is a buddy of Chris I can't say, but I see no other reason to defend her. Diane was a prime cause of death of the old TB2K, and at the very least a willing fellow traveller with the EZboard policies. I've discussed this in other posts, though. [As for the deletion of the Diane S link, I was Not aware this was done, somehow must of missed it.]

This was the first post in the Psst! Look Quick! thread. Several other people attempted to recreate this link, but it was killed every time.

[But, for those who wish to find it, hint, sometimes the answer is right under our noses. no big mystery, I was NO fan of Diane's, nope never was.]

I know there are other ways to get there [grin]. Indeed, it's so simple as to make Chris' action doubly baffling. Why even bother with the effort at censorship in a case like that, except to make the point that she can and will censor posts arbitrarily?

[My understanding is she chose to have a closed forum, is this correct? If so, then I take a little issue with the link being deleted, in all fairness. Hows that for open-minded?]

I don't know, I've never gone to Diane's site. I can certainly understand people resenting what Diane did to them and to the old forum, and resenting even more that Chris has decided that Diane should not be answerable for her actions and should be protected. Personally, I resent the assumption that I'm a troll or a vandal, and can't be expected to behave myself.

[But I will not/ can not, berate OTFR, Flint, I feel OTFR has done the best under the conditions. I do not understand the 'uproar'.]

Maybe you didn't live through the decline and fall of the old forum. It started slowly, it was done with good intentions. It got worse and worse. People Diane worked hard to "disappear" worked even harder NOT to be disappeared, and it snowballed. And at no time did Diane ever voice any suspicion that her *own actions* had caused her difficulties. Maybe she was too busy calling herself a y2k moderate out of one side of her mouth, and suggesting that the real moderates leave out of the other, to notice her responsibility.

So the real energy source of this 'uproar' is the action to use censorship in an attempt to let Diane live in peace, let's let bygones be bygones. There's a contingent here who believe actions should have consequences. And indeed, the censorship was motivated *because* of that leftover resentment. I suspect (I don't know) that someone was doing unto Diane as Diane had done unto them. And Chris was faced with a choice of justice or niceness to Diane (and NOT us), and chose Diane. Bad move.

[I am not so dumb that i dont get 'it', I just dont see it. What I see happening here is an attempt to pull this board down, that hurts, because I like this place.]

On the contrary. The kind of thing that's been started here is what ended up killing the old board. As I said on another post, the issue is when is the best time to treat the cancer? We KNOW from bitter experience what happens if we pretend it's not happening until too late. I like this place too, obviously.

[I asked you on another thread about disclosing OTFR name, If it is Chris, and you and us knew OTFR wished to remain annonymous, what was the point, or is this a joke?]

To my knowledge, I have no more clues than you do. If it's not Chris, then I stand exposed as a fool. I believe it's Chris based on certain viewpoints, certain turns of phrase, certain characteristic misspellings, and other indirect clues. But if I'm right, I don't mind. I wanted an uncensored forum, and OTFR wanted anonymity. We had a deal, as I see it. And *I'm* not the one who broke it.

[I've been intolerant of you lately, but I would like some answers, in an honest attempt to 'understand'. Is it possible to get answers from you or will you ignore me?]

I try to respond. Sometimes I feel like a one-armed paper hanger because I do my best to respond at length and in detail, and there are times when I have a LOT of responding to do. So there are sometimes delays. But my email address is always real, so you're welcome (invited, even) to talk to me offline. Things have been hectic here today, on top of fulltime geekwork and an increasingly lonely wife. Man, where or where does all the time go?

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

Flint

Thanks for the response...

"where does all the time go"? In all fairness, it appears alot of it has been spent lately trying to 'not let go' of this issue.

So let me ask you this: do you wish to have your own forum?

Do you REALLY want to find out how tough it is to moderate/administrate a forum uncensored?

As I said before, remember S and the new forum, what was that like 3- 4 threads? She/he found out how difficult it was.

I say and can / do ask....why not call a 'truce'?

Lets give OTFR a 'break', doing the best she/he can. Dealing with US is hard enough, IMHO.

If you wish to 'debate' censorship, by all means, lets do so. But can we leave OTFR out of it? Yes he/she has been attempting to explain self...do you blame him/her?

Would you not do the same? I sure the heck would. All that was asked for was compassion. that was all it took to wind up here?

With all the threads on abortion, religion, etc, with LOTS of free speech going on, what is up with this? I am proud of capn to even post a prayer request.

I dont understand the 'challange' for addresses to hospitals etc, and plain outright statements "I dont believe you".

Man, give someone the benefit of the doubt, or am I the only 'one' who would be lets say be 'naive' enough to believe it? I'm glad I did believe it, because I would hate to think that I for one would be critically challenged enough to believe somebody would ask for prayer on a situation that horrible.

Are we gonna let it go? I realize there are other issues as well, but even you agreed that the D thread could be obtained (grin).

I for one, although never having like Diane, would not do anything intentional to disrupt her. Why waste energy.?

And again I ask, why not challenge with email as you were requested to do, pertaining only to OTFR policies which you do not agree with?

That way he/she is not bogged down with much emails and this board can still be debated regarding censorship without dragging OTFR into it?

Is this possible? Perhaps a better solution? I'm open..

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

"Finally, guilt by association is disallowed in court as a matter of principle, and so it should be. As a matter of *practice*, it is an indespensible law enforcement tool. Where there is smoke there isn't *sure* to be a fire, but that's the first place to look, and it works almost every time. As a clue, it's extremely informative. As proof, it's inadequate."

So in other words Flint, you're saying that you're speculating and making broad assumptions regarding OTFR's motives. That's how I interpret this.

consumer, I remember Flint having a long argument with Chris at the beginning of this forum over Diane Squire. I looked for the thread but couldn't find it. If I remember well, Chris seemed to be defending Diane, but not the other sysops. Maybe that's why he thinks OTFR is Chris.

Seems to me like a tempest in a teacup. It's also ironic that Flint acuses OTFR of "same sins as EZB" and is not being deleted for it.

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

Flint, if I read you right, you are saying that you do not like the direction the forum is going, and you do not trust that OTFR will learn or change. So, what exactly, besides carping, do you hope to accomplish at this point? What is your goal in pursuing this? Some sort of apology? A promise OTFR won't get on your bad side? Veto power over OTFR's decisions? What do you want?

By writing off OTFR, you seem to be burning your bridges to this forum. Are you expecting a new one to spring up under your hand? Besides being reactionary and getting the satisfaction of venting at OTFR, where do you think you are going with this? Anywhere constructive?

Ken, as for that turning water into wine and healing lepers crack - Hey! I resemble that remark!

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

Flint:

On the contrary. The kind of thing that's been started here is what ended up killing the old board. As I said on another post, the issue is when is the best time to treat the cancer?

Now you are diagnosing diseases. You are taking this too seriously. We had this discussion last year. Was it Oct or Nov. Probably earlier. I was in the Northwest in Oct and I left the board [the theory was forever] for travel in Nov. But it was sometime.

The point was that you not only want to make a point, but you want everyone to accept the point. You said that you would think it over. Decker is another species. That is not an insult. That is how we think of economists.

Best wishes

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

capfun,

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I just must be missing something other than those links.

We have one link where someone was asking for prayer for a child critically injured in an accident. Someone posts questioning said accident - and was told they could start a separate thread.

We have another post linking to another site of a person who has requested not to be associated with this board any longer and has dropped off of the Y2K charts. That post seemed like a troll post to me, but that is just my opinion, I may be wrong.

I probably missed other deletions, I don't know about them. I have checked the deleted thread to try to find them.

I never really thought this site would be uncensored, no matter what it is called. Common sense, IMHO, dictates that is impossible. I thought this site was created so that those barred from the EZBoard would have a voice.

OTFR, whoever you are, thank you for creating this site. I had lurked on the original TB2K, and posted a few times, since August 1999. It seems to me that the best of the original forum have come here.

Goodnight all.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Forgot to add:

Is MUTHA NACHA out there anywhere? I remember reading in the summer of 1999 archives where she had a very interesting dialog on censorship.

I would like her opinion, if she is out there.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), May 02, 2000.

Steve, does that mean you think troll posts shouldn't be allowed?

-- (Just @sk.ing), May 02, 2000.

consumer:

Your viewpoint strikes me as stunningly feminine. As a geek, of course I have no empathy, and certainly can't understand women. But I'll do my best, such as it is...

["where does all the time go"? In all fairness, it appears alot of it has been spent lately trying to 'not let go' of this issue.]

Yeah, good point. I remember reading somewhere that if a man ever finds himself winning an argument with a woman, he should stop and apologize immediately! Otherwise, the argument will last forever, because a woman cannot admit being wrong. Diane could not, and OTFR cannot either. Yet another clue about identity there.

[So let me ask you this: do you wish to have your own forum? Do you REALLY want to find out how tough it is to moderate/administrate a forum uncensored?]

Not really. I can appreciate that it's a lot of work. And it's not so much that I mind the time, as the schedule. I put in a lot of time on this forum, but I get to choose when. And for about a year, I was one of the moderators on a technical forum, where posts were all read by the moderators FIRST, and only posted if they met strict technical requirements. And that took a lot of time too. And people were always complaining about 2-10 hours delays between submitting a post and seeing it show up. But hey, we gotta sleep sometime.

[I say and can / do ask....why not call a 'truce'?]

Doesn't that require that BOTH sides agree? The "agreement" as it now stands is that Chris gets to do as she damn pleases, and WE get to bend over. And she shows no movement whatsoever. I believe you are addressing the wrong party with your request.

[Lets give OTFR a 'break', doing the best she/he can. Dealing with US is hard enough, IMHO.]

consumer, you really confuse me here. This is basic blame-the-victim. *I* didn't censor anyone. *I* didn't claim it was illegal to be insensitive. Again, you are addressing the wrong party.

[If you wish to 'debate' censorship, by all means, lets do so. But can we leave OTFR out of it? Yes he/she has been attempting to explain self...do you blame him/her?]

In a word, YES! How do you propose we organize this debate on censorship so as to leave the censor out of it? Do you picture us as kind of like high school class officers deciding school policy, but let's leave the principal out of it? I'm not here to "debate the merits" of censorship, I'm here to *bitch like hell* about it.

[Would you not do the same? I sure the heck would. All that was asked for was compassion. that was all it took to wind up here?]

No, if I screwed up I'd admit it, correct it if I could, and try not to do it again. Hell, I even publicly apologized to *Paul Milne* when I accused him unjustly. (and Boy Howdy, did he and 'a' try to beat me over the head with that apology for many months. Neither one ever understood what character means)

[With all the threads on abortion, religion, etc, with LOTS of free speech going on, what is up with this? I am proud of capn to even post a prayer request.

I dont understand the 'challange' for addresses to hospitals etc, and plain outright statements "I dont believe you".]

I really don't know what's up. I'm proud of capn as well, and I think retard was a moron and a jerk. But so what? The very essence of an uncensored forum is a nasty tradeoff -- in exchange for being able to say whatever we want, we must perforce be exposed to stuff we detest and abhor. This is the *price* of free speech. And OTFR promised to grit her teeth and pay that price right along with the rest of us. Until it got tough and she wimped out!

[Are we gonna let it go? I realize there are other issues as well, but even you agreed that the D thread could be obtained (grin).]

This is kind like having someone steal your money *first*, and *then* plead for amnesty.

[I for one, although never having like Diane, would not do anything intentional to disrupt her. Why waste energy.?]

I wouldn't either. That's not the point, dammit. The decision whether or not I disrupt Diane is MY decision and nobody else's. And Chris tried to take that decision away from me. I wonder how *she'd* like it if *I* decided what she could know and what I felt I should keep secret from her? For "compassionate" reasons, of course. *MY* definition of compassionate, you understand. Hers doesn't count! See the problem here?

[And again I ask, why not challenge with email as you were requested to do, pertaining only to OTFR policies which you do not agree with?]

Sigh. I spent 4 hours writing an email to her, even though discussion of forum policy belongs on the forum if anything does. Her request to take it offline is as close to an admission of error as she's come yet. And in reply, she sent a single sentence calling me an asshole! THIS is correspondence? I find it very hard to defend.

[That way he/she is not bogged down with much emails and this board can still be debated regarding censorship without dragging OTFR into it?]

Please, be sensible. OTFR *IS* censorship on this board. You might as well try to ask your spouse about something without dragging your spouse into it.

[Is this possible? Perhaps a better solution? I'm open..]

Well, I don't have the keys to this forum. Ultimately, we can suggest solutions until we drop dead, but only ONE person can implement them.

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

Well, Flint, we are outnumbered, but not outgunned... at least not yet. I think we are encountering Yourdon Syndrome. "Yourdon is nice, therefore, we should believe him." Apparently, some people are more comfortable with others making decisions for them than you or I. Well... where do we go from here?

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

Ken, let Chris speak.

What she says about this should determine where everyone goes from here.

-- (W@iting for an .answer), May 02, 2000.

Missed all the uproar -- been on vacation. Rather than try to figure it all out, since it was deleted, all I can input is: I am against censorship in ANY form -- for any reason.

We are not children here. We do not need a hall monitor. I thought we were all free thinkers. Whatever retard said on the prayer thread, couldn't possibly have been cause for deletion. Maybe retard doesn't believe in gawd and finds prayer offensive? Sorry -- I missed it so I can only guess.

As far a DJS -- huh? Again, we are not in high school. (well maybe some :-)

Interesting happenings. Like I said, I am against ALL censorship. I come here because it is uncensored. I enjoy everyones opinions. Not really into, the majority rulez.

Time will tell I guess. No offense OTFR. Hopefully, this is a blip on the screen, which apparantly I missed.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), May 03, 2000.

Since I said I would not take part in this debate, Flint scores a manipulating point in draging me into it with this one.

"Sigh. I spent 4 hours writing an email to her, even though discussion of forum policy belongs on the forum if anything does. Her request to take it offline is as close to an admission of error as she's come yet. And in reply, she sent a single sentence calling me an asshole! THIS is correspondence? I find it very hard to defend."

Since you made our email correspondance public with these remarks, I might as well paste my whole reply email here. Just so everyone have "all the hidden behind the scene facts", since you hate "secrets" so much. I thought perhaps by going private and discussing one on one it would give you a chance to save face as we'd iron out our differences and you'd learn a thing or two about my position and vantage point. But you stubornly play "blamed victim" and harball. So be it.

Here's my reply to Flint's 4 hour long email.

From: OTFR | Block address Subject: Re: Second attempt to send mail to you To: Flint MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 405

I've read your email once, and your post where you call me "Chris" on the forum. My immediate reaction would be to call you a pompous ignorant asshole with no integrity, so I'll sit on your email a while before I reply.

===== Old TB2K Forum Regular

Another "hidden fact" for Flint. My email to Capnfun was after I warned Retard and everyone on his "Urgent" thread. Cap had emailed me the address and phone numbers of the hospital, asking me to verify it's validity and post an update myself. I replied to him not to post such sensitive information. My warning to Retard was to prevent just such a thing from happening, knowing Cap probably was too emotional from what was happening to his friend's little girl and did not have time to think over concequences.

Flint's acusations of me being hardheaded, unwilling to learn from my mistakes, are irrational and deluded.

I tried to "let go" and let him vent and "win his argument" by stating I would not take part in this debate. But I find out he's manipulating this whole thread to his advantage. For what? Good question. I won't give him the keys to this forum. Is that why he says I won't let him win this argument? He's left with the choice to keep on bitching or leaving. I guess that makes me hardeaded in his view.

I'm left with giving him that choice, bitch or leave. I keep the keys.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

How about this as an alternative reply to flint's email:

Dear Flint,

Thank you for taking the time to communicate your concerns about the moderating decisions of the forum. I appreciate that you have such passion and regard for the healthy functioning of the forum, as so do I, although we obviously disagree on what form that should take. At this moment, I'm feeling pretty reactive to your criticism and your posts on the forum calling me Chris. It would be best for us both that I reply to you at a later time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would seem much more respectful of a frequent contributer and valued member of this forum. The reply OTFR sent might as well have said, "If I write to you now I will call you a pompous ignorant asshole with no integrity...and that would be wrong. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

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

I don't understand the uproar. A three minute net search of Diane Squire reveals home address, phone #, e-mail accounts, etc.

What is the big deal?

Diane J. Squire's Organizations

Type Name Company
Sacred Spaces -- Fragrancing & Feng Shui
High School Los Gatos High School, Los Gatos, CA
Company M.B.A., Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA

Call or write her yourself if you don't believe me.

Sacred Spaces
P.O. Box 100
Los Gatos, CA 95031
(408) 354-8943 or (909) 659-9667

There IS NO privacy on the 'net. Get over it.

-- Diane J (easy@2.find), May 03, 2000.

Eh? Chris is claiming that she isn't hardheaded on the grounds that her response to my 20K-long email was TWO sentences rather than one, and she actually called me a "pompous, ignorant asshole with no integrity" rather than just simply an asshole?

My mistake! She sounds reasonable after all! What responsiveness!

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

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Ken and Flint obviously see problems with this forum. Grave problems. Problems which must be FIXED and SOON or else the Forum As We Know It will be destroyed.

The rest of us don't see it. We think that everything is pretty much okay, and if there are problems, they will get resolved without everything crumbling to the ground.

Flint and Ken appear distressed that we are not concerned. They react with anger (Who the HELL are YOU, etc.)and resort to name- calling (an horse's ass like you)when their positions are challenged. They "out" their opponents as "payback" for a supposedly broken promise.

They feel that we are not able to think for ourselves, that we are "sheeple" if you will. They alone, who have been in these forums far longer than we, see the "big picture." The rest of us just don't Get It.

Yes, folks. Flint and Ken are the new Doomers. And we are the Pollies.

Let the games begin!!

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

Flint:

What *I* read in Old Regular's E-mail was "Right now, I'm coming out of an emotional bag over this. If I spoke now on this issue, I would call you.... I'd prefer to wait, let my emotions cool down, and respond later." Old Regular probably realized how much work you spent on your E-mail and thought a quick response of SOMETHING was due.

I don't know how you live YOUR life, Flint, but when I'm ticked off, I say NOTHING immediately. I tend to WAIT , internally review what's taken place, and when I feel my review is complete, I THEN feel I'm in a position to discuss the matter. I don't try and HIDE my immediate feelings; I simply refrain from vocalizing them. [The thought police would have a field day.]

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

Hmmm...

Where did I (or Flint) see "grave" problems with the forum? We criticized the behavior of the sysop. I asked a hypothetical question about a new forum because I was disappointed by what I saw in sysop's response to Flint's criticism. And I continue to feel the sysop just doesn't "get it" about running an open forum.

You might want to try writing without quite so much hyperbole. The forum is not neatly divided with Flint and me on one side of the fence. And I really don't care if you are concerned or not. You haven't made a cogent argument about this issue yet and you don't have any credibility... at least me. Why would I care?

I do care what Flint thinks, or Jim Cooke, or Brian McLaughlin. Even before they weighed in on the subject, they had earned a measure of respect... at least with me.

As for name calling... give me a break. Your posts have been sarcastic, rude and all in respects but the name itself... calling Flint (or I) a horse's ass. And using someone's first name... one of the more common one's in the western world and neutral in gender, is not what I would call outing. (Exagerate, exagerate, exagerate... I see a pattern here).

This is just an Internet forum full of anonymous posters. It could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a moment thinking about it. The handful of folks who I respect use real names and email addresses. It is easy enough to stay in touch. The whole forum, this year and last, was a tempest in a very tiny teapot.

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

"address and phone numbers of the hospital, asking me to verify it's validity and post an update myself. I replied to him not to post such sensitive information.

Why in the world would you think that is sensitive information? What do you think is going to happen? Someone is going to fly to his state, find the hospital, find the name of that little girl and what room she's in, and pull the cord?

Your perceptions are getting a little bizarre, OTFR.

-- (W@iting for an .answer), May 03, 2000.

Ken,

hmmm, (...@, ra, sifting, E. H. Porter) has shown his ignorance on a number of occasions. Don't waste your time addressing him. The rest of us know he's off-the-wall, so respectfully, I request you spend your time on more productive matters.

-- (I s@w his .driver's license), May 03, 2000.

Thank you, OTBFR, for your posting of your reply to Flint-even though you did not want to do this.

While I never like name-calling, I understand you are emotionally charged by this issue. Some people, and I know you must be one of them, are very very sensitive to bad things happening to children. My wife is one of these people. I am sure when you first read capnfun's post you were mortified that this happened to a child-and then when someone questioned its validity, some primal instinct to protect this child came out-wether you are male or female does not matter.

Flint:

I do not think you should have been called a name, but i DO question why you did not mention that OTBFR was going to reply to your e-mail at a later date. Please post the qoute if you did mention that the admin was going to respond. It reduces your credibility if you neglected to mention what I feel is a very important part of the reply to you.

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

Ken and Flint are right.

As I understood the ground rules we would tolerate things we didn't like in order to have the ability to say things that others wouldn't like. Porno would be deleted, as would spam, though one slice of the spam would remain so as to remain within the ground rules of allowing free expression.

Deleting posts in order to protect our feelings does not fit the rules as I understood them. And yes, that is how it started on TB2K, slowly at first, then a little more, a bit here and there, and we all know where that went.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

Unk:

I will post here what I posted on another thread(or was it here? If it was here I will repeat it)

You said:

"And yes, that is how it started on TB2K, slowly at first, then a little more, a bit here and there, and we all know where that went."

My response is-Not all children who use the gateway drugs of alcohol and marijuana end up using cocaine, heroin, crack, etc.

This is an apt metaphor. You cannot gauge the future behavior of this administrator by looking at what others of the "species" have done in the past.

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

I haven't been posting much lately, and I saw the recent unwarranted censorship only after the fact, but I'd like to add my 2 cents here.

I agree with what Uncle Deedah just posted. I think Flint and Ken are right as well.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 03, 2000.

Where did I (or Flint) see "grave" problems with the forum?

Flint likened the problems to a deadly disease. That sounded pretty "grave" to me.

We criticized the behavior of the sysop. I asked a hypothetical question about a new forum because I was disappointed by what I saw in sysop's response to Flint's criticism. And I continue to feel the sysop just doesn't "get it" about running an open forum.

No problems there.

You might want to try writing without quite so much hyperbole.

I could try, but it's not nearly as much fun.

The forum is not neatly divided with Flint and me on one side of the fence.

In terms of your behavior in the current situation, I would say it is.

And I really don't care if you are concerned or not.

Noted.

You haven't made a cogent argument about this issue yet

In your opnion.

As for name calling... give me a break. Your posts have been sarcastic, rude and all in respects but the name itself... calling Flint (or I) a horse's ass.

I'll grant you the sarcasm, but rude?? In what way?

And using someone's first name... one of the more common one's in the western world and neutral in gender, is not what I would call outing. (Exagerate, exagerate, exagerate... I see a pattern here).

LOL. Many people are known here by their first names, Ken, or haven't you noticed that yet? I would think that someone who intentionally uses an anonymous ID would not want any part of their name used. But hey, rationalize it all you want if it makes you feel better.

This is just an Internet forum full of anonymous posters. It could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a moment thinking about it. The handful of folks who I respect use real names and email addresses. It is easy enough to stay in touch. The whole forum, this year and last, was a tempest in a very tiny teapot.

Noted.

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

Unk and Buddy... Join Flint and I on our "side of the fence." So far, I rather like the company. (chuckle)

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

FutureShock,

My point about "we all know where that went" was that at TB2K the more the delete key was hit to save us from insult the more the deletee submitted insults to compensate. It was a cycle that grew more furious and finally took on a life of it's own, making the lives of the sysops on old TB a miserable 24 hour job at the delete key. And it all started with a few deletions.

Also, those kids who do use the gateway drugs have a MUCH higher likelyhood of going on to harder stuff that those who do not ever touch the gateway drugs at all. So your metaphor is indeed apt, once a sysop hits delete to protect us from ourselves, they have a MUCH higher chance of going on to the "harder stuff" than those who leave the delete key alone.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

This whole debate is a good study in perception.

What I got out of OTFR's email response to Flint is that he/she is offended at being taken for Chris. I guess it depends on what one thinks of Chris as to how it is interpretted.

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

"My point about "we all know where that went" was that at TB2K the more the delete key was hit to save us from insult the more the deletee submitted insults to compensate. It was a cycle that grew more furious and finally took on a life of it's own, making the lives of the sysops on old TB a miserable 24 hour job at the delete key."

That's a good observation Uncle, except that OTFR has already stated before that s/he was not going to repeat those same mistakes. I think it was at the begining, discussing censoship with Dr. Schenker. There's also the fact that what was deleted and the subject of controversy here were not flaming posts.

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

I suppose it might be relevant to mention that OTFR deleted a nearly identical post listing Diane's new web site several weeks ago for the exact same reasons. I haven't found the link where OTFR explained it, but this is certainly not the first time this happened. It appears that nobody noticed it back then.

This doesn't necessarily make the current actions any more right or wrong, but I felt that it was an important point to note, since many seem to be under the impression that this is a new development.

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

To be fair I think OTFR has done a pretty good job over-all.

And it depends on what you regard as flaming. If you see it as pure insult that is one thing, but does flaming include Retard questioning the validity of cap's post? That may or may not be seen as flaming, but deleting it does not fit the ground rules as I understood them.

And the link to Di's forum may seen as an invite to mischief, or not, depending on how you think. Again, I do not see how deleting it because of what some folks might do adheres to the premise of free expression. In fact, deleting the link to Di's forum because of what some folks might do smacks of thought-policing in it's rawest form, which hardly qualifys as uncensored, do you think?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

Unc,

One thing that Diane showed us during her term as a moderator at TB2K, was that she knew how to use the delete keys. She wouldn't hesitate to delete any posts on her new forum if she didn't want them to be there, whether spam, DOS, or just someone she didn't want to hear from. Thought Police... maybe you're on to something. :)

Cheers!

-- (Just@Pointing.Out), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

"you said: The handful of folks who I respect use real names and email addresses."

Riddle me this, batman: are you saying that you would not respect anyone who does not use a real name? That says something very interesting about you, but I will leave it to you to figure out.

I do not use a real name because MY IDENTITY WAS STOLEN LAST YEAR AND IT TOOK MONTHS TO CLEAR MY NAME AFTER THE CLOWN HAD RANG UP CHARGES OF OVER $40,000(none of which I had to pay, thankfully).

So, by all means, continue your smugness about who is to be respected by you. I respect people who present good posts which show critical thinking and an attempt at lack of bias. I care not a wit for a real name-it does not matter. I wonder why it matter so much to you.

I want to like you, I really do. I would like to like everybody. But you do not make it easy, Ken, with your smugness. I know it matters not one bit to you that I like or dislike you. Obviuosly we will never be friends because I am "hiding behind a mask".

Unk:

you said:

"So your metaphor is indeed apt, once a sysop hits delete to protect us from ourselves, they have a MUCH higher chance of going on to the "harder stuff" than those who leave the delete key alone."

Excellant point. and well taken. I used my metaphor to contest Flint's point, which appears to be that otbfr will absolutely, positively, continue to go heavy on the delete key. I do not believe this will happen.

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

hmm:

Good point. Mistakes left uncorrected get repeated.

More indirectly, remember Watergate? What brought Nixon down wasn't what he did there. If he'd gone public the day he found out about it (assuming he wasn't in on the planning. There's some evidence he at least knew in advance), it would have been forgotten in a week. Even if he WAS in on it in advance, it would have been no big deal to exercise the political expedience of firing everyone else involved and expressing horror and regret at the misguided zeal of his underlings.

Instead, he refused to admit knowledge or involvement, and orchestrated a continuing coverup. He was eventually impeached for his refusal to admit error and for his denial of guilt, NOT for the breakin itself.

The fuel supporting this current controversy, similarly, is NOT the act of censorship, itself fairly minor. I think everyone here (including Ken and me) would have been perfectly happen with a simple "oops, sorry, got carried away, won't happen again" response from the moderator.

Instead, the fuel is the attitude of "I own the keys, I can do whatever I want, I'll censor whatever I damn well feel like, criticism of my behavior serves no purpose being discussed here, and those who don't like the threat of capricious censorship are assholes who can either bend over or leave."

While I grant that minor transgressions don't always metastasize, this attitude bodes ill. It's the same attitude the old TB2K forum moderators expressed, an extremely defensive reaction with overtones of paranoia. Inadvertently, our moderator has shifted the issue from the material that disappeared to the character of the censor. An incompetent moderator is tolerable, since the job is hard. A *corrupt* moderator is not tolerable. And we all know what power does...

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

Uncle Deedah wrote:

>> Ken and Flint are right. As I understood the ground rules we would tolerate things we didn't like in order to have the ability to say things that others wouldn't like. <<

To the extent there is a "we" that are responsible for this forum, we have followed those rules.

But there is a responsibility to this forum that is placed in the hands of someone other than "us". It is performed either well or ill by that person. We may criticize that person. No one is being banned for criticizing OTFR, as some were banned from TB2K for criticism.

At this point these criticisms have been well-aired. No one is going to mistake Flint's or Ken's position by now. Nor OTFR's. Communication is no longer the issue.

Flint:

That is why I asked you what positive outcome he was looking for by continuing the discussion. I have not yet discovered an answer to my question. If you have posted one, it has eluded me - there are so many threads devoted to this issue now.

My purpose in asking is not argumentative. I'm not looking to gain some point by which to get the upper hand and prove you are in the wrong. You could not possibly give a wrong answer to a question about your wants or needs.

My only purpose is to drive this to some resolution. If the only thing that will satisfy you is for OTFR to admit wrongdoing and give us and you a suitable apology, you had best grasp that fact now, figure out your best option for getting such an admission, and discover quickly if such an outcome is possible. Then you can move on to the next phase of whatever you need to do.

As far as I can see your best choices, if you fail to attain your primary end, are: reconcile yourself, or to seek out or start a new forum, or simply to leave. If you succeed in your primary goal, of course, there is nothing further to seek.

Would you please stop arguing long enough to clarify your goal? There is nothing that requires you to think along the lines I am suggesting. You could, presumably, end your days still arguing your point with OTFR. But don't you think it would help us all immensely if you looked ahead to identify some end that within your reach?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

Flint, in this last post you make all good observations, IMO. But I think you're stretching things a wee bit too far by using Nixon as an analogy for OTFR's character. A closer to home analogy might be better to make your point, IMO.

I percieve OTFR very differently. First, OTFR hasn't demonstrated having an ego the size of a tipical power hungry personality. IMO, such a person not only would not choose to remain anonymous, but would post their strong opinions under their admin name also. Something that the moderators on the old forum did, interestingly.

Second, admitting errors in the way you suggest IMO is not always warranted. In a public forum such as this, a moderator would need to demonstrate an open mindedness, flexible and tolerant character and good judgement, but at the same time retain enough authority to be effective. Tough position to be in, IMO. Saying "oops, sorry, got carried away, won't happen again", or anything along those lines, would definitely show weakness of character. I'd be worried if a moderator, or a president especially, would say something like that.

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

y,

Ummm, maybe OTFR learned a Very important lesson about keeping one's mouth shut at TB? Knowing someone's predjudices and biases are VERY important. We need to know if we are to understand OTFR's current actions.

-- (W@iting for an .answer), May 03, 2000.

Flint:

Again thanks for the response, but you didnt completely answer All my questions.

4 hours of email, and a lonely wife?

hmmmmmmmmmmm. wonder why?

I got the answer, and thanks for the response....(grinning from ear to ear)

-- consumer (shh @aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Flint wrote:

>> Inadvertently, our moderator has shifted the issue from the material that disappeared to the character of the censor. <<

You expect us to believe that OTFR would willingly make their character a target of public discussion, in preference to their public actions? Yeah. Pardon my skepticism.

Whether or not you qualify this statement with the word "inadvertently", OTFR never "shifted the issue" to character. OTFR's critics and defenders did.

>> An incompetent moderator is tolerable, since the job is hard. A *corrupt* moderator is not tolerable. And we all know what power does... <<

This jab very consciously implies that OTFR is corrupt, without openly saying so. If the accusation were open, evidence would be demanded, which would be very inconvenient to provide, since there is none. By leaving the accusation implied, you may deny it was intended. I believe the word for this sort of thing is underhanded.

Flint, for someone who insists that character is on your side, this speaks damn poorly for yours.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

Brian,

Perhaps the process is the goal. In this discussion, we are testing the freedom of this forum. In reading the response of the sysop, we are plumbing the depth of his/her character. For better or worse, I know much more about our sysop than I did a week ago.

If you are tired of this, Brian, move on. I imagine this whole issue will blow over. Ironically, your compulsion to "help" only lengthens the debate. Let Flint worry about his "progress" toward his "goal." Why is it your problem?

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

Ken:

>> Ironically, your compulsion to "help" only lengthens the debate. Let Flint worry about his "progress" toward his "goal." Why is it your problem? <<

Irony heaps on irony! Why is my question directed to Flint your problem, eh? And why not let us work out this process (which is the goal) between ourselves?

If we are not careful here, we might construct the ironic equivalent of a black hole from which no non-ironic light can escape!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

To Steve (sron123@aol.com):

Being a Mutha "fan" I miss reading her humor. I hav not seen any posts from her in some time (she SAID she would be lurking) Anyway, I kept a short list of post on the censorship issue, and one of them may be the thread you are looking for.

Has this forum sunk to censorship?

Strange Personal Life Goals of the Polly/Troll (I think that is the thread that started all the problems, not sure)

Dianes first attempt at "tracking" people

Notice to forum sysop(s)

Notice to forum posters

Dianes backhanded apologies (really funny!)

MUTHA: If you are lurking, drop me an E, please!

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Super:

I gotta know, you asked Mutha to drop you an email...Is this really your correct one?

Just wondering, weird though, because I LIKE it.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Reposting this here since there are several threads on this issue.

The moderator can do two things that might clear up this mess.

1. Post specific guidelines as to exactly what types of posts will be deleted. I realize there are some guidelines posted, but they are vague.

2. If a post and/or thread must be deleted, a notice should always be placed there informing readers that the moderator deleted it. Nothing should ever be deleted without such notice.

The thing that bothered me the most about the TB2000 deletions was the way most of them were done without any type of notice. Several times I watched it as it was happening. In many cases, the "sysops" even denied doing it.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 03, 2000.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 03, 2000.

Brian,

Despite my efforts, we are not communicating. Forgive me if I conclude that you don't *want* to be communicated with.

As I said, I believe OTFR shifted the issue inadvertently. This is very different from "willingly". Both the critics and defenders are reacting both to what OTFR did, and moreso her subsequent efforts to weasel out of the indefensible. She flat refuses to accept that results differ from intent, just like someone you trip falls down even if you didn't mean it. But just because she didn't INTEND to make this the issue is not the point.

Hey, if you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and your kid starts saying things like "I was NOT taking cookies", and "I can steal cookies if I *feel* like it", and "You don't know what you're talking about", how do you react? Would your kid be in trouble for taking cookies, or for defiance rather than contrition in the face of error?

And if you took exception to such defiance, would you seriously argue that the *kid* is "not responsible" for making that the issue? Give us a break! OTFR's responses were the very essence of asking for trouble.

As for your foray into the intricacies of locution, that's hardly necessary. But for your sake, I'll repeat with different words. Capricious censorship exercised on a forum explicitly set up to *avoid* censorship is corrupt. Arguing that "insensitivity" is sufficient grounds for censorship on a notoriously acrimonious and skeptical uncensored forum, and digging in her heels when challenged, is corrupt.

This forum was founded, and exists, for its very lack of censorship. With the (admittedly very narrow) confines of this forum, subverting the raison d'etre of the forum, especially for trivial reasons, is a high crime. Kind of like, within a marriage, violating your vows on the grounds that you didn't want to hurt your secretary's feelings by saying no. Your determination not to see this astounds me. What did you *think* the issue is here?

On another track altogether, this debate appears to me (no more than a swag, though) as being sexually dichotomous. Those who are concerned about undermining the foundation of the forum seem to be mostly male, and those who support the notion that "sensitivity" is sufficient grounds for censorship tend to be female. You are the most obvious exception. Maybe your defense of censorship has a different basis? Just curious.

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

I'm waiting Flint,do you have a response to my post or not?

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

capnfun:

Sorry, I missed it. I'll do my best.

With respect to the girl, I agree that boorish comments were uncalled for. However, the essay of the drunk is read in the tavern, while the words of kings...

In other words, this forum isn't a very good place to say *anything* you'd prefer not to be doubted, mocked or attacked. The way I see it, the best response would be a very sharp posted criticism of the boor. It's a shame that to protect my privileges I must perforce defend the privileges of jerks. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, sadly.

As for Diane, I'm not sure I follow you. Posting a link to a public forum is about the least censorable think I can imagine. If someone performs vandalism (how?), the responsibility lies with the vandal. You might as well argue that the workman who laid the asphalt is responsible for the traffic deaths.

As for letting the past go, this depends on where you sit. Let's say one of us just punched the other in the face and then said "time to let go of the past now". Somehow, I think the puncher would be *much* more receptive to this notion than the punchee, don't you?

In any case, the deletion of this link shows that I'm not the only one who didn't let go of the past...

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

Flint:

In any case, the deletion of this link shows that I'm not the only one who didn't let go of the past...

It is sometimes good [and required] to let go of the past. Spend some time in Eire if you don't believe me. Think about it.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

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

Flint,

I think that everyone would agree that the response was boorish to say the least(but that's another topic).When I made the post I did not expect to be"doubted, mocked or attacked" but that was ok, as I am fairly assured that most know my modus operandi and would discard the rants of a retard quickly,though my tender psyche can endure cataclysmic and trivial nuicances.

I have no qualms giving up my exposure to doubt,mockery or attack for the greater good of the forum but at the same time what is soooooo wrong with reserving a minute amount of bandwidth for a little girl? Retard was free to question me all day long in any way he saw fit,just on another thread.If you read the post,it said "for those of you who are inclined", was I running it down anyones throat? Was retard forced to litter the thread because he had no other outlet? Was retard really deprived of his freedom of speech?

As far as the Diane thread,I will give far more latitude to your argument and I think,though cannot confirm,that OTFR may have a different way of looking at it in the hindsight of it all.

There are allways different ways of looking at the same thing,depending on,the angle from where you stand and your distance to the object.Is it possible that both viewpoints hold equal merit and that neither is 100% absolute.

OTFR is not a robot to be programmed with your nor anyonelse's set of commands,OTFR is a human being,capable of the very worst,the very mediocre or the most exemplary achievements a human can endeavor.

Should you take All the factors into consideration when laying judgement on someone OR just the purely analytical,logically driven factors that you deem to be the touchstone of truth.

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

Flint:

First of all, I must confess that I'm spending WAY too much time on this topic for someone who doesn't consider this issue one of much import. I'm curious about a few things, however.

At first, you stated that Old Regular was catering to old buddies and that the old-buddy network was the only group defending Old Regular's position. More recently, you've modified your opinion to state that the only group defending Old Regular's position is female with one exception. Z is male, as well as capnfun, [assuming that when Z talked about his wife not cooking and capnfun's loss of his girlfriend are indicators.] I haven't REALLY done a count on this one, but it seems that you, Ken, and Buddy are in agreement, and Brian, Z, and capnfun are in agreement on the other side. Oops...almost forgot about Ra/Sifting.

On the female side, Pam objected to the censorship, Gilda has been silent, [although I feel confident she'd object], and Consumer and I have stated we don't think it's a big deal. I really don't know the gender of the other posters that participated in this debate, and I didn't leave anyone out by design.

I can understand Old Regular's concerns about a link to Diane's forum being presented here. Remember when Andy Ray posted instructions on how to disable a forum on Debunkers? [Perhaps you don't. You never spent any time there, but *I* remember.] The whole forum was condemned for the deeds of one poster. Did *I* think it necessary to disable the link? Of course not. I'd already seen Diane's forum listed on LUSENET. The same holds true of the picture link. I'd already seen the pictures. Did I question the intent of the poster? You betcha. Is this a female trait? I dunno.

So we have this thread and some posts made by Retard on a thread started by Capnfun. There's also an accusation made by Laura that a thread in response to Lars was deleted. I haven't read anything by Manny complaining that HIS posts ended up at the Deleted forum, but why not include him as well?

I'm on my second major relationship IRL, Flint. I can tell ya that for the first year or so in this second one I jumped on ANY activity that reminded me of my first relationship. One day my SO simply sat me down and said, "I am NOT your ex-husband." There's a tendency for parents to see similar tendencies in their children as well. How many parents have said, "You're following in your older sibling's path"? The similarities are noticed, but the differences are NOT.

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

Capnfun:

I agree that just about *anything* retard did would have been better than what he did do. And I don't enjoy defending jerks either. But surely you know how it is. They came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't say anything... *Someone* needs to say something in the defense of jerks when the alternative is worse. Lousy choice, I know.

Anita:

Right you are. Very bad swag, and I stand corrected.

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

Anita:

At first, you stated that Old Regular was catering to old buddies and that the old-buddy network was the only group defending Old Regular's position. More recently, you've modified your opinion to state that the only group defending Old Regular's position is female with one exception. Z is male, as well as capnfun, [assuming that when Z talked about his wife not cooking and capnfun's loss of his girlfriend are indicators.] I haven't REALLY done a count on this one, but it seems that you, Ken, and Buddy are in agreement, and Brian, Z, and capnfun are in agreement on the other side. Oops...almost forgot about Ra/Sifting.

The font color reflects one that is; well you get it. Why would I lie about being male. You don't believe Cap and Brian are male.

I just think that the whole thing is somewhat stupid [we agree on that]. I was in another country when the whole thing started. I an just getting up to speed.

I have posted at Diane's site. It is an interesting subject. I don't see much activity there, but it will increase. I don't agree with many of her posts; but then this is an area where I have "mucho" technical expertise and practical experience. Yet, I am civil and can agree to disagree.

Best W

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

Anita:

By-the-way, my wife [the woman in the family] and I will celebrate number 35 in a few weeks. Wouldn't that freak-out the family-is-destroyed folks on ezboard. Unfortunately, I will be out of the country at that time. I hope to be home for # 36.

Best wishes,,,,,

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

Flint,

You know I will defend retards right to speak,even if it's contridictory to what I personally feel.Moot point.

But you did not answer my questions in my latest post.What I would like are your answers to reflect your true sentiment and not just a logical train of thought.

I have to go off line for just a bit,so take your time.

See ya later.

Anita,

I am of the male persuassion.That was a wife,not girlfriend.But I did not expect you to remember exactly(or at all0,close though,good memory.

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

OTFR, what door from Hell did I open from one miserable post? You count three protests and think you are "out". You gotta get thicker skin, my friend. You have done a Great Job! Just because I question or disagree, doesn't mean you have failed, it means you have succeeded, in thought provocation. imho, maybe sometimes, the things we do, have a ripple effect, beyond our immediate scope. Man! you are "a'rippling".

-- My God (Somebodys@God.com), May 03, 2000.

Flint:

Is this the quote that you were looking for:

The original:

In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up. -- Pastor Martin Niemvller

Except for Flint, but he came too late.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

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

>> Despite my efforts, we are not communicating. Forgive me if I conclude that you don't *want* to be communicated with. <<

This seems to be the conclusion you want to draw, with forgiveness or without. It is no doubt easier to misunderstand my motives than to understand how your efforts could not avail.

>> As I said, I believe OTFR shifted the issue inadvertently. This is very different from "willingly". Both the critics and defenders are reacting both to what OTFR did, and moreso her subsequent efforts to weasel out of the indefensible. <<

I can see you identify OTFR as the ultimate cause, rather than the proximate cause of this shift in the debate. I have a pretty hard time buying that. By identifying OTFR as the ultimate cause, you are essentially saying that "OTFR made us do it, we had no choice." Some people think like that. I don't. Maybe you do. Or maybe, once again, you are misunderstood. I'd make a terrible bartender.

>> She flat refuses to accept that results differ from intent, just like someone you trip falls down even if you didn't mean it. But just because she didn't INTEND to make this the issue is not the point. <<

Your analogy falls down, too. The character issue was willingly introduced into the debate by whoever spoke of it first. To speak or not to speak was a choice. To fall when tripped is not a choice. OTFR did not compel the issue into the debate, OTFR provided the occassion for it and her critics rose to meet the occassion.

Of course, now that the issue has been raised, it is here. The only reason to linger on how it was introduced is because of your insisting that the responsibility for introducing it could be laid at OTFR's feet. It smacks of a need to blame everything on OTFR. That strikes me as petty and needless.

>> Hey, if you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and your kid starts saying things like "I was NOT taking cookies", and "I can steal cookies if I *feel* like it", and "You don't know what you're talking about", how do you react? Would your kid be in trouble for taking cookies, or for defiance rather than contrition in the face of error? <<

Again, you provide a telling choice of analogy. It assumes an inequality of authority between the caught and the catcher: a kid and a parent, and it assigns the greater authority to "you" as the parent. Replay this analogy exactly replacing "kid" with "dad" in every instance and it assumes a very different aspect. Replace "dad" with "brother" and it changes aspect again.

>> And if you took exception to such defiance, would you seriously argue that the *kid* is "not responsible" for making that the issue? Give us a break! OTFR's responses were the very essence of asking for trouble. <<

Defiance *of authority* is what you are limning for us in your story here. But you've got the source of authority all cock-eyed. OTFR is the final authority in this forum. As an adult, OTFR is your presumed equal in terms of understanding and accepting responsibility. As moderator, OTFR has an identifiable authority and responsibility for this forum that exceeds yours. Get used to it.

The only possible greater authority you could claim that would have any force in this situation is moral authority. You obviously feel your moral authority is enormous in this case. I believe you overestimate it.

In fact, to the extent that you have so obviously assumed this mantle for yourself, upon your own unshakable belief in your own superior moral position, it impairs and undermines the very moral authority you seek to wield. The fact that you use phrases like "her subsequent efforts to weasel out of the indefensible" shows that you think your own position is as unassailable as you believe OTFR's is indefensible. Moral authority that you give to yourself fits ill. I believe the word for that is arrogant.

You are so unconcious of the effect of your arrogance that when OTFR actually described you as pompous, you thought the rest of us would be shocked (!) SHOCKED (!) at such language used about you. It isn't just your vocabulary, Flint. It's what you say and how you act. It is woven deep into you. I know, because we are rather alike in that respect. I was lucky enought to marry a determined woman who has slowly wrung some of it out of me.

>> Capricious censorship exercised on a forum explicitly set up to *avoid* censorship is corrupt. <<

My understanding of the word "corrupt" is that it entails a loss of moral integrity. No doubt you would agree with that interpretation, based on your usage. You are clearly arguing that OTFR's moderation is corrupt because it OTFR's actions were capricious. This is simply an assertion about your judgement, not a fact about OTFR's actions or motives. You appear to believe that your judgement is sufficient evidence.

>> Arguing that "insensitivity" is sufficient grounds for censorship on a notoriously acrimonious and skeptical uncensored forum, and digging in her heels when challenged, is corrupt. <<

All you are saying here is that your judgement does not coincide with OTFR's and that neither of you accepts the judgment of the other. This is an impasse. The only reason you cannot accept this is your assumption of the superior moral stance. This is your key blind spot.

>> This forum was founded, and exists, for its very lack of censorship. With the (admittedly very narrow) confines of this forum, subverting the raison d'etre of the forum, especially for trivial reasons, is a high crime. <<

This is simply high rhetoric. Assertions. Characterizations. Judgments. All delivered with superb self-assurance of the rightness of your cause. You tend to overlook who founded the forum and does all the real work of maintaining it: OTFR.

>> Kind of like, within a marriage, violating your vows on the grounds that you didn't want to hurt your secretary's feelings by saying no. <<

Again, your analogy fails. The essence of argument by analogy is to analogize to something that is clearly similar. The more similar the analog to the object analogized, the stronger the argument. Marriage vows? Adultery? You expect me to find a high degree of commonality between my relationship to my wife and my relationship to OTFR? You must be joking!

>> Your determination not to see this astounds me. <<

Which is kind of sad, really. The only possible reason for not cottoning onto your view of this forum is that I am determined to reject it. I have set my jaw against the Lord. My!

>> What did you *think* the issue is here? <<

Certainly not the moral turpitude of OTFR, who strikes me as a fairly reasonable, decent, dedicated and balanced person. I used to think the same of you.

As for the issue of censorship in the forum, for me the issue is not one of God-given rights violated or sacred duties corrupted, but simply a discussion of the relative desirability of various grounds for censorship. I accept some minor degree of censorship. You seem not to.

>> On another track altogether, this debate appears to me [...] as being sexually dichotomous. Those who are concerned about undermining the foundation of the forum seem to be mostly male, and those who support the notion that "sensitivity" is sufficient grounds for censorship tend to be female. You are the most obvious exception. Maybe your defense of censorship has a different basis? Just curious. <<

Different basis than what? Being female? Well, it could hardly have that basis, could it? So, my answer is a perplexed: yes. I am a man.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

Z:

Of COURSE I believe you're male, but I was talking to Flint, who apparently hadn't noticed the posts you'd provided in reference to your wife.

Capn: I'm sorry. I knew you lost a significant other, but I didn't remember it was your wife.

Gender identity is hard when folks don't post using names reflective of one gender or another. I thought Big Dog and 'a' were female for quite a while, and thought OG was male. Some 6 months after I chatted with Y2kpro, I saw a post stating, "You know Y2kpro is female, don't you?" I thought, "Somebody'd better tell his wife and kids about this."

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

Brian:

Hey, that was pretty neat!

Now, back to earth, please. After the casuistry is swept away, I hear the following dialogue:

Q: Was this set up to be an uncensored forum?

Flint: Uh, doesn't it say that in the title? Wasn't that the reason the forum was created in the first place? Hasn't this been attested to repeatedly by happy customers? Can we say "prima facie", boys and girls?

Brian: No, "uncensored" doesn't really mean that. Trust me, it means something else. Your arrogance leads you to confuse "uncensored" with "uncensored" on the mere basis of an identity. How shallow!

Q: By censoring an uncensored forum, does OTFR undermine her charter?

Flint: By definition.

Brian: Not at all. You are confusing words with their meanings. Those of us who lack moral blindness realize neither words nor promises *have* meanings. My wife taught me this.

Q: Do you like being censored:

Flint: No.

Brian: Yes

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

Flint:

What does that mean? I will be away for a time. You can think about it.

Best wishes,,,,

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

Z:

I THINK I understand this, but at least dinner's out of the way so I don't have to worry about burning anything in a response.

When TB2000 moved, it became apparent that some folks were banned from the new forum before even posting. Old Regular quickly came up with a new forum name that included "Uncensored." Censorship for some means that particular people are SILENCED. Uncensored for others means that ANYTHING GOES HERE.

*I* wasn't looking for an "anything goes" forum, but I WAS looking for a forum where folks weren't silenced before they even spoke. Flint would like to see pornography displayed on the forum. [You've mentioned this several times, Flint.] I've played around with various scenarios of discussions since Flint made mention of this. The discussions of a "pencil-thin" penis or "gerbils" pale in comparison to the discussions I could conjure in my mind. I suspect Flint wanted to see pictures, but did he REALLY want to DISCUSS those pictures? Is this a pictorial forum, or a discussion forum?

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

Anita:

If my junk mail is any indication, if I wanted to look at pornography I could choose among half the total sites and seems like 90% of the bandwidth of the internet!

I said I wouldn't oppose pornography, but this is principle more than preference -- I'd prefer not to waste time debating whether a particular graphic is pornographic or not. And I think such discussions would provide thin and temporary entertainment for most of us. As many have made abundantly clear, once you start making judgment calls about content, you can't stop. So if it were up to me, I'd have to rely on our small population doing sufficient self- policing. Otherwise, we'd all apply the "E. H. Porter" test and decide our time wasn't worth spending here.

Yes, I favor an "anything goes" forum for that reason (I also included sales pitches, stolen handles, hate speech, etc. as permissable. Even directions for making bombs out of paper towel rolls). After all, y2k is over. We either find a focus that keeps our attention or we fade into history. While I don't much care what that focus is, of course if it fails my "Porter test" why should I hang around? Why should anyone?

So at some level, the censorship debate here is as much an effort to flog a flagging enthusiasm as it is a genuine concern. My gosh, if it weren't for this forum, whatever would I do with my *time*? Anything to feed the old addiction, know what I mean?

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

There you have it folks. Flint is so desperate now that he has moved from kicking the anthill to flogging it.

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

Directions for making a bomb out of a paper towel roll:

1) Staple one end of roll tightly shut.

2) Consume mass quantities of beer and beans.

3) Hold open end of roll tightly to rectum.

4) Fill with explosive gases.

5) Squeeze cheecks tightly to seal end of roll, pinch with fingers and remove.

6) Staple.

7) Throw in fire.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.

Flint,

Now Bygod That Was Cool!!! You were down to earth and honest(not that your'e dis-honest), I'm not tryin' to stir any shit,but really,that was the best post Iv'e heard from ya as of of late.(IMHO)

What's next ???

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

Super Polly,

Thanks for the links.

Mutha Nacha, if your out there, drop by to say Hi here. -----

Just Asking,

No, I would not delete troll posts - I usually find them most enjoyable - but I tend to draw the line when it appears to be a personal attack against another individual who has requested not to have any association with this forum. I would like to know WHY someone thought this link belongs here, not WHO posted it. (I try to focus on motives - too many detective novels.)

I just feel that, looking at the censorship on the old forum, that this doesn't come close to the same level - yet. Time will tell.

Just out of curiousity, if anyone here were to start their own forum and requested not to be associated with this forum, or the original Timebomb site (as DJS appears to have done), how would they react. We already have heard that Lady Logic, or more likely someone using here handle, has posted on Diane's site. I agree with what Anita said, about Andy Ray's post on Debunker, and how that became a focal point on the TBY2K site.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Flint:

Why do we need to focus on one topic? Personally, I've felt as comfortable discussing green jello as I have abortion as I have Y2k aftermath on this forum. These topics didn't move YOU, obviously, but neither did the date of earth-bound mollusks move ME.

I didn't intend to portray you as a lecher by including your references to pornography. My intent leaned more toward folks experiencing the same mental thoughts as I when considering the discussion. Who ARE those folks who send us the links to the "hot 18-year-old" sites?

The forum will die when the participants move on. I telecommuted for 3 years plus, so I'm accustomed to sitting at a computer all day long. I don't log onto the internet when I'm working, and all day on a computer plus all evening on a computer would make for a VERY dull life, so once I become gainfully employed, I'll only have weekends to post. I figure that will break the addiction of which you speak.

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

I AM MAN.

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

>> Now, back to earth, please. After the casuistry is swept away, I hear the following dialogue: <<

I'll take responsibility for half of that casuistry, if you own up to the other half. As for the dialogue you hear...OK, sure, you get all the good lines and I get to play the boob... but on the whole I found it one hell of a lot more refreshing than the high moral dudgeon you've been peddling for the last couple of days. Welcome back to reality, Flint. Did you have a nice flight?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 04, 2000.

Flint, something sounds vaguely familiar...

"On another track altogether, this debate appears to me (no more than a swag, though) as being sexually dichotomous."

Ya know, it would be ironic if the moderator is Chris - especially since you never did answer our queries about your concept of 'feminine reasoning' on that ancient River Soma thread.

In theory, I agree with you about the censorship issue. But, I remember agreeing with you about it on the old forum, on a deleted thread, & still we all hung around anyway.

I was in left field enough to ask if the drunk driver wasn't worthy of prayers on a tandem thread by Lars {?} during the capnfun stuff. That notion went over like a lead balloon.

By this stage in our lives, most of the female posters have probably inadvertantly volunteered for many a crappy duty by making the mistake of having a bright idea, or being competent enough.

So yeah, I realize the forum may not be perfect. It doesn't seem to be too terrible yet, though I know it's a slippery slope. Frankly, I'm thankful that it's somebody else's baby.

-- flora (***@__._), May 04, 2000.

Consumer:

Yes its real. always has been. Phil asked that we not use fake e-mails, so I didn't.

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

After looking at those links I posted above, I found something very interesting! One of them is the one that Diane claimed I "impersonated a sysop", but the dates were out of order (it went from June 6 to June 8, then back to June 6) I told Diane she had screwed up big-time in trying to "frame" me (It was just to get me BTW)

Now that the Pit is "closed" I notice those incriminating posts have been moved toward the bottom of the thread, to fit in with the rest of the June 8 dates!

It amazes me what lengths the doom idiots will go to try and "save face"!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

Oh, and for anyone who feels(felt) bad for Diane's "predicament" here are her own words (from the Calling all forum moderators thread)

BTW, Im willing to also go on record and state, as many others already have, that Im ALSO on the Forum Moderators team!

So there. What a long strange trip its been.

Here ya go trolls...

Another TARGET. (Do your darndest!)

Fortunately, most the Y2K regulars KNOW what is important... with five and a half months and counting...

Notice that? Do your darndest! she says, then whines like a stinking baby when the "trolls" give her s*&t!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

GAWD, those old threads are funny!

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

Damn, time for bed! the above section should read

"to "frame" me (It was just to get mekicked off the forum BTW)

Now that the Pit is "closed" I notice those incriminating posts have been moved toward the bottom of the thread, to fit in..."

Also forgot to mention that Diane acknowledged the out of order dates on the "discuss apologies Mr Decker" thread (claimed she "didn't know how those posts got out of order [wink wink nudge])

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.