Attention Old Git: I just read an earlier thread on which you implied to Flint that Milne was not using multiple "phoney" names in support of his position. I really wanted to respond to your post but felt you would probably miss it if I placed it on that previous thread. Ergo, this new thread. Git... I ask that you review one of the only threads which I have ever saved from this forum...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0018LA

After reading through the entire thread, I challenge you to tell me you honestly don't believe Milne posts under multiple names. If this was not obvious, I do not know what would ever convince you. As it happens, I have been in a profession in which verification of identification plays a big role. I have been schooled on various techniques of identification and those techniques can often tranfer easily to individuals messages type written and/or computer generated on placed on the internet. (It is particularly helpful to have a compilation of previous writings available for comparison.) Because of this previously mentioned vocation, stuff like this has become something of a hobby for me. Once again ,I will say it's my contention that Milne often posts under different names. Do you actually believe he doesn't?

And speaking of Milne... I have to believe there are a number of people on this board who feel he has definitely fallen over the edge. To those people I ask... what's your theory? Is it simply a case of an ego-maniac grabbing his 15 minutes of "fame"? Perhaps he is *truly* psychotic? Or is it something something more substantive? Do you think he is getting "kick-backs" for selling "mailing lists" of those who write him?

For those who believe he is simply altruistic... You are truly naive.

-- CD (not@here.com), September 21, 1999

Answers

Oh, and by the way...

In the event Milne decides to respond on this thread with more of his puke. Hey Milne. Preemptively, Bart 'n I have a message for you ...

-- CD (not@here.com), September 21, 1999.

CD, have a question: does it matter anymore??

Why do you care?

It's over, man. Y2K is going to suck big time and you'll never be able to claim doomership. Quit worrying about the players and worry about recovery.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 21, 1999.

Dittos Lisa!

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 21, 1999.

CD, have a question: does it matter anymore?? Less and less every day.

Why do you care? Good question. I guess it was just more of an observation on my part.

-- CD (not@here.com), September 21, 1999.

CD has to be a shill. There is no other plausible explanation for his behavior as observed on this forum.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

Who cares about Milne? He's just one voice in a huge debate. Y2K is a huge problem and obsessing over one individual is a big mistake, in my opinion. One should get his information about Y2K from a variety of sources and draw his own conclusions.

-- Ridiculous (ridiculous@funny.com), September 21, 1999.

Sorry Minnesota Smith. If I'm a shill, nobody informed me. (Hey! Ya don't 'spose that's another gubmint/media/corporate conspiracy coverup do ya!?) Frankly, if I were to become a "shill", I would do one of two things...

A) ADVERTISE my website address in 99% of my posts (you can relate to that can't ya MS?)

-or-

B) Expect to get paid for all this "shilling stuff". For most people this would be hard work.

By the way Minnesota, heard any more "TERRIFYING RUMOR"'s lately? (Interesting how you never showed back up on that "terrifying" thread you started a few days ago.)

PS Go Vikings!

-- CD (not@here.com), September 21, 1999.

If it wasnt for the folks on the far left, and for the folks on the far right at this forum, I would have got board a-long time ago. Thanks paul, infomagic, cory. Thanks Flint, Hoff, etc...---...

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), September 21, 1999.

LOL Les! That is something we both definitely agree on! This forum is a soap opera that's hard to turn off.

-- CD (not@here.com), September 21, 1999.

But I must notice that we hear not a single peep from those who would know one way or the other, but who do not hesitate to 'out' optimists who pull this, nor defend pessimists who do not. I also notice the defensive posture taken here -- if an optimist does this, everyone has a hoot. If a pessimist does, then it's off topic and irrelevant.

CD, you have established excellent corroboration. Thanks.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

Naughty, naughty, CD. Not quite the way it was. What I said was in reference to the particular thread on which you found the post:

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

Flint asserted that "each time" he posts, Paul Milne "fills up the thread" with fake posts. I listed all the people who had posted on the thread and asked which ones Flint claimed were fakes. If you look at the list, you'll see they're all familiar names--no fakes. "Each time?" Milne "fills up the thread"? NOT!

I looked at the thread you referenced. It contains 59 posts by 22 posters. Of the 22, 5 are unknowns; one of them supports Flint/CD. Of the remaining 4, one posted twice, 3 posted once. Milne has "filled up" your "damning evidence" thread with fake posts? Hardly.

Point one--Let me indulge in a bit of typical British understatement by saying Milne is a somewhat controversial figure. Because of his controversial status, I can imagine how some people, whose handles we all would recognize, might wish to express support anonymously.

Point two--as is adequately demonstrated on various and sundry posts, Milne has more than a sufficient number of supporters, thus obviating the need to invent any.

Point three--I have seen more "new" polly troll posts on some of the, shall we say, "anti-polly troll" posts than I saw on your referenced post.

Point four--I was late answering this post because we had a splendid thunderstorm followed by "Server Busy" notices. Perhaps others had the same problem, Flint.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 21, 1999.

OG:

Perhaps "fills up" was an exaggeration, but it seems clear that these new handles were the ones Paul was referring to. And you will find that they indeed only show up when I take issue with Paul, and vanish thereafter. And one or two brand new handles showed up on the thread where I pointed this out, albeit after I mentioned it.

As for the controversial figure argument, it does hold water, but you have the bucket upside down. I've noticed a clear willingness to post in support of doomies here, secure in the knowledge that your support will be met with overwhelming agreement. By contrast, my personal mailbox fills with supporting missives, most of which contain words to the effect of "anyone who goes against the grain gets too much abuse, and I don't like being abused".

Even the *moderator* joins in with that abuse. I hardly think I violate the guidlines of this forum nearly as much as many who attack me. Yet the moderator never mentions my attackers. Clearly, there is a violent double standard at work here. It does indeed have a chilling effect on many who are in fact moderate. It hardly chills the lunatic fringe -- they glory in bullyboy tactics, and you cheerfully join in. Yet we know from past experience that once when 2 or 3 posters turned against you, you screeched like you were being tortured, utterly unable to handle the slightest criticism however justified without your comfortable gang surrounding you.

So you're right about people being discouraged, you just have them misidentified. You've let misjudgment become a habit, I'm afraid.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

When you once again regurgitate that old chestnut, Flint (which you surely will), would you mind terribly posting the URL so newbies can read it in context? Thanks ever so much.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 21, 1999.

ROTFLMAO

Flint, that was the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. Not only do you crack me up, you're cracking up.

ROTFLMAO

-- a (a@a.a), September 22, 1999.

Good of you to respond to my post Git. (By the way, as I said earlier, it was your "implication" which I was addressing.) And I give you credit for reviewing the thread to which I had linked. After reading your message however, I noticed you had neglected to answer the original question which I had posed to you. If you don't mind, I'll ask it once again...

In light of the abundance of evidence on that thread, can you HONESTLY say you don't believe Milne ever posts under multiple names on this forum in order to support his position?

-- CD (not@here.com), September 22, 1999.

CD, you asked:

"In light of the abundance of evidence on that thread, can you HONESTLY say you don't believe Milne ever posts under multiple names on this forum in order to support his position?"

What "abundance" of evidence?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 22, 1999.

Git-

The question stands... Can you HONESTLY say you don't believe Milne ever posts under multiple names on this forum in order to support his position?"

-- CD (not@here.com), September 22, 1999.

CD,

If you really care, try asking Diane or Chuck to do a little IP check of that thread. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

Thanks Sysman, but I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. There's no "mystery" involved as far as I'm concerned.

-- CD (not@here.com), September 22, 1999.

Given the lack of even circumstantial evidence, my answer has to be no.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 22, 1999.

CD,

The "mystery" is why this matters to you.

Anywho, yes, I do see some evidence, that Paul, on that thread, did post some "other" tongue-in-cheek responses. Not his usual style.

But then, Flint is just s-o-o-o-o "tempting" sometimes.

Now... if you'd like to discuss Stevie Poole, and cpr and your other DB'er buds, and all their trollish posts (not the polly ones) here... well... they run rings around anyone else, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

CD, Diane seems to be saying that Milne's IP is on one or more of those fake posts on the thread you referenced. THAT is what I mean by evidence, CD. In that case, I would have to say, yes, Paul Milne did make THOSE posts.

However, that is not to say Milne uses fake posts to fill each thread on which Flint appears, which was my original bone of contention. The thread on which Flint made that claim (up to that point, anyway) contained only familiar names, and Flint admits he "exaggerated."

Diane, there's another unknown poster on that thread, the one who supported CD's take on the poll. You wouldn't have a look at that IP, would you? Wouldn't it be a riot if it turned out to be Flint!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 22, 1999.

Diane seems to be saying that Milne's IP is on one or more of those fake posts on the thread you referenced. THAT is what I mean by evidence, CD.

Actually, she didn't say that specifically, so there's no way to know for sure. As she mentions, though, this is not normally in his character but it's somewhat justified when having to deal with idiot pollys like Flint.

In that case, I would have to say, yes, Paul Milne did make THOSE posts.

In your opinion. Not Fact.

However, that is not to say Milne uses fake posts to fill each thread on which Flint appears, which was my original bone of contention. The thread on which Flint made that claim (up to that point, anyway) contained only familiar names, and Flint admits he "exaggerated."

i.e. he LIED. Just as all pollys lie.

Diane, there's another unknown poster on that thread, the one who supported CD's take on the poll. You wouldn't have a look at that IP, would you? Wouldn't it be a riot if it turned out to be Flint!

There's no need to look. Of course it's Flint. Or CD himself. It's obvious. This is the way pollys operate.

-- (brett@miklos.org), September 22, 1999.

Old Git,

Nope. The one you refer to is not Flint, or CD, or Paul.

(Funny thread. Finally read it. Flint... is just Flint. 'Bought all one can say).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

[snort!]

So Diane (who sees the IP addresses) confirms that Milne DID indeed post under fake handles to create a false impression. But Brett denies this, because it isn't what he wants to hear.

And Diane confirms that I did not use a fake handle. (On another thread, she confirmed that I've *never* used a fake handle). But Brett denies this too, because it also isn't what he wants to hear.

Finally, Brett concludes that *I* created a fake name and Milne did not, because "That's the way POLLYS operate!" HAW HAW HAW!

As an object lesson in how doomies draw conclusions, this can't be beat. Deny uncongenial facts, fabricate congenial lies, and POOF, you have the desired conclusion! Wasn't that easy?

P.S. I cannot help but notice that using devious methods to deliberately create a false impression is a "lie" when the government does it, but is "funny" and "tongue in cheek" when Paul Milne does it. Quite amazing how the ends start to justify the means when you *agree* with those ends. I wonder where Big Dog is now?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 22, 1999.

Yeah, Flint, but the repercussions of the respective "lies" differ greatly in scale.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 22, 1999.

When I said Paul was posting these new handles, here's how he responded:

-------

"flint, You have sunk to new malignant lows. Instead of even trying a feeble attempt to defend your own position you accuse me of making up anonymous posts. You really are pathetic, you know that? Absolutely pathetic. What's next for you flint? Is there anything lower? If there is you are sure to sink to that level to find it.

I post under my own name and under my own e-mail address, flint-boy.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em and I stand firm hiding behind nothing at all.

And you stoop so low as to accuse me of fabricating anonymous posts."

------

OOPS!!! On outright lie, and Paul was caught red-handed. My observation about his duplicity was as accurate as ever, and his weaseling and lying stand exposed.

But I guess as Lisa points out, lying in the right cause is OK. Or maybe the Great Milne can do no wrong? Which is it, Lisa?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 22, 1999.

Flint -- You're the one who defends amorality and deliberate misleading. Diane didn't CONFIRM that Milne posted multiple times. What a creepy choice of words, given what Diane actually SAID.

And don't put your suggestive words in my mouth or make an implicit charge that MY intent is to play favorites. I've said all along about this issue that I DON'T.

Here's your simple answer: if Milne did it and said he didn't, he is lying. IF he did, he ought to own up to it.

I have no personal way to ascertain that, one way or the other. Diane will have to clarify for herself what "some evidence" means and Milne will speak up if he chooses to. As I recall, he has already denied this on the other thread, so either he is lying or Diane is wrong.

And whether he did or didn't, I weigh every statement of his, like every statement of yours, on its merits. I'll take Milne's analysis of Y2K over yours any day.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 22, 1999.

I remember Flint used to have a keen sense of perspective.. or so it seemed....

Flint, are you having the doomer deliriums tremens? Are you finally coming back into the fold? What with all the "great" news lately?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 22, 1999.

And whether he did or didn't, I weigh every statement of his, like every statement of yours, on its merits. I'll take Milne's analysis of Y2K over yours any day.

Exactly, BD. The issue isn't really about whether Milne lied or not, but about how accurate his analysis of Y2K is. So far, he's right on the mark, and this bothers the idiot pollys to no end. It's sad to see how they have to grasp at straws like this to support their pathetic arguments. Not very surprising, though, if you consider their intellectual capacity or lack thereof.

-- (brett@miklos.org), September 22, 1999.

Gee Flint - you seem to have confirmed that Milne made a post using an anonymous name. THANK GOD!!! I guess that means Y2K won't be so bad huh. You're an idiot. And at least Paul Milne uses his real name and is not anonymous like you and Hoff.

Interestingly, on the c41 thread, Chuck indicates that Milne did not swap handles:

By the way, #2, some of us would be interested in hearing from the sysops with regard to CD's contention that Milne posted under a few different handles. I'm sure you know the thread I mean.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Well, on the thread in question, there was only one Paul, the rest are known to us......

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 22, 1999.

And Lisa...Deano and I are still waiting for an image/data on your table dance thread...

-- a (a@a.a), September 22, 1999.

a, just think Pamela Anderson but taller and poorer.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 22, 1999.

"As an object lesson in how doomies draw conclusions, this can't be beat. Deny uncongenial facts, fabricate congenial lies, and POOF, you have the desired conclusion! Wasn't that easy?"

Flint, you could have quit while you're ahead, but nooooooo. It may be an object lesson in how ONE "doomie" draws conclusions but not how ALL draw conclusions. Get a narrower brush and quit with the sweeping generalizations.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 22, 1999.

You are not a Jedi yet Flint.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 23, 1999.