Toilet Paper Chronicles Update: Chapter Four Now Online : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

For those who've expressed an interest in updates, and apologies to those who haven't [grin]:

Gateway to Chapter Four

Note: Above includes "This Squirrel King." Yo, bud, this one's for YOU!


-- FM (, March 22, 2000


Ooops. Should have been "The Squirrel King," not "This Squirrel King".

Honest, SK, I have no idea what you look like!


-- FM (, March 22, 2000.

On a related note: A Paul Milne Pig Roast (and Milne dunking booth) update:

Just picked this up this note from the man himself. Post was written on or about March 18, 2000.

"Spent this weekend constructing a hog cooker for the Pig/Milne Roast. Making it out of an old 275 gallon oil drum. Tentatively, the pig roast (featuring the Milne dunking booth) is scheduled for Saturday, the first of July. Most people will have that weekend off as the fourth is on Tuesday.

If anyone has any questions, e-mail me..."

Paul's email address, by the way is:


-- FM (, March 22, 2000.


I think the forum exists for open discussion, not continual promotion. Everyone who has read the TB 2000 fora during the past year knows of your project. I am sure those who are interested, have reserved copies or purchased the book. If you actually want to participate in the conversation, feel free. If your intent is peddling books, you are better served buying a banner ad on a major web site.

-- Ken Decker (, March 23, 2000.

"Chapter Four Now Online"

Oh. I thought you meant it was available for perusal by anyone. Like the intro/first chapter was. Not interested in having to obtain a password from you to read it.

I do hope I happen across your post when you tell us the book is finally for sale. Any idea when that may be?

-- winter wondering (, March 23, 2000.

Could the next chapter be about Ken... Decker?

Secondly, despite an FBI investigation and $10,000 reward offer, nearly four months later, the tower terrorists remained at large.

Next: And Then There Was Ken...

-- (reading@the fourth.chapter now), March 23, 2000.

-- (I'll @fix .that), March 23, 2000.


-- (See@ it .now), March 23, 2000.

I'm sure the Chapter refers to someone other than me. I do not warrant a footnot in the Y2K debate, let alone a chapter. Actually, having using the hot link to "Chapter Four," I found my attention wandering after about a paragraph. Is the entire book going to be a "cut and paste" from the dullest threads on the old forum? It was mostly boring then... when there was still some uncertainty about Y2K. This is the perspective from an actual participant.

-- Ken Decker (, March 23, 2000. that the link's been posted, it seems I have three choices:

1) Move the chapter to a different URL

2) Post the rest of the chapters.

3) None of the above.

I think I stated awhile back that the main reason for password protecting access to the chapters was more about flame reduction in the forum from which chapters are linked, than protecting my writing. (Of course, this was in the days prior to the rollover, when stating something as simple as "I hate beans," could necessitate the purchase of asbestos clothing.)

Now that many of the choleric arguments are history, I think I might consider placing all of the chapters on one central URL. For now, at least, I shan't move the above. Maybe in a couple of hours or so. I just don't know.

Oh--by the way--I'd suppose that Mr/Mrs or Ms "" probably understood it was less than polite to publicly post a link to a document protected by a gateway requiring a password, and did so anyway.

I guess that's between "See It Now" and the sysops of this board, whoever they may be.

-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

Uh, Ken...

You wrote:

1) "Is the entire book going to be a "cut and paste" from the dullest threads on the old forum?

Answer: No.

2) It was mostly boring then... when there was still some uncertainty about Y2K.

Answer: Funny, I always numbered you among those who pretty much thought that everything would be fine. To be very honest, those who were the most optimistic are probably not among those who will find the book of value, with the exception of the references to what we learned--or should have learned-from the so-called "Pollies" as a result of everything written about Y2k. Those references are peppered throughout the book, but are--in large part--reserved for the end.

Thanks for checking in.



-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

think again Michaels. Sysop deleted "vaccinations are a scam" and sited "(Marketting scam, against rules.) " as the reason.

If your constant self promotion isn't a "marketing scam" I don't know what is.

Buy a clue and take a hint...NOBODY here wants to read your drivel!

-- How Many (other@posters.areU?), March 23, 2000.

Indeed, "How Many."

Watch me while I ask you for money.

Watch me while I post using a bogus email address.

Watch the sysops delete this thread because it's blatantly commercial.


Is it happening yet?



-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

Oh, and by the way, "How many," you just wouldn't happen to be "I'll fix that," and "See It Now," wouldja?


-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

no michaels, I'm not "see it now" or I'll fix that". If I had to bet money, I would guess they are actually YOU or your troll buds, shamelessly promoting your waste of paper publication.

Are you saying you have license from the new moderator to post this, or are YOU the mod, by chance.....

naw, couldn't be....

(hmmmm. If I were a poor/terrible writer, looking for additional material for a boring book on y2k, I wonder if I would start a forum for "after y2k" discussion; just so I could get the last few chapters?


-- (your@no.sleuth.lady), March 23, 2000.

Sorry, "FM," but I found the chapter almost unreadable. Internet forum threads do not translate well into book form. In the normal "give and take" of forum posting, people develop social identities. This process creates a context, a millieu. Without the context, the interactions lose much of their flavor. What is dialogue without character development? A back story? A context?

Your book fails to capture the spirit of TB 2000, a wild Internet watering hole filled with eccentric characters and offbeat riffs. This year of writing dangerously might be a wonderful story, but you rely too much on the "cut and paste" and not enough on the art of story telling.

The people who participated in the Y2K debate are not cartoon characters. We are human beings who gathered in an obscure corner of an emerging medium and engaged in a wild debate. It was a tempest in a teapot, but it was... it could still be an interesting story, but not as you are writing it.

-- Ken Decker (, March 23, 2000.

Dear Ken,

You wrote: "... it could still be an interesting story, but not as you are writing it."

Well history will be the judge of that, will it not?

You also wrote: "Sorry, "FM," but I found the chapter almost unreadable. Internet forum threads do not translate well into book form."

Not YET, that is.

In addition, you wrote:

" rely too much on the "cut and paste" and not enough on the art of story telling."

Have you read all of the other chapters, including the prologue (Which is no longer online)? Just curious.

Of course I appreciate constructive written criticism. I always appreciated yours. Such criticism is MOST effective, however, when the reader has reason to believe the author has a meticulous command of the subject matter.

Regardless, thank you again for your input.


By the way, do you recognize this quote?

"Debt levels are high... so is the concentration of wealth. With or without Y2K, I think we'd see a downturn in 2000."

-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

Hi There, "your@no.sleuth.lady", who is apparently driven to hide behind a sheet.

You wrote:

(hmmmm. If I were a poor/terrible writer, looking for additional material for a boring book on y2k, I wonder if I would start a forum for "after y2k" discussion; just so I could get the last few chapters? hmmm......)

No dear. The clock pretty much stopped for me on January 4, 2000. My post to this forum was originally intended to simply notify those who had previously expressed an interest.



-- FM (, March 23, 2000.

Apologies to all.

Upon re-reading this thread, I just realized that Ken Decker may be one of the moderators.

I will keep this in mind with regard to future posts.

-- FM (, March 23, 2000.


Actually, the marketplace will judge your work. If you actually publish and sell many copies, I will be surprised. This is not to say the marketplace is any judge of good writing. Any perusal of the "best seller" list will reveal many works of meager substance.

Who, pray tell, is actually interested in last year's online antics? Do you have a "target audience?" Do you think you'll sell your book to a publisher? Really?

Were your book exceptionally well written, it might carry a somewhat odd and dated topic. An exciting topic might carry a poorly written book. Frankly, FM, no one cares about last year's Y2K debate... not even most of the debaters.

As for the "moderator" charge, you need to step back from your work before you become paranoid. I have never moderated (or censored) an online forum... nor do I have any plans. I do wish you good luck with your "book."

-- Ken Decker (, March 24, 2000.

Actually, the marketplace will judge your work

With all due respect, FM, I think that you'll have to self-publish your work and peddle it at the gun shows because many publishers are already dumping their Y2K books. I know that because I frequent the publishers' outlets in my area.

I've also found, based on the experiences of friends who write non- fiction professionally, that when the publishers are dumping entire genres, then that is not the time to submit work of that type to them.

You have a strong journalistic style and organize your material fairly well, so if this project doesn't pan out, I'm sure you'll find something else with higher marketability.

-- (, March 24, 2000.


I have to agree with kb and Ken. I just went to that link and tried to read your chapter, but it was too hard to read.

I don't know if you read my post at biffy last month, but I talked to a man here in town about your book (and the one I was going to write) and he said we're wasting our time. Nobody but people directly affected by Y2k cares anymore, and I suspect most people who thought it was important once, don't care anymore.

However, if you are determined to take the time and expend the effort to do this, you really should consider Ken's suggestion. You need character development, time frames, and context if you want to make it interesting to the general public.

Also, keep in mind, people love a mystery, heros, villians, heartache, sex, extremes, and humor. You might be able to pay for all the work you've done so far if you work some of those things in.

Otherwise, dear lady, I think you're wasting your time.


-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 24, 2000.

Hi There, "your@no.sleuth.lady", who is apparently driven to hide behind a sheet.

lol coming from one anon to another....Marriane Micheals is apparantly "driven" to post under several anon sheets oops I mean "psuedonyms"

Squire the Liar even allowed her blatant self-promotion, and trolling techniques.

-- (flakes@milk.corn), March 24, 2000.

OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Love the lil squirell pic....

what is his mouth doing? curious mind who wants to know.....

-----consumer who is getting closer to monitor to figure it out.

-- consumer (, March 24, 2000.

Rubbing his paws together, plotting?

-- rocky (and@bull.winkle), March 24, 2000.

What is wrong with you people? Y2K as an issue may be dead but some of the information or MISINFORMATION that appeared on the NET caused many people to change theire lives.

I look forward to this story. I want this book because it helps me understand why many people acted the way they did.

-- Gina (want@toknow.more), March 24, 2000.


I read through the above answers, and in addition to a strong compulsion to don a "hair shirt," I was also somewhat heartened.

Those who elicited both emotions know who they are [grin].

I've received a lot of emails referencing this post, mostly from folks who have followed my writing (and thus understand the need for interchanging FM with MM in various forums, among other things), but perhaps the one item that has been missing from the discourse is the eventual audience for this book as I have always perceived it:

1) People whose lives were changed as a result of Y2k.

2) Social Psychologists

3) Historians

4) Everyone who has no choice but to "luv me" (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Poole).

This latter category includes family members and good friends who understand how very difficult the authorship of this book has been, along with members of the "Y2k Underground" who have an intrinsic understanding with regard to how difficult it has been to balance the content of this book between the "New World Order" people and the "You Were so Stupid to be Frightened in the First Place" people.

Having said that...

History will decide the rest. It always does.


-- FM (, March 27, 2000.

I think Kenny should go out and get laid. He needs to do something to get rid of this hard-on that he has for writers. He spends half of his life bitching about Yourdon and his books. So now what, spend the other half bitching at FM? What's the matter Mr. Decker, isn't this profession up to your standards?

FM was a long time regular on the old forum, and made many valuable contributions. So did you Ken. That's why I'm surprised at your attitude. But then again, I guess I'm not.

Good luck MM.

-- Another (longtime@tb2k.regular), March 28, 2000.

2) Social Psychologists

3) Historians

Oh no. I sure hope this isn't the only "post y2k" book that gets published. Can you imagine the future historians that have only the "toilet paper chronicals" to use as a guide for what happend in 1999/2000?

poor buggers would have a hard time staying awake while researching, I'd wager.

Sorry Fm/MM; its just.....boring.

Good luck anyway.

(PLEASE....someone with some real writing skills.....pen a work on y2k, huh?)

-- Super Polly (, March 28, 2000.

Future historians also have 28Y2000%29 as a guide.

-- (y2k@history.buff), March 28, 2000.

LOL history buff! That represents the irrational side pretty well (but I think Gary North's forum were MORE extreme!)

There is the other side too, Y2k debunked and Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot.

Helpful sites, those.

-- (y2k@hysteria.buff), March 28, 2000.

-- Other sites (of@historical.note), March 29, 2000.

Deleted Threads

(It's a shame we may never get to see the TimeBomb 2000 deleted threads.)


-- (Not history@but.interesting.), March 29, 2000.

-- Other sites (of@historical.note), March 29, 2000.

Marianne, a couple of suggestions:

1. I never have liked your toilet paper title, so I think you should get a new one. Unfortunately I don't have any zippy ideas for an alternative title.

2. Much more important suggestion: Although Y2K as a topic is not very interesting anymore, the human interaction on the various Y2K fora was anything but boring. So always make it clear that the topic could be anything of a polarizing nature, it just happened to be Y2K.

-- Peter Errington (, March 29, 2000.

Maybe she should call it "TimeDud 2000?"

-- pirate (in@silicon.valley), March 30, 2000.

more like TurdBomb2000

-- (ugh@phew.yuck!), March 31, 2000.

Hey ugh,

Are you one of those extremists? Must be.

-- extremists (are@usually.bozos), March 31, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ