TV, the Media and the Net have a long memory that can't be "erased" or "re-written" to suit those who "abuse the media".

Only a few days after 1/1/2000, on National TV news and in articles in the press, Olson made the following statements after the camera showed his 200 plus boxes of Hamburger and Tuna Helper and other goodies (he didn't mention the GASOLINE he snuck into his garage after dark so that his neighbors couldn't see he was stockpiling GASOLINE....OR....a single word about his "thousands of rounds of AMMO he openly discussed on lists along with his willingness to use it to defend his "stash" from "pollies") : (BTW "Dennis Defenders" ...don't even think of demanding a link. I have the VCR recording right off the news.)

Reporter, "And what does computer expert Olson have to say about the lack of problems so far?" DENNIS THE DENSE:

".......As far as I'm concerned, this is the start of the second quarter and there is a lot more game to be played."

SNIP

"...Along about the beginning of July, if nothing happens, we will donate all these supplies to the local food bank."

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000

Answers

As I understand it, Dennis Olson lost his job in January. I have no idea what Dennis did with the food, but if I had been him, I would have used that food until I could find another job.

-- The common sense use (for@the.food.), July 04, 2000.

The question is whether or not he will live up to his statement that he would donate the "preps" to a local food bank. He could of course, draw them back if he needed them.

If you had seen Olson on TV, you would question whether or not he had any reason to consume food for the last 6 months or even longer. He also spent $13,000 on a oversized generator that saw very little (hours) use. That could have been disposed of to supply the rest of his family with food.

Some of the "preppers" DID GIVE THEIR EXCESS TO **CHARITY**. Did Olson?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

cpr,

Are you saying that if he used up his preps due to his job loss, that he is still somehow morally obligated to uphold his statement about donating those supplies to the local food bank?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 04, 2000.

What are you going to do if he didn't Mr. Loudmouth Bigshot, kill him?

-- get help (you@are.sicko), July 04, 2000.

>> The question is whether or not [Dennis Olson] will live up to his statement that he would donate the "preps" to a local food bank. He could of course, draw them back if he needed them. <<

So, let me absorb this. You think that, for the sake of your own peculiar idea of honor, Dennis Olson should make his local food bank go to the expense of dragging his food back and forth, between his house and their warehouse.

And you think Dennis voluntarily should put himself into a position of indigence and needing to draw food from a food bank in order to feed himself, when a bit of common sense could forestall that necessity and save everyone involved the trouble?

You are a strange man, cpr. Very strange. Do you often tie yourself in logical knots for the sake of principle-at-any-cost?

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

TODAY, July the 4th, is a very good day to consider the following:

You are a strange man, cpr. Very strange. Do you often tie yourself in logical knots for the sake of principle-at-any-cost?

TRY THIS:

**********..........WE PLEDGE OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES AND OUR SACRED HONOR...........***********

And they did. WOULD YOU? Would you go through Valley Forge or Iwo Jima? D Day or The Marne?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

Brian:

If my memory serves me, Olson was the person throwing around threats here. Had something to do with auctioning off a child. Don't remember. Just remember his threats. Don't carry a positive image of Dennis in my mind.

D

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 04, 2000.

If memory serves, Dennis gopt another contract in Oregon within a month or two after he lost his pre-Y2K contract. I believe I read this on the Michael Hyatt board.

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who was so consistantly rude, belligerent, and hostile. Moreover, when you pair that attitude with the kind of threats that were Dennis Olson's hallmark, it becomes very tempting to take some glee at his misfortune.

I don't think Dennis will bother announcing the fate of his preps. That would come too close to admitting he was unequivacally wrong about Y2K, something he probably doesn't have the guts to do.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 04, 2000.

I, for one, take absolutely no "glee" in Olson's doing. He evokes RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION IN ME and that should be the response of others.

He is not alone in evoking that response but is unique in that he is so "insignificant" while at the same time being so uniquely a TOTAL AND COMPLETE **ASSHOLE**.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

Sheesh! Talk about a ....

"TOTAL AND COMPLETE **ASSHOLE**." !!!

CEEPER you must be completely out of your frigging gourd to let yourself get so bent out of shape by what other people do with their lives. You're going to work yourself into a stroke over something that you cannot control. You're fucking nuts dude!

-- cpr = (raving@lunatic.maniac), July 04, 2000.

stark raving WHAT? Check this out:

LINK

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003R91

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

He said, and I quote... "You're fucking nuts dude!"... just trying to keep things straight :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 04, 2000.

If a man needs to eat his food it is not wrong to eat it. It would be irresponsible not to eat it. Reminds me of the time I put the turkey in the refrigerator and they started persecuting non-muslims. I had always been informed they were a very tolerant country.

-- Bimi Thanton (Bimit@littlerock.con), July 04, 2000.

I have very few things I ask of my creations. One thing I ask is that they love each other, for each life is precious in my eyes. I ask that they forgive those who trespass against them, and I in return show them the same forgiveness time and time again. I love you all, like a parent loves a child. A never ending love. It really is a very simple concept, and one that is essential to the overall happiness of Man and Woman alike. It is time to demonstrate your ability to understand this concept, CPR. You will feel the spirit strenghten.

-- Call me God (Idonthave@one.yet), July 04, 2000.

No baby was ever "auctioned." It was Dennis' intent to eventually use the generator as a backup supply for a house he was to build in the country. Dennis is/was a consultant by occupation. Jobs come and go in that line of work. The job he was working at the time of the rollover was out of state. I suspect any new job is as well.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 04, 2000.

You seem to know "Dennis" quite well. That was HIS SPIN on the Baby ONLINE EFFORTS. He stepped into the picture to try to prevent Community Services from doing what the LAW REQUIRED FOR **BOTH CHILDREN** (the Mother was what 15???).

As for the use of his oversized generator that is his business but it is also BULL if he did not prepare for the eventuality that he would be unemployed. Y2k workers were being laid off long before 1/1/2000. But HE.........NEEDED A $13,000 generator for exactly what if he did not have a job?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

CPR,

He needed the generator to supply the power to the crappy trailer he and his trash buddy Netty now share.

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@asper.com), July 05, 2000.

Hmmm... seems like creeper and his best butt budy are getting much too friendly... beings they are one and the same, looks like mastubation to me..

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 05, 2000.

I know... you have it well in hand......

Do all of us a favor creep.... stop the masturbation... most of us aren't into it...

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 05, 2000.

What's the matter Netty? Can't figure me out.

It's real simple, here is your first clue. People that live in glass trailers shouldn't throw stones.

Maybe you and Al-d could pray over this one and get a revelation. Or at least you could wipe up each others' spittle.

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@sper.com), July 05, 2000.

Friendly Ghost, please give Al a break. There is a world of difference between Al's and Net Ghost's posts. I can usually figure out a little of what Al D is saying. Net Ghost on the other hand, seems to be writing in a code that only he and the aliens can understand ;-)

-- They are not the same (Q@W.#), July 05, 2000.

"Net Ghost on the other hand, seems to be writing in a code that only he and the aliens can understand"

Yes, it is hard to understand what other people are saying when your I.Q. is below 60.

-- cyber freud (you.are@very.dim), July 05, 2000.

I know Dennis Olson "quite well", Mr. Reuben, because I don't use internet threads in total to formulate my impression about people. Threads like these are a poor substitue for first hand contact. You, however, have a history of refusing to commuicate "offline", and that is to your detriment.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

No baby was ever "auctioned."

This is correct. The grandmother simply attempted to give the baby away to strangers over the internet.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 05, 2000.

"No baby was ever "auctioned."
This is correct. The grandmother simply attempted to give the baby away to strangers over the internet.
PHEW! Well that's a relief!

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), July 05, 2000.

That may very well be true. And it is certainly something that on the face of the circumstances in play at the time, I did not and do not condone. But as the Internet comes into play in every aspect of our lifes, consider it a distinct possibility that the Internet as primary means of initiating contact with parties interesting in adopting already occurs. But in terms of this particular situation, let's dispense with the notion that baby was "auctioned." That, was CPR's spin.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

But as the Internet comes into play in every aspect of our lifes, consider it a distinct possibility that the Internet as primary means of initiating contact with parties interesting in adopting already occurs.

However, this is entirely different than attempting to give away a baby to complete strangers over the internet, given a maximum of about 9 days for the prospective parents to be evaluated.

But in terms of this particular situation, let's dispense with the notion that baby was "auctioned." That, was CPR's spin.

No, it was posted by someone named "DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx)," not CPR.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 05, 2000.

hmm:

You aren't following this are you [you aren't alone]. I think that everyone agreed to blame cpr for everything. I'm mad at him about the flood we had last night. 8^)

Here, is what DB said:

If my memory serves me, Olson was the person throwing around threats here. Had something to do with auctioning off a child. Don't remember.

Don't remember means just that. I guess people just don't read carefully any more. Not that I would rank trying to place a child with strangers at a bb that high on the responsibility scale

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 05, 2000.

Spin becomes your own once you pass it along. However, I would be interested in its origination.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

Spin becomes your own once you pass it along. However, I would be interested in its origination.

If you are referring to the original Baby Adoption thread, you can find it here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 05, 2000.

DB agreed.....That had to be the MOST pathetic thing I've EVER seen on the net.

No matter HOW you slice it, children should not be GIVEN AWAY over the internet. I myself went 'off' about it, but got slammed for speaking truth.

I have learned to be open-minded, but that was sorry and whoever thinks it was okay, IMHO isnt normal. I dont care what the circumstances are.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

I read this post when it first came out, and until I read the above mentioned newspaper story was pretty convinced it was a hoax. I'm curious, though, does anyone understand what was meant by an "open adoption"? As opposed to a private adoption, maybe?

And I's also liked to be directed to the thread that first linked this as being an auction, if anyone can provide.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

Hiway:

I hate people who repeat posts; but since you didn't read the first one I will make an exception:

Here, is what DB said: If my memory serves me, Olson was the person throwing around threats here. Had something to do with auctioning off a child. Don't remember. Don't remember means just that. I guess people just don't read carefully any more. Not that I would rank trying to place a child with strangers at a bb that high on the responsibility scale

Therefore, there was no auction. As I said, Don't Remember

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 05, 2000.

BUT...there **WAS** an "auction". Not in the normal sense of "highest bidder" but the playing field was *not level* to other potentially great Parents. What was most absurd was that this was done near the time of the Celebration of the Birth of Jesus Christ. To the day I die, I will consider that post pure SIN (Judge Not lest etc be damned). I still don't understand why it was not exposed on National TV as one of the *real Y2k scandals* instead of the clap trap about MREs and caves.

Then after they posted this (not only on TB I but on the weirdo JC's forum) AFTER it was EXPOSED and sent to the papers, the RING LEADERS OF THIS AFFRONTRY ..........demanded that "people stay out of our business". (This from the preppers who demanded that everyone Prep because they said so and now respond to me or Andy Ray with the "what people do with their private funds is their business Waffle.)

This is what you needed to enter the bidding for the kid: YOU HAD TO BE "PREPPED" to the exclusion of all those others OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF PREPPERS. THUS, the "contestants" had to "qualify". The little buzz words in there about Blond hair was a bit too obvious.

That meant that you had to buy into the BS of Y2k Doom. They announced in the thread that the first selected Parents had NOT PREPPED ENOUGH TO SUIT THE 15 yr. old Mother or the Grandmother.

Thus, they closed the "bidding" for the baby to NON-Preppers. You may not think that was an auction but FEW would have qualified to suit the Family. HOW could a 15 year old Birth Mother Rape Victim use such a "criteria"?

Read the thread over and over (if your stomach can take it).

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 05, 2000.

I'm curious, though, does anyone understand what was meant by an "open adoption"? As opposed to a private adoption, maybe?

It's actually explained in the thread close to the end. Basically, they consider an open adoption as one where the baby knows his birth mother and the birth mother is allowed to visit the child and get photos, etc.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 05, 2000.

If you adopt a child from Vietnam, first you have to submit your fingerprints for a criminal check. Then a credit check is run. An adoption representative visits your house. You have to provide photographs to the Vietnam government of your dwelling and provide details as to where the child will be raised and attend school.

And then there's the money. $10,000 maybe more.

When you get the child, done by travelling personally to the country, you have to stay in Vietnam an undetermined number of days before the adoption is "official." Once you are home, every year you have to submit a photo of the child, with family, at home and such, to the Vietnam government until the child is 18. So, I suppose in every sense of the word, you have to "qualify" in order to adopt.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 05, 2000.

But you do not have to be a "prepper" to adopt a Viet child. Your Argument is an empty set. In fact, you do not have to be a COMMUNIST either. You have to have a certain amount of MONEY.

And if the Grandmother who placed the post on TB I, Hyattskis and JC's forum had not demanded that the candidates "GET IT" this would have been JUST AS ODIOUS.

I copied the term "auction" because it suited me. In retrospect, I should have should have put "Baby placed on Net Door Step for Adoption with sign "for Get Its only"".

My other objection was the bull shit from Olson about protective services (he called them Gestapo organizations). That was "smoke screen". I do not know of ONE SINGLE COMMUNITY IN THE USA .....no matter how poor or how small,,,that does not have at least ONE CHURCH or private group with resources for mothers and newborns in similar circumstances. We say in Dallas that no one single person EVER need go homeless or hungry and we can back that up. And all our Aid Organizations and Charities are Private or Church connected.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 06, 2000.

What bothered me was that an adoption had already been arranged with another family. The grandmother apparently didn't feel they were prepared well enough, so she cancelled that adoption. I can only imagine the heartbreak that went through the would-be adoptive parents, however, it is the mother's right to change her mind up to the actual adoption, and for several weeks after (depending on the state). Cancelling an adoption over such a trivial issue however, and then attempting to arrange another with no oversight, and no criteria beyond race, location, and the amount of MREs someone had, was really low.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 06, 2000.

I'm probably still the only person who never gave a shit about this. I live in Texas. These folks lived [live] in Wisconsin. Am I supposed to feel more injustice about THIS than I am about the babies found in dumpsters in Texas? Personally, I don't think so.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

My point is what you continue to call it, CPR. Your extremist rhetoric did little to convince people that Y2k would not be a major problem. In total, your aruguments were incoherent. The fact that you were right, by means of your debates, was more luck than wisdom.

Yes, you're adversaries had agendas and were largely buffoons, but you rarely made a argument to defend your point of view without an irrational diatribe. I looked for you to be right. I wanted you to be right. But your desire to crush the other side got in the way of reasoned discourse. And that, is unfortunate.

But it doesn't matter, does it? Y2k is way over. Few will be remembered for their contribution to this issue, no matter which side they fall. In the years to follow, Roswell will still get more play in the press. That, too, is unfortunate, because I believe that many people who became wrappped up in this are still well-meaning folk who will be muich maligned in history for their concern. That is a shame.

(Incidently, and to be fair, I include you in the lot of "well- meaning folk.)

Now, get a life.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 09, 2000.