When I first saw Anita rip into "Peg" on the debunkers forum, I thought hmmm, that was unnecessary. She told Peg that she would ignore all her posts because (essentially) they were stupid. This was my first indication that Anita had a need to dominate.

Then she rips into me privately because Diane told her I was the one posting under her signature. I say rip because she knows there's no way Diane (Ms Piggy) can tell who is posting but also because she never answered my response to her, left me wondering what I did wrong.

Then she posts a question about how to "run" the forum. Ken remarked on that thread that he did think it was appropriate. (I can't remember exactly and I don't have time to look for the thread.) I thought that Anita was just trying to give the forum a boost and that Ken was being harsh. I was wrong. I think in that thread he said she was acting like Ms Piggy, trying to control the forum, that domination thing going on again.

I didn't think any more about it until....

She told me on another thread that I wasn't ready for prime time debate and that my hatred for Clinton was clouding my objectivity. Well, I do hate Clinton, and I really don't care about going prime time. But I called her on it. I brought up the fact that she didn't follow her own rules on debate on another thread (women in combat). Her own biases were clouding her objectivity, but of course that didn't matter to her; she didn't respond to that. She insisted that she looks up internet articles to back her position and sees both sides of the debate clearly. My, my, Anita aren't we full of ourselves. And I thought why does she care so much that she has to post this garbage.

Well, I've concluded because she has no life. Most of the time I don't post even though I do have something to say. It's not worth it to me to point out differences or counterpoint other people's post. I post just to bring up a few points. I work full time, take care of a household of four people and build houses in my spare time. I'm too busy to look up articles on the net to support my view. My view comes from a full life. My lack of time to respond sometimes makes my posts seem curt, well I appologize for that. I'm a firm believer in to each his own. I have views on how people post but I'm not going to dictate how the forum needs to be run.

Anita on the other hand feels the need to tell people everything that's on her mind, to put forth the rules of debate, to tell people her thoughts even on topics about which she has no clue. So be it. I don't criticize her for it (until now). I didn't tell her she doesn't know squat about the military (again acting like Ms Piggy, looking things up on the internet thinking this will give her some insight). I didn't tell her what an idiot she was making of herself on that topic (until now); she has the right to speak.

I'm just amazed at her arrogance, her need to control. No question here, just a little rant. I feel much better.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 04, 2000

Answers

A shameless personal, mean-spirited attack, Maria. Your mistake on the political thread was to raise the sceptre of objectivity when really all you had was your personal opinion. And that is fine, to have that opinion, but you were masquerading that opinion as fact. When you did that, someone asked you to back it up with facts. Sorry, but on this forum, no one gets away with it. If you do not have time to back up your opinions through research, and I applaud you for your very full life, then do not purport to be telling us facts.

Opinions are like ***holes-everyonoe has one. But if you are going to come on this forum and start talking about causality in the arena of economics, you better be prepared to back up what you say.

Your rant is negative, your posts were negative yesterday on that other thread, and this personal vendetta is kind of sad.

With all you have to do in your life, this negativity is rathe counter-productive.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 04, 2000.

Perhaps it is that sixth, or eighth, or tenth beer that changes her perspective. (and attitude)

-- needs help (is@major.alcoholic), August 04, 2000.

My calling out the "tree-hugger" attribute was my way of putting Brian into a nice little box I built for him. Anita did the same with me when she said that people in the military had beaten me into submission with "Women shouldn't be in the military" (my interpretation of her statement). She put me into a nice little box that confined me to her impression of me. Not saying it's wrong, just what she did and we all do. She, not knowing my experiences or me, decided that my opinion on women in combat came about in a certain way. How she came to those conclusions I can't be sure. But they are wrong conclusions and hopefully that came through in my response.

FWIW maybe I'm wrong about Brian's tree hugger personality. But I thought we were making a joke out of it. I thought I treated it lightheartedly (especially when he remarked about the little pat) but obviously it didn't come across that way to Anita or you. Anita thought I was saying how wrong he was in the politics because I stated he was wrong about tree hugging. No, that's not what I was doing. He's not wrong about tree hugging, just a different point of view from mine and I made a joke of it. I also gave him a little dig about Y2K, my (I know bad) sense of humor. Maybe I should have put ;) after it? Again, I thought I was treating this lightheartedly but obviously Anita didn't think so. I'm so misunderstood, just like my dog. My posts were negative about Clinton. Sorry if that negativity seemed directed at Brian. I'll refrain from making my little digs in the future. Let me rephrase, I'll try to refrain

Have you been reading what's going on in the "abortion" threads? Talk about negativity. Everyone yelling at everyone else, trying to make the other see how wrong they are. It's all about opinions, no amount of linking to web pages will make you more right than the other person. Same with politics, no amount of "back up what you say" will make it right or wrong nor will it change anybody's mind. Anita's statement about my style just seemed so arrogant to me that I had to respond. She obviously believes that she has the corner on how to debate. I don't think so.

Yes freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and everyone is entitled (as you point out in a different way). This wasn't meant to be mean-spirited (I'm so misunderstood). I called it the way I saw it. I had something bothering me and I needed to get it off my mind. Would you have preferred I bottle it up inside, let it fester, and attack Anita on each of her posts under some pseudo name? It seems to me that that alternative would make it a personal vendetta. Sorry FS, I didn't burn it, I posted it. I let it out; now I can move on.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 04, 2000.

As someone who appreciates both Maria and Anita, I hope you guys will not get carried away with personal attacks.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 04, 2000.

yeah, I hope you guys are above the ceeper/heller bore show.

-- biffy jojno (BIG@BIG.BIG), August 04, 2000.

Hmmm, if I am the "Ken" in question, I really don't remember making a "Miss Piggy" remark. I'm not usually prone to muppet references. It is likely I have agreed and disagreed with Anita. She was one of the few "Debunkers" to acknowledge the whole Y2K debate was a tempest in a teapot. If we disagreed, I'm sure I stated my point and she stated hers.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 04, 2000.

Ken, please think of me as "Grover". ;)

-- helen (home@home.home), August 04, 2000.

I would give anything to see how King of Spain would play this. I've no doubt that both Maria and Anita would wind up, splattered with mud, in one of KOS's erotic fantasies...

-- WD-40 (wd40@nosqueak.not), August 04, 2000.

nothing wrong with anita, it's just that maria has her head up her butt

-- walter cronkite (and thats @ the way it. is), August 04, 2000.

Anita has her moments. She can be a real bitch.

-- Play (Fair@Loveandwar.com), August 05, 2000.

Hi Maria. Hey I didn't know you knew carpentry, sure could use your help on remodeling an old farmhouse we've aquired, haha.

cool down, it's just cyberspace.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), August 05, 2000.

Maria = dumb cunt

-- (just@little.rant), August 05, 2000.

Nik, ah remodeling! So much more difficult than just building.

So tell me the truth weren't you c4i?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2000.

Anita would never start a thread with another poster's name in the title for the purpose of launching a personal attack. Unlike Maria.

Maria insults Anita for having time available to post on this forum? God, I thought only LadyLauraLogic was that much of a moron.

Anita, if you're reading this, there are a lot of people on both sides of the Y2K debate who appreciate your intelligence and respect you. I especially admire the way you take to task posters of all stripes who indulge in ranting. Ignore Maria. If she feels soooo misunderstood (whine whine), as she stated several times in this thread, perhaps it's time for her to take responsibility for that rather than blame others.

-- (Can't@believe.it), August 05, 2000.

I'm with Maria and the reason you slimeballs hate her is the same reason you think you bother me. We don't care what you think about us. Neither to any of the De-bunkers or anti-Doomzies.

Interesting that all the sheeted ones come out to post and turn on Maria. Of anyone that posted to TB I, she was the one the morons hated the most because she told them what they did not want to hear about Telecomm and then de-bunked some of the BS artists right to their faces.

They called her names then and they call her names now. Their real problem is Maria was right and they were wrong and can't deal with that.

So on and on, the Slimeballs call her names and think it matters while we go on LAUGHING AT YOU.

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

Can't believe it, I don't dislike Anita. I don't know Anita. I agree with most of her posts. And I disagree with some. This is not a cat fight. Don't misunderstand me (joke there :). I have a dog who loves to dig holes in the back yard and tried scolding him to no avail. I bought a book titled, "There are no bad dogs, just misunderstood dogs" I thought it was hysterical. Now I scold my dog not with "bad dog" but with "misunderstood dog". Get it?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2000.

Maria starts a thread attacking Anita
Future Shock (non-anonymous) holds her accountable (no name-calling)
needs help (anonymous) accuses someone of drinking...can't tell if he/she means Anita, Maria or Future Shock
Maria weighs in with a response to Future Shock and an apology of sorts to Brian
Lars (non-anonymous) asks that Maria and Anita not fight
biffy jojno (anonymous) agrees with Lars, with a side insult to both cpr and Heller
Ken Decker (not anonymous) appears to object to being misquoted by Maria
helen (not anonymous) replies to Ken with what appears to be an "inside" joke between them
WD-40 (not anonymous) recalls King of Spain
walter cronkite (anonymous) shows up with a personal attack on Maria
Play (anonymous) counters with a personal attack on Anita
Nikoli (not anonymous) asks Maria an off-topic question about remodeling
just a little (anonymous) attacks Maria
Maria responds to Nikoli about remodeling
Can't believe it (me-anonymous) joins the discussion with a defense of Anita and comments about Maria's tactics

Score:

Anonymous posters = 5
Non-anonymous = 7
Attacks on Anita = 2
Attacks on Maria = 2

cpr, the math major, rants that everyone hates Maria and that all the anonymous posters have turned up on this thread to call her names.

Actually, creeper, I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I sincerely believe you are mentally ill and an incredible boor.

Maria, I think I understand the 'misunderstood' joke now. Thanks for your explanation. My comments stand.

-- (Can't@Believe.it), August 05, 2000.

Can't believe who can't sign with a real name,

Thanks for you summary for those on the forum who can't read and think for themselves. Also glad to see how you understand now.

You know you supported Anita in your post (and that's great for both you and Anita) but you seemed to miss how she attacked another person. You can e-mail her and ask her about it if you want to know more. But, Anita could have simply ignored "Peg"'s posts. She didn't have to air her feelings in public. She choose to do that and I choose to do this. Is there a difference?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 05, 2000.

Thanks for you summary for those on the forum who can't read and think for themselves. Also glad to see how you understand now.

You're welcome. I hoped the summary was clear enough that cpr might see that his wildly exagerated FUD on this thread was symptomatic of his memetic doomer paranoia. Probably not though. The delusional content of such pathology is remarkably resistant.

Anita could have simply ignored "Peg"'s posts. She didn't have to air her feelings in public. She choose to do that and I choose to do this. Is there a difference?

Why yes, Maria. There is a difference. What Anita wrote to Peg on another now-defunct forum is as meaningless as Flint being banned from EZ for his comments on another forum. You starting a separate thread on this forum, solely for the purpose of attacking someone, is not meaningless. Actually, I think Future Shock said it as well as it could be said, so I'll add no more. Good luck to you.

-- (Can't@believe.it), August 05, 2000.

Can't,

"Actually, creeper, I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I sincerely believe you are mentally ill and an incredible boor."

I don't think that CPR is mentally ill at all, but he does appear to have a personality disorder. It's most likely Narcissism. Unfortunately, the liklihood of this sort of personality ever changing is almost nil.

-- Dr. Shrink (drshrink@shrink.asc), August 05, 2000.

Can't and Dr. Shrink,

LOL! LOL! Creeper thinks there's a doomzie behind every bush, just waiting to jump out at him and go, "Booga booga!" Can't is correct. This is beyond narcissistic personality disorder. Definitely delusional ideation with paranoid features.

-- (Psych Major@home.now), August 05, 2000.

Bull Shit as usual from "can't". Most of the ones he calls non- anonymous ARE. WD-40 aka: KY Lube Job smears anyone he/she feels like smearing.

GIVE IT UP. Most of you are TOXIC WASTE who belong in the Toxic Waste Dump known as STENCH BOMB II.

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

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA...cough. Christ, I just have a SCREAMING case of the giggles whenever I read the Creep's posts. Him being so clueless about how hysterical he is makes him even funnier.

-- (Hand@Waving.jive), August 06, 2000.

Psyche Major Moron, you mean you believe there ISN'T a doom zombie behind every bush?? Next thing you know you'll be saying Y2K IS OVER! STUPID DOOMER

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

How strange these threads become. They start at one place and end at another place altogether. And on the way there are imposters posting, posers posturing, echoes of echoes reverberating.

Here

between two mirrors

images to infinity

echoes in N-Space

compressed

fractal

everything, everywhere

Now

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 06, 2000.

Lars, who have you been hanging out with at night? Man, that's awesome! Thank you.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), August 06, 2000.

Woah, Lars is stoned, man!!!

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 06, 2000.

Fortissimo, Lars.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 06, 2000.

LOLROTLMAO!!!

Oh, no, my posts don't upset the CreePeR in the least -- just look at CPR's rabid response to my reminiscence about KOS. But, no, I never bother Charlie at all, now do I?

As Paul Milne used to so eloquently put it: BWAAAAAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 06, 2000.

Far out, Lars.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 06, 2000.

As much as I've enjoyed this thread, I think it's time to put it to bed.

Let's see here: My "rip" into Peg was on the FIRST Debunker forum, so the link is gone. Essentially, what was happening was that the forum was on an extremely slow server. Unlike the format of greenspun, the format was more wherein one had to click on a post on a given thread to read the response. This format, combined with a slow server meant that it took one full minute to click into a response and another minute to click out of a response. I wanted to hear Peg's response, but oftentimes it consisted of "Yes...I agree.", or something else so short that it could have been stated in the subject line and entered as a "no text" reply. I pointed this out. Peg was pissed for about a minute. Others then agreed, as well, that the server was simply too damn slow and that short replies should be entered on the subject line. If Peg ever held this against me, she certainly never demonstrated it, as I've had a great relationship with Peg.

Let's look at this second "rip." Yes...I did E-mail Diane and ask who was impersonating me on TBI. She suggested that I ask my friend Maria, because this was what the ISP indicated. Once Maria represented herself somewhere using an E-mail address that worked, I DID write her and tell her that Diane had told me this. It made no sense to me that Maria was doing this. Maria had folks immitating HER at the same time. She confirmed that it was NOT her, and [for me] it was a dead issue.

The rest occurred on THIS forum, so I needn't address these items. Maria, you've TWICE now said that I said you weren't ready for prime time debate. I didn't say that. I said you weren't ready for on politics. There's a BIG difference. You told me pretty much the same on the women in combat thread.

WD-40: King of Spain's fantasies don't even enter into it. Maria was pissed at what she saw to be a personal attack. She needed to rant about it, and she did. There must be something in the air this week. The EZBOARD folks are getting pissed off at each other, folks are getting pissed off at each other HERE, and folks are getting pissed off at each other on the other fora I visit. Next week we'll all, perhaps, be more considerate of each other and life will move along just like it always does.

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

I'm not pissed; I'm a pistol.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 06, 2000.

No Maria, I am not or never was c41, or Ecoli, which has also been speculated. I did enjoy our debates on the probability of nuclear war, and readily concede that you were right and I was wrong. This whole Y2K episode has been a great learning experience for me, though a somewhat painful one. What do you think the odds of our going to war with China in the next few years are?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), August 06, 2000.

I want to move on to other topics, Maria, so please don't consider the following to have anything to do with you:

"So on and on, the Slimeballs call her names and think it matters while we go on LAUGHING AT YOU. "

Where's the WE in WE now, Charlie? Outside of the random memory-jerk that comes up, all of the debunkers save ONE have moved on to other subjects.

"I'm with Maria and the reason you slimeballs hate her is the same reason you think you bother me. We don't care what you think about us. Neither to any of the De-bunkers or anti-Doomzies."

It seems obvious to ME that Maria cared. When, exactly, did you become the spokes-person for anyone? Y2k is OVER, Charlie. The cohesiveness that once existed in debunkers and the cohesiveness that once existed in "Doomzies" has been gone for quite some time now. We've all learned that the only reason for the cohesiveness we had in the first place were our opinions on the unfolding of Y2k.

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

Care about what, Anita? About what you or anybody else thinks of me on this forum? No I don't. I brought up the topic because you accused me of doing the same things that you do. I got pissed at your statement that I'm clouded in my judgement of women in combat because I was in the military. Very illogical and I called you on it. As you know I usually don't do that but yeah I did get pissed.

FWIW I don't think that was cpr on the first post but I could be wrong.

Nik, If you'd like to discuss we can start another thread. I don't think China will do anything until they can improve their capabilities (even though they made great strides with the stolen US stuff). We (for Brian who may be reading the "we" refers to the US military - joke Brian ;) have been watching them for a long time and I assume will continue to do so. Sorry about Y2K but some of us have to learn the hard way... I tried to tell you ;=)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 06, 2000.

Maria:

"I got pissed at your statement that I'm clouded in my judgement of women in combat because I was in the military."

I think we're talking PAST each other here. I "accused" you of being clouded in your judgment on POLITICS. Why would I accuse you of not being a "ready for prime-time debater in the military" when I, myself, was linking to the voice of another woman in the military?

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

Anita:

I think KOS was funny as hell, and this is the kind of "material" that he would have a field day with. In point of fact, I have mucho respect for both you and Maria. No offense was meant to either of you. (Regardless of what CPR, a.k.a. Shitface, says...)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 06, 2000.

WD, no offense taken.

Anita, OK I accept what you stated. But, I'm still bothered by your statement, maybe you can explain what you meant by it sometime. Issue dropped, I got a full week this week developing a Business Plan, yuck!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 07, 2000.

We are ALL hormonal bitches. Get used to it

=o) heehee

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

>> [Do I care] about what you or anybody else thinks of me on this forum? No I don't. <<

Maria, the only way this could be true would be if you held all participants in this forum in some degree of contempt. People do not appreciate being held in contempt. They tend to return the favor in kind.

Is that the response you were looking for?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 07, 2000.

Well actually Brian I was't looking for any response but since you did...

I have no contempt for people on this board. On the previous incarnation, I did have contempt for a few, Diane, the Gordo twins, and Hardliner were among those. I didn't even have contempt for Nik (grin), even though we disagreed plenty on miliary defense.

Frankly Brian, I don't understand how you conclude that if I don't care what people think, then I must have contempt for them. How can I take the insults seriously from people I can't see? Some people here call names. Am I really supposed to care what they think? It has nothing to do with contempt... Unless of course you're a tree hugger... joke, Brian, joke.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 07, 2000.