Just to make sure everyone is clear, I am NOT Dennis Olson!

I am getting sick and tired of all these trolls who just mysteriously and conveniently appeared out of nowhere. They claim I'm actually Dennis Olson in disguise based on the fact that we live in the same region, have the same political and religious views, and a similar argumentation style. I think that it's pretty obvious who's behind all these seperate posts accusing me of being Dennis (HINT: Access For All seems to be unable to let it go).

I am not interested in having this stupid argument anymore, so this is the last I will say about the matter. Despite certain similarities, I am J, not Dennis.

-- J (djolson@pressenter.com), August 29, 2000

Answers

Isn't that the e-mail address that Dennis Olson used to use?

What gives?

-- Hey... (wait@minute.now), August 29, 2000.

WOW!

My very own troll.

I guess this means that I have achieved the status of a forum regular.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 29, 2000.

J, you have arrived.

-- cin (cin@=0).cin), August 29, 2000.

Hey, anyone can make a mistake. Why don't you own up to it like a man instead of trying to blame someone else?

-- Susan (susanwaters@excite.com), August 29, 2000.

Y2J:

I'm not sure that having Dennis as your own personal troll is an honor. You can decide for yourself.

Falcon

-- Falcon (Falcon@whatever.xyz), August 29, 2000.

Susan,

About what are you talking?

Falcon,

I don't think that Dennis Olson is the troll.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 29, 2000.

Susan Waters--

Are you from Marquette?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

As they say if it quacks like a duck............

How's it going Denny.

-- Monkey Spanker (monkeyspanker0@angelfire.com), August 30, 2000.

"Just to make sure everyone is clear, I am NOT Dennis Olson!"

Just to satisfy our curiosity, why are you so upset about it? You share an awful lot of views with Dense, so why the upset? If I were you, and if you really weren't Dense (which you are), I'd take it as a compliment to be compared with that overweight, overbearing nutjob who threatens police and government officials. Anyway, methinks thou doth protest too much.

You're a jerk and a liar, Dense.

"I am getting sick and tired of all these trolls who just mysteriously and conveniently appeared out of nowhere."

I've been here a long time. If you don't like it, that's too bad. I'm not sharing my name with you, nor my name, address or IP number. You have a history of threatening people, and I'm not opening myself up just to make you feel better.

Oh, yes, a "troll" is not simply someone you disagree with, Dense. Please try to keep that in mind.

"They claim I'm actually Dennis Olson in disguise based on the fact that we live in the same region, have the same political and religious views, and a similar argumentation style."

And the same address, the same phone number, the same back history, the same weight, the same clothes, the same underwear and the same lame debating style. Certainly everyone in Wisconsin isn't exactly the same, are they, Dense?

"I think that it's pretty obvious who's behind all these seperate posts accusing me of being Dennis (HINT: Access For All seems to be unable to let it go)."

You're funny, Dennis! I posted in response to you ONCE on an abortion thread, and outed you in that post. You promptly *disappeared* from that thread. You, however, seem unable to let your "pwecious fetuses" go. Unless, of course, someone gives you a good punch in the nose on an abortion thread, like I did. You dropped the topic like a hot potato.

If you think that you know who I am, guess again. You're wrong. You and I have never crossed swords before the Citizen Ruth thread you so unceremoniously abandoned. And Access For All is the only handle I use when posting on the topic of abortion. I use other handles when posting on other topics, and I shall continue to do so. But when it comes to you . . . well, I only need one handle to knock *you* down. So like it or lump it.

"I am not interested in having this stupid argument anymore, so this is the last I will say about the matter."

Yes, you are. You are *very* interested in having this argument. You are so interested that you have to make a big show of it. You'll say more on the matter, Dense, because your ego is so big that you just can't shut up about yourself. Sooner or later, you always give yourself away. You can't help it, ego-boy.

"Despite certain similarities, I am J, not Dennis."

Yes. Dennis *J* Olson. Noted board hothead and Hamburger-Helper- addicted crank.

Did you give your leftover preps away, Dense? It's almost September now. Or didja eat 'em all already?

BTW, did your attorney advise you to pipe down about the fake adoption?

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 30, 2000.

Dennis Olson is a good Mormon

-- (Alf@slEASY.board), August 30, 2000.

Give it a rest, creeper.

-- (tiredoftr@ll.posts), August 30, 2000.

Um are you sure that is creep? Could be hawk, kinda sounds like em.

Not that it matters, i say this is much ado bout nothin

Who gives a darn if its Dennis/Dense or whomever....please do give it a rest, nobody really cares

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 30, 2000.

"Who gives a darn if its Dennis/Dense or whomever....please do give it a rest, nobody really cares"

I second that emotion.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

Third!!

(Does that mean the motion has passed?)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), August 30, 2000.

It matters to me. I like to know who I'm dealing with. I can understand why someone would be reluctant to post using their real e- mail address. However, Dennis posted a lot of filth and garbage under his real name and now seeks to distance himself from it by changing his alias. Does anyone else remember the threats and harassment Dennis perpetrated under his own name? How can you not think this is important?

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), August 30, 2000.

I

LOVE

it. I AM ON "AUTO-DE-BUNK" a version of "auto-pilot".

Now people do the de-bunking, post some weird name and I get the credit. Boy, will Poole and Pauly and the rest all be jealous. Just for the record. Dense J. can't be a troll. HE IS FAR TOO BIG being a min. 100 lbs over the legal limit for Trolls. Therefore, throw them all back.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

Thank you Susan. Dense did indeed post assorted "filth" and threats. In addition, I have the classic "I always post under my own name" when in fact, we have his pressenter IP addressed on assorted posts to de-Bunking Y2k. That makes him a LIAR also.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

Did he use the Y2J alias on the debunkers website as well?

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), August 30, 2000.

consumer, Anita, Patricia,

YOU would care if everytime you posted, some idiot claimed that you were someone else.

Susan Waters,

I am Y2J@home.comm. I am not Dennis Olson. The post that started this thread is a troll post that tries to make me, Y2J, look like I am Dennis Olson.

Access,

So you are such a great abortion debater, huh? Do Romanian women have access to abortion, smart guy? If you claim "no", then how is it that Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world? You know, ever since I gave Citizen Ruth "a good punch in the nose" on an abortion thread, she has disappeared from this forum, unwilling to show her face. Unless, of course, she has come back under some other handle. What's the matter Citizen Ruth, did you get humiliated under that handle, and had to come back as Access?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.

J: Um you NEED to CHILL out we WERE trying to 'help' not harm you.

Re-read our posts.

Oh and um, your welcome :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 30, 2000.

consumer,

I re-read your posts. Sorry if I jumped the gun a little.

I, too, don't care who the troll is. I do care that everytime that I post, some fool claims that I am Dennis Olson.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.

Susan Waters--

If you are from Marquette and the name "Aunt Jan" has any relevance, please email me. Not critical, but of interest.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

Sorry Lars, I'm not the Susan you're looking for.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), August 30, 2000.

Lars is Desperately Seeking Susan. Sorry, could not resist.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), August 30, 2000.

LOL bingo

Lars: did ya find her yet? :-)

um, looking for Ms. Goodbar? ROFL

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 30, 2000.

Thank you Susan for the response. Honorable people such as you and I can communicate above the above the buzz of the crude jokesters Bingo and Consumer.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

I am IRONMAN.

-- OzzyOsborne (black@sabbath.headofbat), August 30, 2000.

"He is not me. I am not her. Hawk is he. She is not him. I am Jay, not Dennis. Dennis is her..."

What drivel.

This thread is good evidence that the board is falling apart.

-- (r@nd.h), August 30, 2000.

J:

"I do care that everytime that I post, some fool claims that I am Dennis Olson."

Did you know that an early human embryo, early chicken embryo, and early fish embryo look very much the same? They all have a notochord, a post-anal tail, and pharyngeal gill slits. If someone were to look at an embryo within MY body and claim that it was a fish or a chicken, I doubt very much I'd care.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

Me thinks the doofus doth protest TOO much.

-- Shakespear (will@shakes.pear), August 30, 2000.

r@nd.h is Sysman.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 30, 2000.

"YOU would care if everytime you posted, some idiot claimed that you were someone else."

I care that everytime a certain specific idiot posts, he claims he's someone else. Y2J claiming he's not actually Dense, for example.

"I am Y2J@home.comm. I am not Dennis Olson. The post that started this thread is a troll post that tries to make me, Y2J, look like I am Dennis Olson."

To paraphrase Popeye, you am what you am. And what you am is fatboy Dense Olson. I bet you went through all that Hamburger Helper and toilet paper already. Shame on you for not sharing with the Romanian orphans. But since they aren't "pwecious fetuses" any more, you don't give them a second thought, do you?

"Access,"

Yes, my big angry cupcake?

"So you are such a great abortion debater, huh?"

Well, not that you'd know anything about it. After I pasted you in the face on the Citizen Ruth thread, you ran away and didn't come back. Why'd ya run, Tubby?

"Do Romanian women have access to abortion, smart guy?"

What a foolish person you are, Dennis. Didn't you hear me say "yes" on that thread?

"If you claim "no", then how is it that Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world?"

Oh, no, no, no. You don't get off that lightly, coward. If you want to resume the debate, you are going to have to answer all the questions you ran away from over on the Citizen Ruth thread. If you don't want to resurrect that thread, then I'll do it for you. I'll also be glad to give you an elementary lesson in statistics so that you can once and for all realize that your erroneous extrapolation of one statistic from another one doesn't mean jack.

"You know, ever since I gave Citizen Ruth "a good punch in the nose" on an abortion thread, she has disappeared from this forum, unwilling to show her face. Unless, of course, she has come back under some other handle. What's the matter Citizen Ruth, did you get humiliated under that handle, and had to come back as Access?"

Nope. I don't know Citizen Ruth. In any event, I'm a man, not a woman. I am Citizen John Doe, not Citizen Jane Doe. If Citizen Ruth ran away from you, then that's between you two. You, however, ran away from me, and that's between us, fatboy.

BTW, Dense, didja shoot any government officials lately?

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 31, 2000.

Lars: I did NOT mean to offend thee, I was just joking, from now on, I hereby endeavor to not 'play' with you anymore.

xoxo,sumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 31, 2000.

Access,

Ignorant little man.

Let me resurrect the Romanian "orphan" debate for you.

Citizen Ruth tried to make the point that the "orphan" problem in Romania was due to a lack of access to abortion.

I refuted that claim by citing evidence that shows that there is access to abortion in Romania. In fact, Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world.

Don't you see, in your most recent post above, you have conceded that I won the debate. You said, "didn't you hear me say "yes" on that thread"?

The reason that I abandoned that thread is that after soundly winning the debate (so soundly that Citizen Ruth has still yet to show her face on this forum), you came in and tried to change the point of argument. After trying unsuccessfully to show you that the point of debate was whether or not there was access to abortion in Romania, I concluded that further debate was futile.

The bottom line is that if you are so stupid as to be unable to grasp what the point of an argument is, then it is a waste of time to try and debate with you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 31, 2000.

I'll bite.

You say that you not only proved Citizen Ruth was wrong, but you did it so thoroughly that she ran and hid since she immediately disappeared after you say you proved her wrong and didn't return to argue the point.

You immediately disappeared after Access proved you wrong and claimed that you were Dennis. By the same logic as before, Access so thoroughly proved you were Dennis that you disappeared after s/he said you were Dennis. After all, you didn't return until to argue the point(s).

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 31, 2000.

Tarzan,

Access never proved me wrong. Are you also going to claim that there is no access to abortion in Romania?

Note your words, "and CLAIMED that you were Dennis (emphasis mine)". Claiming something is true does not make it true.

I left because it was impossible to debate with someone so dense that he could not understand what the point of debate was.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 31, 2000.

That's a little disingenuous (sp?), don't you think? We had wandered far, far afield from the Romanian question by the end of the "Citizen Ruth was Right" thread where Access claimed you were Dennis.

Of course claiming something is true doesn't make it true, but that sword cuts both ways. There were two seperate threads titled "Citizen Ruth is Right" I'll wager that at least two people don't buy your claim that you beat Citizen Ruth. Claiming you beat her in debate doesn't make it fact.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthrougthejunglewithouta.net), August 31, 2000.

Access,

Dennis,

Ignorant little man.

Arrogant fat asshole.

Let me resurrect the Romanian "orphan" debate for you.

No. You have *failed* to do so. I told you what I was talking to you about back on that thread. You refused to acknowledge it then, and you refuse to ackowledge it now. You obstinately kept to what you wanted to talk about, refused to answer my questions and ignored direct queries put to you. Since you have proven yourself incapable of debate, I shall resurrect the thread and remind you what the debate was about. Then Ill kick your fat ass again.

Citizen Ruth tried to make the point that the "orphan" problem in Romania was due to a lack of access to abortion.

Correct.

I refuted that claim by citing evidence that shows that there is access to abortion in Romania. In fact, Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world.

Incorrect. You are extrapolating one statistic to prove another, Dennis, and I discussed this on that thread. Naturally, you didnt bother to read it, or, if you did, you decided to ignore it, as you didnt have an effective response. In any event, that wasnt what I was talking about. Do you even bother to *read* the posts you respond to?

Don't you see, in your most recent post above, you have conceded that I won the debate. You said, "didn't you hear me say "yes" on that thread"?

Twasnt the debate I was having with you on the original thread, fat boy. Cant you read? Youre claiming that I was arguing your topic with you. I wasnt, and if you would read the posts you respond to, youd know that. Then again, its probably better for a mental lightweight like yourself (and thats the only way youll ever be a lightweight) to dodge and weave, making things up and creating straw men, rather than actually responding to whats asked of you.

The reason that I abandoned that thread is that after soundly winning the debate (so soundly that Citizen Ruth has still yet to show her face on this forum), you came in and tried to change the point of argument.

No. I came in and tried to discuss a related topic with you. When I asked you if you were Dennis, you split. And you still have yet to show your face on that forum.

After trying unsuccessfully to show you that the point of debate was whether or not there was access to abortion in Romania, I concluded that further debate was futile.

The reason you ran off is because you got your teeth kicked in, and because I outed you, Dennis. You dont get to decide for me what Im arguing about. I reserve that right for *myself.* The only way you can claim victory here is by demonstrating that I was on your topic with you. However, I was not, as even a cursory reading of my posts would demonstrate to you.

The bottom line is that if you are so stupid as to be unable to grasp what the point of an argument is, then it is a waste of time to try and debate with you.

The bottom line is that if you are so incoherent as to not be able to articulate clearly, if you are so illiterate as to miss large portions of text, and if you are so obstinate as to insist that your topics are the only ones that can be discussed, then allow me to buy you an airline ticket to Tehran. Youll fit in just great there, once you starve yourself down a few hundred pounds.

Its really quite simple, Dennis. You didnt like where the discussion was going. You were embarrassed at being caught out. So you declared victory and ran away. Is that also what you did when the sheriff showed up at your door?

Tarzan, Access never proved me wrong. Are you also going to claim that there is no access to abortion in Romania?

I did prove you wrong, fat boy. The problem here is that you think your points were the only ones in existence on that thread. They werent. There were others which you refused to consider or respond to. And thats how you got proven wrong.

Note your words, "and CLAIMED that you were Dennis (emphasis mine)". Claiming something is true does not make it true.

Claiming you are not Dennis does not mean that you are not actually Dennis. Kinda like doomer logic, isnt it, fat boy? Doesn't it suck when people use your own brand of logic against you?

I left because it was impossible to debate with someone so dense that he could not understand what the point of debate was.

You left because others wouldnt play by your rules. Oh, yes, and also because you were embarrassed at being outed, you arrogant, violent, overbearing asshole.

Have a nice day, Dennis.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 31, 2000.

DAAAAAMMMMNNNN! That was HARSH!

I don't know if Y2J is Dennis or not, and frankly I don't care. He can call himself whatever the hell he wants. However, if Y2J isn't actually Dennis Olson, I'd like to nominate Acccess as the next Dennis-suspect-in-drag. All he needs to do is put in a few anti- government tirades, a liberal sprinkling of personal threats (pun intended!), and repeat over and over and over "I'm going to enjoy watching you pollys starve next year,".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 31, 2000.

Access,
How is it that Romania is second in the world in abortions per capita if they don't have access, you idiot?

I have some words from the past for you. See if you can remember who said them.

"I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania".

Do you remember?

It was YOU.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 31, 2000.

Dennis, Dennis, still as bullheaded as ever. I like that in a debating opponent. It still won't help you, though.

You singled out the *one* thing I said in my posts that had *anything at all* to do with your points. However, you conveniently overlook the *rest* of that post, and all the rest of my posts, as if they don't exist. Dennis, I don't know if you ever finished college, so I'll spell it out for you. A good debater covers all his opponent's points and objections. Failure to do so costs points in competitive debating. When debating for fun, it just causes you to lose. Just as you have lost.

"Access, How is it that Romania is second in the world in abortions per capita if they don't have access, you idiot?"

That wasn't the point I was discussing on that thread, and you know that, you fat moron. My point was (and still is) that by refusing to consider long-term solutions to the social and economic situation in Romania (especially any solutions that include abortion), you are by default arguing *in favor* the status quo in Romania. And that's a horrible stance to take.

Remember, Dennis? You're arguing *in favor* of bwinging "pwecious fetuses" to term in a horrible place where their future will be one of desperation, hunger, filth, illiteracy and unemployment. I'm sure your mythical, imaginary god will smile upon you for your kindness and charity.

NOT.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 31, 2000.

Access,

First off, I am not Dennis Olson.

Secondly, I would like to call a truce to all of the name calling. I let the heat of battle get the better of me, and I am truly sorry for descending to name calling.

Arguing for or against abortion is a debate that is impossible to win. It always boils down to, if it is a "child" then it is wrong, and if it is "tissue" in a woman's body, then it is acceptable. I BELIEVE that it is a child, and therefore, I believe that it is wrong. You BELIEVE that it is just tissue, and therefore, you believe that it is acceptable. This was not the point of my argument.

Arguing what the solutions are to the Romanian "orphan" problem will also boil down to what you or I BELIEVE, as the facts will only be known after the problem has been solved. This was not the point of my argument.

Citizen Ruth made a statement that was provable or refutable. She claimed that the Romanian "orphan" problem was caused by the lack of access to abortions in Romania. The refutation of this claim was the point of my argument.

If one can prove that Romanian women HAVE access to abortions, then one can logically conclude that the Romanian "orphan" problem can not be caused by the lack of access to abortions. I provided evidence that Romanian women have access to abortions. Evidence that was satisfactory enough for you to state, "I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania".

Your desire to change the topic of debate to arguing solutions for the Romanian "orphan" problem does not require that I indulge you. Nor does my refusal to descend into that morass mean that I am arguing, by default, in favor of the status quo there.

I set out to refute Citizen Ruth's erroneous claim. I did just that.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 31, 2000.

Access,

Dennis.

First off, I am not Dennis Olson.

I dont believe you.

Secondly, I would like to call a truce to all of the name calling. I let the heat of battle get the better of me, and I am truly sorry for descending to name calling.

I dont think so. I think you are sensing that once I resurrect the old thread, youll get your hiney kicked again, and you want to cool things down before your debating failure becomes more obvious. More to the point, though, that cheap Apology thread you started suggests that you are, in fact, much more interested in name-calling than you let on. Im sorry, Mr. Olson. I cannot accept your apology. Make of that statement what you will.

I will console you with this statement, though. If you behave politely towards me, then I will do the same towards you. Let your actions speak for you, Dennis. After all, your words have been pretty spiteful and hateful over the last year or so. Im not so sure that more words from you can counteract their effect. If youre so interested in peaceful discussion, then *prove* it. Your call.

Arguing for or against abortion is a debate that is impossible to win. It always boils down to, if it is a "child" then it is wrong, and if it is "tissue" in a woman's body, then it is acceptable. I BELIEVE that it is a child, and therefore, I believe that it is wrong. You BELIEVE that it is just tissue, and therefore, you believe that it is acceptable. This was not the point of my argument.

It was, however, the point of others on that thread. You refused to see that. You were not running that discussion, Dennis, and you do not get to decide for others what their topic of discussion is. You obviously never learned to play well with the other children in school.

Arguing what the solutions are to the Romanian "orphan" problem will also boil down to what you or I BELIEVE, as the facts will only be known after the problem has been solved. This was not the point of my argument.

You are incorrect, Dennis; as incorrect as you were when you invested heavily in Hamburger Helper and Charmin. You would have us believe that any proposed solution is a roll of the dice. This is the kind of foolish logic that prompted you to engage in over $20,000 worth of preps, while ignoring the possibility that your contract would be terminated.

What your arguments amount to is this. You do not believe you can win. However, you do not want to lose. Therefore, you claim that the debate is unwinnable by either side.

I reject that characterization. I believe the debate is winnable. I believe it is only winnable by the pro-choice side, and that the pro- life side cannot prevail in the long term. I will debate you, Dennis. And I will win, in the long run.

Perhaps I will lose a few skirmishes here and there, but in the long run, I *will* win.

Citizen Ruth made a statement that was provable or refutable. She claimed that the Romanian "orphan" problem was caused by the lack of access to abortions in Romania. The refutation of this claim was the point of my argument.

Thats between you and Citizen Ruth. You and I, however, have a very different debate going on, and youd better recognize that, Mister.

If one can prove that Romanian women HAVE access to abortions, then one can logically conclude that the Romanian "orphan" problem can not be caused by the lack of access to abortions. 

No. Your argument on that thread was that the high rate of abortions in Romania went hand-in-hand with the various social ills in that nation. I countered that your emotional argument (which was, in fact, a thinly disguised dismissal of abortion itself, rather than an attempt to reconcile the Romanian social situation with anything at all) essentially said that all fetuses must be carried to term regardless of the mothers or familys situation. I argued that you wanted to see fetuses carried to term at all costs, no matter how desperate the social circumstances. I disagree with that stance, I told you so, and I told you why.

By continuing to argue your point, you clearly indicated that you would rather have the Romanians suffer than to have access to any social solution that contained abortion. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that you would like for the Romanians (and possibly others as well) to suffer for your principles. How else can one square your position with reality? Your position on Romanian abortion boils down to this -- you want people you have (probably) never met to behave in accordance with your moral stance on an issue that really doesnt affect you. Your only reason for this appears to be that youre personally not comfortable with abortion. But why should a Romanian woman  or the Romanian government, for that matter  care what you want? By extension, why should any woman who you dont know care what you want?

I provided evidence that Romanian women have access to abortions. Evidence that was satisfactory enough for you to state, "I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania".

Dennis, you know good and well that I was NOT on that thread to discuss that. You know damn good and well what I was trying to discuss, and you simply didnt want to talk about it. I think you dodged the discussion because you were uncomfortable with the implication, and because you were embarrassed you had been outed. I think youre still embarrassed about both of those things.

Your desire to change the topic of debate to arguing solutions for the Romanian "orphan" problem does not require that I indulge you.

And your desire to keep the topic of debate where it was does not require that I indulge you, either. However, one does not win a debate by dodging discussion and then melting into the background.

Nor does my refusal to descend into that morass mean that I am arguing, by default, in favor of the status quo there.

Quite the contrary. That is precisely what it means. You need an education on the practice of debate, rhetoric and dialectic.

I set out to refute Citizen Ruth's erroneous claim. I did just that. 

However, once you had done so, you didnt have anything else to add to the discussion, did you? Not that you didnt want to  you simply couldnt. Partly because you know Im right, and partly because youre embarrassed by your position, your behavior and by being caught out.

I will win. You will lose, Dennis.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 31, 2000.

Access you really are annoying. You will always win, in your own head that is.

-- here (have@my.twoshillings), August 31, 2000.

"Access you really are annoying."

Thank you. Glad I could upset you today. BTW, you missed a comma there. Take one of mine; I have plenty.

"You will always win, in your own head that is."

I've already beaten *you.* If you thought you could take me on, you would have done so already. Have a nice day.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 01, 2000.

Access for All = HAWK. Quite simple, consider the insults, cursing and accusatory tone, not to mention sp's.

Hawk: Wuz Up

-- (onewho@remembers.you), September 01, 2000.

You people are mean to overweight individuals, calling someone "fatboy" and refering to their weight repeatedly is mean. Weight does not mean a person is less capable of intelligence or work ethic than you. There are many overweight people who participate on this forum. It shouldn't be okay to say those kinds of things anymore than it should be okay to call someone a name based on their skin color or ethnic group. You probably were the ones who picked on kids on the playground, right? When will the X-large participants of this forum express disgust with this kind of discrimination?

-- You are not nice! (Fat@so.what), September 01, 2000.

Access is a bitch...err...uhh... female. Yeah, that's what I meant.

What a lame pathetic annoying individual you are Access. Even Hawk couldn't be this annoying.

Chess is a game, monopoly is a game, wheel of fortune is a game. You really need to buy a vowel.

-- ugh (throwingup@my.2shillings), September 01, 2000.

Access,

I have given a sincere apology for the name calling that I did. You may accept or reject it as you see fit. My conscience is clear.

You have conceded that I won the debate with Citizen Ruth over whether or not her statement about the Romanian "orphan" situation was correct. I, however, concede nothing to you about your claim of winning some non-existent debate that you believe that we were having about solving the world's problems. Or was it abortion in general? Or was it about the merits of Ford vs. Chevy?

You see, if I let YOU arbitrarily decide what the topic of debate is, then you can change it at will to suit your desires. Like, for instance, when you couldn't disprove my refutation of Citizen Ruth's claim that there is no access to abortion in Romania. Nor would I expect you to allow ME to arbitrarily decide the topic of debate. That is why we have different threads on this forum. The original post of a thread defines the topic of debate for that thread. If you don't like the topic, start your own thread with a new topic.

Finally, I will no longer engage you in debate until you apologize for calling me Dennis Olson. We are two different people, and your insistence otherwise is both rude and intolerable.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 01, 2000.

Finally, I will no longer engage you in debate until you apologize for calling me Dennis Olson. We are two different people, and your insistence otherwise is both rude and intolerable.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 01, 2000

Oh pleeeessseeee. And now you are acting like a child trying to bribe someone for an apology. If thats the only way to get an apology, perhaps you should begin holding your breath, see which will get the apology first.

-- (toofunny@Jisnot@home.nope), September 01, 2000.

TESTING

-- Test (test@test.test), September 02, 2000.

sqwawk's an incestuous pissant.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 02, 2000.

and a coward.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 02, 2000.

I think it's really interesting that the REAL Dennis J. Olson hasn't shown up here to complain about his name being taken in vain. The original post that started this thread came from Y2J in a pitiful attempt to say he wasn't Dennis Olson. If he's not Dennis, though, then why hasn't Dennis come here to disavow himself from this thread? I can tell you from personal experience, when someone spoofs your address on the first post of a thread, you get every response posted to that thread. If you got over 50 e-mails in your inbox, on a thread that you didn't really start, wouldn't you be upset? I would. Wouldn't you come back and ask that the thread be deleted? I would. Wouldn't you want the truth to be known that you weren't Y2J?

The fact that the "real" Dennis hasn't done any of that is the most compelling evidence thus far that Y2J really IS Dennis Olson.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 04, 2000.

Isn't it also possible that the real Dennis Olson doesn't really care what the people on this board think of him anymore?

-- Hacker2 (hacker2@enough.is.enough), September 04, 2000.

Isn't it also possible that "Y2J" disabled the email notification option when s/he posted this thread? BTW, I seem to remember the real "Susan Waters" posting here in the past to protest you the troll "Susan Waters" using her name and actual email address to post controversial threads.

-- (You@are.trolling), September 04, 2000.

I am the actual Susan Waters and yes I have been "spoofed" before. This is why I can speak from personal experience. It is no fun having someone pretend to be you, whether you care about the opinions of those who are fooled or not.

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 04, 2000.

Susan Waters,

The original post that started this thread did not come from me. I am not sure how anyone could be fooled into believing that it did, but obviously you were.

I can't answer the rest of your questions, because I can't speak for Dennis Olson. I can, however, echo part of one statement that you made.

"It is no fun having someone pretend to be you".

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

One Who . . .

"Access for All = HAWK. Quite simple, consider the insults, cursing and accusatory tone, not to mention sp's."

Access for All = Someone else. Quite simple, considering there are over 18 million people on the Internet in the USA, and more showing up on a daily basis. But thanks for playing.

Ugh . . .

Access is a bitch...err...uhh... female. Yeah, that's what I meant.

No. Im quite male. If it makes you feel better to fantasize that Im female, go for it. You need some Kleenex in the bathroom there, Ugh?

What a lame pathetic annoying individual you are Access. Even Hawk couldn't be this annoying.

What a lame, pathetic response youve given, Ugh. Even Dense couldnt be this weak.

Chess is a game, monopoly is a game, wheel of fortune is a game. You really need to buy a vowel.

And you really need to buy a clue. Let me know when the loan paperwork comes back from your bank, uh, bookie.

Access,

Dennis,

I have given a sincere apology for the name calling that I did.

I don't think it was at all sincere, Dennis. I think you're afraid of getting your ass further kicked. At any rate, youre still an arrogant, cowardly asshole. Maybe you should think about being polite to others *before* discussions get down in the mud.

You may accept or reject it as you see fit.

Ive already rejected it as I saw fit, as if I needed your permission.

My conscience is clear.

Thats pretty hard to do with all those starving Romanian kids running around. Are you sure you dont feel the least bit guilty about that? Maybe you should share some of your preps with them. That is, if you havent eaten them all yet.

You have conceded that I won the debate with Citizen Ruth over whether or not her statement about the Romanian "orphan" situation was correct.

You really are stupid, Dennis. How do I concede a debate that I wasnt having? You need to talk to Citizen Ruth, wherever she is.

I, however, concede nothing to you about your claim

You dont need to concede. Your refusal to even discuss the matter makes it apparent that you dont want to talk about it. Refusal to debate = concession. Get an argumentation and debate handbook, idiot.

of winning some non-existent debate that you believe that we were having about solving the world's problems. Or was it abortion in general? Or was it about the merits of Ford vs. Chevy?

See, Dennis, you really cant read. Nor do you want that thread resurrected. You behave as if you dont even know what I was talking about. Well, naturally, everyone on that thread was taking their lead from you, werent they? The Almighty Fat Leader of the Topic?

You see, if I let YOU arbitrarily decide what the topic of debate is, then you can change it at will to suit your desires.

No, no, no, Fat Boy. Go back and read. I decided what MY topic of discussion was. YOU do not decide for ME. YOU have tried to tell ME what I was talking about. YOU do not decide for ME. *I* decide for ME. You can choose to participate or not, but you dont decide FOR ME what I am talking about.

Get it?

Like, for instance, when you couldn't disprove my refutation of Citizen Ruth's claim that there is no access to abortion in Romania.

Who said I was trying to? I was having a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT discussion on a closely related topic. Im well within my rights to do so. You tried to confront me, and you failed. When I outed you, you ran away. Now youre back, claiming that you won. What a load of bullshit.

Nor would I expect you to allow ME to arbitrarily decide the topic of debate.

Thats a total crock of bullshit, too. That is precisely what you are doing here  trying to decide for me, after the fact, what I was talking about. How arrogant and presumptuous can one human being be?

That is why we have different threads on this forum. The original post of a thread defines the topic of debate for that thread.

Bull, fatboy. You know good and well that threads morph and change throughout their lives. And that Citizen Ruth thread went through a lot of changes before I got to it. People owe no allegiance to the original post of a thread, or to an individual poster. Youre engaging in some pretty convoluted thinking and reasoning to try and make things go your way. And it wont work, Dennis.

If you don't like the topic, start your own thread with a new topic.

If I have something to say on a topic, I respond as I see fit. And I dont require your guidance on how to do so.

Finally, I will no longer engage you in debate until you apologize for calling me Dennis Olson.

If you thought you had any ammunition or any arguments, you'd argue with me whether I called you Dennis or Denise. But you wont, because youre a coward, Dennis. You know youve been outed, and you know youve lost. Run away again, fat boy. You have some Hamburger Helper waiting for you.

We are two different people,

You are one and the same.

and your insistence otherwise

Is absolutely correct.

is both rude and intolerable.

Only because youve been caught, fatboy. Oh, gosh, its so hard to decide! Do I apologize to Dennis for calling him Dennis, or do I hold his cowardly feet to the fire and hope hell stop begging me to forget his real name?

Nah. Think Ill continue to call him by his real name. It just gilds the lily, now that hes lost again.

"It is no fun having someone pretend to be you".

Well, Dennis, you sure would know about that, having started the spoof Apology thread with my name on it. What a cowardly, two- faced, lying arrogant asshole you are. Stuff your feelings in your cavernous shorts, if theres any room left in there.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 05, 2000.

Y2J, if you're really not Dennis Olson, then why don't you send Dennis Olson a note and ask him to ask OTFR to kill these threads claiming that you are him?

-- Susan Waters (susanwaters@excite.com), September 05, 2000.

Susan Waters,

I wish to remain anonymous. A short perusal of some of the garbage that goes on around here at times should be enough of an explanation as to why I want to remain anonymous.

However, since you are already known, I would be obliged to you if you would send him a note, if you are so inclined, asking him to ask OTFR to kill these troll threads and to set the record straight that I am not him.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 05, 2000.

Shame on you for trying to drag Susan into your web of deceit! Just fess up Denny and end this charade.

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

"I wish to remain anonymous."

Well, too late. Your name is out, Dennis.

"A short perusal of some of the garbage that goes on around here at times should be enough of an explanation as to why I want to remain anonymous."

And it would also explain why people don't want to tell *you* who they are, you unbalanced, violent asshole. Shot any law enforcement officers lately?

"However, since you are already known, I would be obliged to you if you would send him a note, if you are so inclined,"

You're a brave boy, Dennis, hiding behind a girl like that. If Susan is Romanian, she'd certainly be justified in telling you to get out from behind her skirt.

"asking him to ask OTFR"

Ask OTFR yourself, you coward.

"to kill these troll threads"

Nothing trollish about this thread, Dennis. There is something pretty trollish about your "Apology" thread, but that's one YOU started. This thread talks about the fact that you are, in fact, Dennis Olson, and that you are, in fact, an unbalanced, violent, arrogant and overbearing asshole. No troll content there.

"and to set the record straight that I am not him."

If you want Dennis Olson to help you out so bad, then do it yourself. Oh, wait. Dennis already knows. He's just playing dumb.

Give it up, fat Dennis-troll.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 06, 2000.

Just a quick question, if I may interrupt - why exactly is this "J" person suspected of being Dennis Olson?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), September 07, 2000.

You can find most of your answer in this thread, but it could take a bit of time to wade through.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 07, 2000.

He's Dennis and he knows it.

He's just embarrassed that WE know it, too. What a coward.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 13, 2000.

I see that Dennis Olson has gone over to Anita's new board and asked that CPR be prevented from posting there.

How *strange* that Dennis never say fit to "clear" Y2J of the accusation that Y2J was Dense in disguise.

Just more evidence that Y2J=Dennis Olson. And in case you didn't know, Yeah Right is another of Dennis' posting names too.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 19, 2000.