It is now official. If you aren't Flint or Latimer, you are a moron! So says Dennis.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread |
Quote from Dennis:At Unk's, many (if not MOST) of the posters there are vile profane trolls, who attack people for sport. We don't like them, we don't need them, we don't WANT them. You are welcome here. Flint is welcome. Jonathan Latimer is welcome. Most of the others, however, are NOT.
Just an observation. Now I don't read that board very often, but: this seems to me to represent the type of sloppy thinking and language that personifies the creation of the cult of Y2k. Too bad since there are some nice and interesting people there.
So it goes.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001
Another oneFrom Anita:
If you look at the posting names, they're all anonymous. It could be just ONE person doing all the profanity, and for that ALL of us should suffer a bad name?
Response from Dennis:
First, we do not allow anonymous posting here.
Second, we have the capability to INSTANTLY ban a troll/spammer, and we are willing to use it.
Third, unfortunately by just lamely allowing such material to be posted, all the "legitimate" posters end up tarred with the "troll" brush. (Hell Anita, now on Unk's *I* am the person who put the baby up for adoption. When I tried to set the record straight, I was called a "damn ****ing liar", or words very similar.)
No, you people over there ALLOW the bullshit to go on. If you have a home full of shit, and you don't clean it out, you get to sleep in the shit too, and wear it the next day.
If those of you who really ARE legitimate posters had any balls, you'd open up another Greenspun forum, and leave the trolls to themselves. Then, when they tried to follow you over there, you could ban them.
But you people would rather have all form of profanity, nastiness and mean-spiritedness run rampant, ruining what might otherwise be a decent community. IMHO, you've gotton EXACTLY what you deserve. Very few "friends", no close personal relationships, just a troll-fest with the occasional real post thrown in for token appearance. (Christ, If *I* were Greenspun, I'd have kicked Unk's off the servers a long time ago.)
Anyway... Got no balls? Wallow in the shit with them. Pretty simple, really...
-- (Dennis@juvenile.ranting), August 22, 2001.
I can't claim that I've ever had balls. With what I've got, I could have any number of proxy balls, but let's not get into thread drift.What does free speech have to do with testosterone levels? Why would someone who strongly defends the second ammendment be equally strongly against the first ammendment, when each relies to a large extent on the successful defense of the other?
-- helen (dennis@i.am.your.friend), August 22, 2001.
You so silly. The first amendment refers to the government's limitations on a citizen's rights. The government shall not do any censoring. Of course private individuals and groups can and do limit group participation, membership, and discussion. You can't just barge into someone's house and launch into a tirade because of your "first amendment" right to free speech. An Internet forum paid for by a group of individuals is a private venue, a club. It's not the park. You can't even go to the mall and spout off at the mouth or march with your picket signs--it's private property.Unk's has given you the illusion that it's a public commons, but it's really just very tolerant. Greenspun could shut it down, legally, in the blink of an eye.
-- Cee Bee (ceebee@nospam.com), August 22, 2001.
CeeBee:You are one of the nice and interesting people that I was talking about.
Still, you fail to answer the real question about the use of sloppy language and gross generalization here; though you do it there. The statement by Dennis is not acceptible. At least not to me. It is as bad as his indictment for selling a baby on the web.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
What a fucking hypocrite Dennis. There's some pretty vile posts on your "Take It Outside" little forum. Here's just one example of Marg2 speaking to Charles I:Charles I
Marg2-- SO, if I were to state that I "love Abby and love all her posts," I would then be welcomed by you as you have welcomed Bill? BUT if I should make a general observation that is the truth and cannot be refuted, you then take it upon yourself to make snide remarks?
Marg2, come to think of it, you really don't contribute much on these boards at all, except when there's a dispute, a "cat fight" in waiting, so to speak. Do you have an unfulfilled need to argue, call people names, or perhaps even pull hair? If so, I would suggest that you hang out at your local redneck bar, as other barflies might, in order to seek your fulfillment.
A song by Tina Turner:"What's luuuuv got to do/ got to do/ got to do/ with it?"
__________________ "Never apologize; never explain." Charles I
Marges reponse: marg2 Senior Member
Registered: May 2001 Location: Adirondack Mountains Posts: 128
Welcome Charles I, you dickless wonder. I don't hang out at bars so thanks, but, no thanks. I do however have on-going projects in the restoration of my house and prepping for the winter.
I have not posted as much of late due to my meat world responsibilities, not that I owe you any explanations. I will however defend to the DEATH, people I care about, who are being persecuted. Especially when that persecution comes from some smug asshole with delusions of grandeur.
You would have been welcomed if you kept whatever comments re Ab to yourself. But you chose to comment on things you know nothing about with whatever piddling authority you may think you have. You know absolutely nothing about any of us.
Your mother should have kept her legs in the air a bit longer....because the best part of you ran out down her thigh.
P.S. I did give you fair warning....asshole.
-- (touche'@hohum.xxx), August 22, 2001.
Gosh, I didn't know I couldn't barge into your bathroom routine to spout my tirades! Poor argument.Sure, Greenspun could shut this board down if he wants to. As long as it's running and Unk is moderator, very little will be done in moderation. That's why I love Unk.
I fail to see why anyone at tb2k would care about Unk's. I'm not trashing Dennis or his board. Dennis and I are friends. I don't see how demands to censor Unk's can be logical. If you don't like it, don't read it. I've been dealing with cpr that way for a long time, and I feel fine. I've never trashed Dennis for deleting or locking threads, since I figure that's his business.
My creaky old machine can't load an EZ page with any kind of speed, so I dropped out of all the EZ incarnations a long time ago. It makes no sense for one board to be feuding with another. It particularly makes no sense to equate participation on either board with lunacy or other unpleasant characterizations. It makes even less sense to justify either position with constitutional ammendments.
-- helen (mr@magoo.was.always.happy), August 22, 2001.
Why all the angst? Mr. Olson has created a private Internet forum and will run it as he pleases. He certainly has the right to manipulate the show and if you don’t agree with him then stay away. He comes across as someone unable to get any respect in his real life so he is using the Internet to acquire status that has evaded him so far. Really pathetic when you think about it but that’s his problem to deal with.And Helen, who would want all of this to make sense? That’s no fun.
Just my opinion.
-- Just (my@2.cents), August 22, 2001.
Just: two cents isn't worth too much.He created a public forum; but that is not the question; nor is the question of how he runs it. The question deals with the sloppy use of language and the over generalizations.
No one seems to address the issue offered in the original post.
Best Wishes,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Okay, once again I'll LABOROUSLY explain the entire thread, and once again I'll be castigated for it by the children here.Anita had posted to a funny thread on TB. A bunch of us were having a very fun time on it. Here is here post:
Maiden, City: Why can you roll with the flow with a sense of humor HERE, and not roll with the flow with a sense of humor at Unk's?
Cherri wasn't the ONLY person at Unk's to be accused of being so obese as to be a source of eye-pain. *I* also was accused of such. All you need is ONE poster who doesn't agree with your views on something. *I* thought it was humorous, and there are enough members on Unk's who have met me IRL AND seen my pictures that I wasn't at all intimidated by the thread.
I don't know what happened to the pictures since that time, but they don't seem to work anymore. There was a grossly obese woman in a shower asking that someone help her get the soap that had dropped, and the jiggling of the animation really tickled me.
There's always going to be SOMEONE who dislikes you on a forum, no matter how nice you play. Take a break. Laugh about it, just as you've done HERE.
and here was my initial response:
Anita, the reason we laugh about it in HERE, is because we're all "family". We've been through the mill from 1998 on (polly/doomer wars), and have become a very tightly-knit group of friends.
At Unk's, many (if not MOST) of the posters there are vile profane trolls, who attack people for sport. We don't like them, we don't need them, we don't WANT them. You are welcome here. Flint is welcome. Jonathan Latimer is welcome. Most of the others, however, are NOT.
And we choose to make light with our FRIENDS, rather than with a group of people who will save a thread forever, and continually bring it back up and attack us with it. We just have a nicer class of people over here (in general). We can get nasty in TIO, but that's what it's for.
Most of the people at Unk's are the type that, if invited into your home, would piss on your carpet by way of thank you. Thanks Anita, but NO THANKS...
The other posts referenced to came from this inital exchange. Now, rant away. (I actually find it quite funny...)
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
“The question deals with the sloppy use of language and the over generalizations.”This site should be more to your liking:
http://www.hpronline.org/
Just my opinion
-- Just (my@2.cents), August 22, 2001.
Ah Dennis, leave it to a freak like you to be a judge of character.
-- Dennis ('need@baby'.Olson), August 22, 2001.
Dennis:You haven't answered my question [good to see than you look in]; but you haven't answered my question.
Doubt that you will.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Z: I'd appreciate it if you just dropped this [since I'm the poster involved.] My goal in responding to the thread at TB2k in which folks mentioned Unk's was to curtail the wars between the two fora [not exacerbate them.]I don't feel good about Dennis taking it outside to tell me that I sleep in shit and have shit on me the next day. I've offered a fairly generic response, but not enough time has passed for me to absorb what he said. My guess, right now, is that he doesn't want anyone posting on TB2k who might defend the WWW. If that's true, it's easy to comply with his wishes.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
Z, it seems to me that there is quite a lot of sloppy thinking on both boards. Not that I am at all wise, but after someone posts an issue, discussion on this board most usually consists of:1) You are a Communist/liberal/socialist, and so your points are moot. 2) Clinton did it also (only worse), and so your issues are of no merit. 3) You are ugly, and so your argument is meaningless.
Discussion on the other board rarely evolves to debate since everyone seems to agree with everyone else, and the viewpoints rarely stray from those of interest to INVAR.
When a good discussion does get fired up, most of the points seem to go over their heads. For example, no matter how many times Flint or JL explain the scientific method and contrast its application to that of biblical expression, no one on that board really seems to understand the point. As another example, I once argued with one of them for several closely spaced type written pages - only to discover that he had not read the initial subject of the post!
In short, if I can detect sloppy thinking, then posters on both boards probably need a quick lesson in English or logic or both! OTOH, I must say that I look forward to your posts and responses. They are a model of brevity and almost always speak to the issue at hand.
-- A (a@A.com), August 22, 2001.
If 51% of your members are assholes, then MOST of your members are assholes. IMHO, based on the level of CRAP that I read over here from time to time, your asshole-level is far in excess of 51%. More like 75%.So, my use of language in this instance is correct, based on my perception of Unks.
Answer enough?
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis: There ARE no "members" here. It's a "have modem/DSL and hands that can type" thing. It's PUBLIC.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
A:Z, it seems to me that there is quite a lot of sloppy thinking on both boards.
True.
Anita:
You are not the poster in question; that would be Dennis. Don't think that he should apologize. Just think that he should admit that when he paints; he sometimes uses a brush that is too broad. :)
Best Wishes,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Sorry Anita, but a person who contributes to a discussion group is a "member" of that group. I don't care how "free-spirited" you want to make it sound, but the objective truth is there nonetheless.And I don't care who defends what, but the members of TB2K won't tolerate abusive assholes in the main room. Simple as that. Like I said on the thread (you have a response from me there BTW), I just can't explain it to you, because (like those on MY board who are "blinded by their superstitious religious beliefs"), you are unable to understand or grasp the difference between "free speech" and verbal abuse.
I can't help you in that fundamental issue...
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis: I reviewed your response, and I won't bother your forum anymore. CPR? He doesn't even post here. He REFUSES to post here, and he hates me, anyway.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
“but the members of TB2K won't tolerate abusive assholes in the main room”Excluding your sorry ass of course.
-- Dennis ('need@baby'.Olson), August 22, 2001.
Is it any wonder that I mostly post at Poole's or other places. Dennis, I wonder about you.Best Wishes,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis why do you ask us not to come over here and make trouble for fear of Trolls but you seem to do a good job yourself, you're not defending TB what are you doing?
-- Abby Lane (abbylane2001@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
As usual Abby, you make a good point. Mr. Olson posts here because he enjoys bragging that he has power over people. Look what happened to you and a few other females he's had run ins with. Maybe he hates his mother and enjoys taking it out on others. Dennis Olson is a cross between Archie Bunker and Fred Flintstone, don't you see the resemblence of character? Dennis loves the power trip of telling people "don't do as I do but do as I say." He's an easy one to figure out.
-- edith (edith@meatheadd.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis, Big Guy, why don't you just go away and quit judging and belittling the folks here. We're quite happy with the status quo even if it means tolerating the occasional asshole, present company included. If that's the price to pay for being able to freely state our opinion without being castigated by your cliquish right-wing, bible-thumping, gun-toting, tobacco chewing, quasi-literate. rabidly racist paranoics and fear-mongers, we're getting off easy. We here are too independent and proud to become Sheeple or Dennis-Wannabe Groupies so your whining, manipulations and perpetual self-righteousness and Victimhood has become tiresome and incredibly annoying to many of us here. So please go home and leave us alone. Don't you have another Crisis to create now that the last one has calmed down. Are you really the Drama Junkie I suspect you to be? Is that your ultimate purpose for coming over here - to stir up the shit?
-- 1 (2@3.com), August 22, 2001.
(snicker) You people are SO predictable. Out od context quotes from posts on TB were cross-posted over here, in order to piss you off. I post the ENTIRE posts (to show context), state that I'll be castigated by the Unk's Jackass Committee, and sure enough...At least you guys are consistent. Consistently trolls and jackasses, but hey, consistent nonetheless...
'Scuse me, gotta LOL now.
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
Hey Edith, what’s this you havin’another mental pause here? Geeze already. Don’t be making no suppository remarks about this here clown Olson being like me. Yur givin me a rectal nerve problem fer cryin out loud. Dis slob is a vote fer birth patrol I tell ya. Stifle yerself now.
-- All (in@the.family), August 22, 2001.
Dennis:Read the whole post. Nothing out of context. Why won't you answer the question. I really made it simple for you. Abbey has a point.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
I am not after Dennis, just trying to get to the bottom of what has happened to me this week starting with the post"Is This Statement True About AbbeyLane", which was way before Saturday fiasco.
Where did this come from and why was it allowed to stay in TB to hurt my reputation and put doubt in people's minds so that when the mess happened on Sat. everyone was ready to point a finger at me.
You have pulled my post for less than this. I'm just looking for answers at it was clear early on this post was a bogus statement and planted for a reason. WHAT WAS THE REASON?
Abby
-- Abby Lane (abbylane2001@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
“Hurt your reputation”?This is the Wild, Wild, West already. Plan a vacation woman and take that mass of pig fat Olson with you.
-- Dennis ('need@baby'.Olson), August 22, 2001.
Please excuse my politeness, I be hung over from visiting the Catholic Convert board. Dennis really doesn't need a "Tard" like me to defend his choice of words. But I believe that Dennis was speaking to a particular audience, and his wording was carefully chosen to fit that audience. I base this opinion on my own "tried and true" method of dealing with morons, goddies, idiots, inocents, and even people with high IQ's. I'll try real hard to not be so polite next time, please bear with me! And also, if anyone responds to this. Please toss a little of that smelly stuff my way. I really need to get the smell of all those religious sites of me ! :-)Bill
-- Bill (baqlrog@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis - YOU, sir, are the Troll. I'm not aware of anyone from here going over to your biased Sanctum to rabble-rouse as you've been doing here. Of course, if anyone here tried to interrupt YOUR board with petty squabbles, you'd "Ban" them immediately, whereas we over here believe that EVERYONE - no matter how annoying or petty - has the freedom and opportunity to express themselves. Even you. That, sir, is the main difference between the two forums. You prefer a tight control of what can and cannot be said and we do not. But just because you CAN come over here to be a PIA doesn't mean you SHOULD!And what makes you think we have any less of a "community" here? What makes you think we have any less of a kinship, commeraderie or support system than you have in your closed forum? What makes you think you're so damn superior?
-- 1 (2@3.com), August 22, 2001.
1) That's not Abby.2) Z, Look in my post starting with "51%". I answered your question there. Did you miss it?
Again, the resident dickheads of Unks do not fail to dissapoint in their ever-downward spiral of profanity and ranting, thus proving (yet again) that the shit just... keeps... getting... deeper... at Unk's, a forum dominated by the true dregs of society...
(snicker)
-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
I post the ENTIRE posts (to show context)So fucking what? Without provocation you undeservedly attacked and trashed us and we don't like it, in context or out of context. So be a Man - no, wait a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N- and apologize, dammit!
-- Dennis (IsTrash@HypocritesAreUs.com), August 22, 2001.
Sorry Abby; I will eventually learn that there is no "e".Best Wishes,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Again, the resident dickheads of Unks do not fail to dissapoint in their ever-downward spiral of profanity and ranting, thus proving (yet again) that the shit just... keeps... getting... deeper... at Unk's, a forum dominated by the true dregs of society...If we're so loathsome then stay the fuck away, butthead!
-- Eat (Shit@Die.com), August 22, 2001.
DENNIS OLSON IS WHITE TRASH!
-- Take (OutTheGarbage@Stench.com), August 22, 2001.
Without provocation....It is now official. If you aren't Flint or Latimer, you are a moron! So says Dennis. - Thread title
But you guys LOVE to provoke and slander people. It's your only joy and entertainment. If it weren't for being pricks, you people wouldn't know what the hell to do with yourselves...
Buh bye for now...
-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis:Didn't miss your backsliding. Don't know how you calculated that figure. You must have your own statistical service. Seems to me that if you use figures that you can back them up with statistics.
My question dealt with: At Unk's, many (if not MOST)
I want you to answer to that question. Do you paint with too broad of a brush or not? Joesph Smith had an opinion on the matter: Do you?
Just wondered.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
But you guys LOVE to provoke and slander people.Oh, make me barf! Don't you have ANY sense of integrity or sense of responsibility? If you didn't originally "slander" the group here, there wouldn't have been anything to cross-post! Do you understand that this all started - and is being perpetuated - by your unwarranted comments? So where's that apology, Big Guy? If you want respect, you've got to EARN it!
-- 1 (2@3.com), August 22, 2001.
It makes no sense for one board to be feuding with another.That was my point when I posted on TB2k, Helen. Anyway, it's all a moot issue. I won't post at TB2k anymore, and I REALLY wish that THIS forum would drop the feuding, as well.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 22, 2001.
Even if we tried to drop it, Anita, there's no doubt in my mind that Dennis would go out of his way to keep it going. For someone who claims to abhor us and our freedom of expression, he's sure over here a lot taking advantage of that he disdains. At this point he's worse than LL...at least she had an insanity plea while Dennis's actions and comments are just plain MEAN and SPITEFUL for no good reason!I agree that he owes us an apology for attacking us and bringing his dirt over here in the first place.
-- 1 (2@3.com), August 22, 2001.
Dennis. I agree with the sentiment here in that maybe you should stay in your own forum as you seem just as hot headed as some of the people here. Don't join them on their level if you don't agree with it.Abby You where temporaraly banned because you refused to stop posting stuff that the original author didn't appear to want posted and threatened the board with legal action over. That is the jist of it. Details are fuzzy because of the noise level that this generated. If the owner of a home asks you to stop talking about a subject, you eather stop or leave or get thrown out. You got thrown out, temporaraly and not from all of the house, just the main room. For gods sake stop whining and come back when the ban is over and rejoin the family.
-- Just Passin Through (Nobody@nowhere.com), August 22, 2001.
Anita:No feuding here. Just a factual person. I want to know where Dennis got his data. He gave us numbers, but won't tell us how he got them. Just scientific.
I gave him a way out; you know to settle the thing, but he won't take it.
I am very civil in these discussions. I don't call names or discuss the lifes of their mothers. :) I just talk facts.
Just think that if you ask a question, that you deserve an answer. Dennis doesn't think that way.
Best Wishes,,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
I agree Anita.It has livened up the ol' saloon though, that's for sure!
Dennis has a forum where he decides what stays and what goes, good for him I say, he runs the place over there and he is entitled to do as he pleases. I "run" this joint here, and I also decide what stays or goes...the main difference, as far as I can see, is that he and his posters want a civil forum without trollish nonsense.
I, OTOH, decided when I opened this forum that this would be a place where folks could let it all hang out without fear of being deleted. Well, except on "I love you Sunday" folks could say whatever they wanted with no fear deletion....well, actually even on "I love you Sunday" folks could say whatever they wished to say, so long as they said they loved somebody too.
Anyway,
They are posting to the type of forum that they prefer, and folks here are posting to the type of forum that we prefer. Some folks post to both fora. I really don't see the problem with that, to each his own.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 22, 2001.
I love you, Unk. :::smooch::: You 'da Man!
-- 1 (2@3.com), August 22, 2001.
Unk, that's very true. But I can't remember the last time we had a post on our board that said "Hey, look what so-and-so said on Unks".Some of your people, however, CONTINUALLY scout OUR board, eagerly posting the slightest little tidbit with lip-smacking enjoyment. It's like your people here have NOTHING to talk about, so they go scan MY board in order to even be able to strike up a conversation.
And with the exception of Paula Gordon, we really haven't discussed "Y2K" issues in many months, yet your people continue to do the "they were wrong" chant.
It's really funny in a way, reading the frothing, worthless debates about nothing that occupy the majority of the bandwidth over here. We may be "Doomers", but at least we have TOPICS to discuss. Many of the people here talk endlessly and profanely about..... nothing.
And Z, sometimes I DO paint with "too broad a brush", but the responses on this thread tonight tell me that I am not doing so when talking about this board.
Rant on....
-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), August 22, 2001.
Yes Dennis, some of "my" people do that very thing...I don't understand why "my" people want to do this, but, hey, they are allowed to do it if they wish. It might not be your idea of a topic, but a topic it is none the less.Did you see my thread about razors?
Heehee.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 22, 2001.
children children...grow the hell up will you
-- (cin@cin.cin), August 22, 2001.
Dennis:Even you will have to admit that this was more fun than a discussion of the building of the third temple. *<)))
Have fun.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 2001.
Is there a full moon or something?
-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 22, 2001.
Hell Anita, now on Unk's *I* am the person who put the baby up for adoption. When I tried to set the record straight, I was called a "damn ****ing liar", or words very similar.Ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything knows that you were the auctioneer, not the parent. Although come to think of it, you did threaten to physically harm anyone who attempted to stop the grandparents from handing over the infant to whatever white, Christian family had the most toilet paper and MREs. But it's not your fault, you were just following orders.
-- (vile@profane.troll), August 22, 2001.
vile, vile, Dennis did NOT try to put the baby up for adoption...
-- helen (somebody@start.some.thread.drift), August 22, 2001.
No, of course Dennis wasn't the one putting the baby up for adoption, anymore than an auctioneer at Sotheby's is the one selling a rare painting. He was just the intermediary, that's all. Just following orders.
-- (vile@profane.troll), August 22, 2001.
vile, it wasn't like that. Truly it wasn't.
-- helen (lets@get.some.drift.going.people), August 22, 2001.
Yes it was Helen. The lowest point in the life of the original forum was when Dennis threatened to kill anyone who came to the house to check on the item... er, infant.
-- (vile@profane.troll), August 22, 2001.
vile, the situation wasn't as simple as you seem to think it was. It was never what a lot of people thought it was. Dennis didn't do anything wrong.
-- helen (will@someone.PLEASE.get.some.drift.going), August 22, 2001.
"Some of your people, however, CONTINUALLY scout OUR board, eagerly posting the slightest little tidbit with lip-smacking enjoyment. It's like your people here have NOTHING to talk about, so they go scan MY board in order to even be able to strike up a conversation."Archie...you fucking bunghole asswipe! You fucking do the same thing! Your a male chauvinist pig! You hate women! You do continually pick on females who post on YOUR board! Any woman with half a brain on this forum or TB2K can see right through you. You hate women and you want them to submit to your egotiscal whims. FUCK OFF!
-- edith (edith@meatheadd.com), August 23, 2001.
Helen,Why do you continually try to defend this man. He froths at the mouth about profane trolls on this forum all the while doing a very good impression of the very thing he condemns, he has threatened people with violence, thrust himself into the middle of a private dispute about a private adoption arrangement, treats women like dirt if they don't act in a docile manner and just in general appears to be a very unlikable person with few if any redeeming qualities. I also believe that he masquerades as J when he is bored. I just don't understand why you feel you have to defend this person.
Anita (you piece of shit you),
Same question for you. Several times you have stated that Dennis is your "friend" since he obtained a scanner for you (probably a hot one lifted by the Michigan Militia but that is just idle speculation on my part), or you gave him a scanner the details escape me right now. But do you feel that he is really a "friend" given the way he has publcly branded you as a piece of smelly shit because you frequent this forum? Do you still feel like defending him? I truly would like to know how you feel about this.
The thing that confuses me about this whole situation is why he is posting over here anyway. If he and his followers have such a perfect heaven on their board and Denny Boy can exercise total censorship over any one who might disagree or upset their "family" (an eerie echo of the Manson family just hit me) which is probably a large majority of the folks who post here, why worry about what occurs here?
They can be like the old Chinese Emperor's and bury their head in the sand and insist such barbarians as us (but damned fine clean shaven barbarians we be) don't exist. They can just eat lotus leaves and pretend that we aren't here and there is no way anyone can go over to their board and post anything that Dennis doesn't want posted. So why all this nonsense over here? Could it be that Dennis actually thrives on stirring the pot and calling people names? Pot/kettle?
-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), August 23, 2001.
JBT: I truly would like to know how you feel about this.Can I have about a year to ponder that? I guess my immediate response would be to say that I think there's SOMETHING good in everyone. I'm a scum-sucking liberal pollyanna, ya know. Do I agree with his premise that folks are guilty by association? NO! I've got family members [as in share the genes] that act more bizarre on occasion than folks on the internet. I remember my mom saying, "Why don't you want to go to the dance with Donnie? His mother is SO nice." I said, "Then maybe I should go with his mother."
I also don't think that anyone here wants to go to the trouble of setting up another forum and spend his whole life monitoring the thing. Most of us like to come in here when the urge hits us, or when we'd rather not do an obnoxious chore or something. That could be twice a day or once/month. Who wants to make it just another obnoxious chore? *I* sure don't. My back button works quite well.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2001.
This is one of the best threads in a while.......Some of yall have a very creative way with words. Quite impressive!!
Carry on......
Deano
-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), August 23, 2001.
What?! Unk's place you gotta love it!
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 23, 2001.
...I'll be castigated by the Unk's Jackass Committee... (Dennis)Unk, how come I wasn't told about the Unk's Jackass Committee? Is it a big secret thing? Anyway, if you allow me to be a member, I'll provide the agenda for the next meeting:
1) We hate Dennis 2) Dennis sure is fat 3) Encouraging Dennis: The pros and cons4) Dennis: A study in hormonal imbalance 5) The Dennis in all of us 6) Can Dennis be saved? Maps to Hudson, WI and Green Bay Packers memorabilia will be provided.
-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), August 23, 2001.
Between 3 & 4 is a break for lunch, and between 5 and 6 is a "Finding your inner Dennis" workshop.
-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), August 23, 2001.
Bemused-Several months ago, someone wrote a hilarious post about our "inner Dennises". I don't remember who it was, but the gist of it was:
So the next time a co-worker contradicts you at the water cooler and your face turns red and your fists ball up and you have the almost uncontrollable urge to scream at him about how well armed you are, remember, it's not a psychotic episodem, it's just your inner Dennis expressing itself.
Hilarious!
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 23, 2001.
The full story of the "baby adoption" can be found in the following threads:Perfectly Healthy newborn needs GI family to adopt him ASAP!
Where's DFACS when you need them?
Well at least the y2k-adoption got a mention. :0) - Westergaard
Dennis wasn't really the "auctioneer," and I actually think that what he did in this situation was a good thing. The potential disaster of a baby being given to total strangers over the internet was averted.
That said, there really wasn't any reason for him to act like a complete asshole to anyone who objected to the idea of a grandmother attempting to give her grandchild away to strangers over the internet. And the implied threats to officials who may want to investigate the situation certainly didn't help matters.
With regard to his forum, it's certainly far superior to the previous EZ-Board incarnation with its laughable "Rules Of Engagement" and the banning of people before they even posted there. It was wonderfully amusing to watch it spiral into destruction as they added more rules to the list. To Dennis' credit, he made the unthinkable move of allowing former Pollies to post and his forum even banned the great Paul Milne after having been so excited to get him there in the first place. Talk about pissing on the carpet!!
And yet, it was Dennis who used to pop over using his "Yeah Right" moniker to harrass the posters at the Uncensored forum (no, he's not really Y2J). And he frequently reposted stuff from there to the old EZ-Board forum solely for the purpose of making snide comments and ridiculous generalizations. It's pretty hypocritical for him to be complaining that people here are now doing the same thing that he himself used to do with such great zeal.
-- (One@WhoWas.There), August 23, 2001.
Dennis - too bad your a fucking control freak repug. Fucker. Enjoy your time boy. You sorry loser repugs are gonna pay for supporting the jackass that stole the election. Real Americans don't want what you do - you YOU...fuckin!!!! dumbass repug!!!! You!! DUMBYA lover!!!
-- Tony Baloney (Fuck you@repugs.com), August 23, 2001.
hEy deNNis! Did YOu nOtiCE a FEw pRoBleMS WitH YouR DataBasE YesTerDay? WaNNa NotiCe More TomoRRow? NO? WelL Shut THe Fuck Up YoU BiG RectUM. ThEre'S A lOT MoRE WhERE tHat CamE FrOm.
-- Penis Olson (phunguy@hackattack.shack), August 23, 2001.
J00 hAv4 t0 b3 k|dd|ng Me LaYmer! j00 H4Ve n0 SkIlz t0 |-|aX0r uSW4iRd0 fuX0r 00f B4f0r4 wE |-|aX0R j00!
-- |-|aX0R (hax0rfux0r@hax0rbrudders.com), August 23, 2001.
Jack Booted Thug,
As far as your belief that I am Dennis Olson, you are wrong (again, or still).
Tarzan,
Good to see you again, worthy adversary.
One@WhoWas.There,
As far as your belief that I am not Dennis Olson, you are correct.
Tony Baloney,
I am by no means a psychiatrist, but your last post seems to indicate to me that you are truly mentally disturbed.
To all,
As far as the baby adoption business, if you peruse those links that One@WhoWas.There provided, I believe that you will see that I was critical of some poster (her name escapes me at the moment) that posted that she had called in Wisconsin child welfare services to pay a visit on the Olson family.
There was then, and still is now, something very disturbing to me when one citizen jumps at the chance to call in Big Brother government on another citizen due to some alleged wrong that the first citizen has supposedly perpetrated.
Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, it was my critical stance of this quick to call in Big Brother poster that started the entire "Y2J is Dennis Olson" hubbub.
It was later furthered by my revelation that I had also taken two children in to my home (although they were siblings, and not mother and child) in late 1999. If I recall correctly, it was Alice in WonderBra who thought that she was a modern version of Sherlock Holmes as she deduced (quite incorrectly, and quite amusingly) that I was, in fact, Dennis Olson. The final piece of "evidence" being that since I go by "J", and Dennis Olson's middle initial is "J", there must be no other logical conclusion then that he and I are one and the same. : ) If it was not Alice in WonderBra, my sincerest apologies to you, Alice.
As far as this whole forum feud topic, I could not care less as to what goes on at other fora. Why some people feel the need to post here at Unk's WWW about what infighting goes on elsewhere is beyond my comprehension, and why Dennis Olson feels the need to drop in here at Unk's WWW to insult various posters and label this place as a home for trolls and spammers is also beyond my comprehension.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 23, 2001.
J, this place is SUPPOSED to be fun and that’s what attracts so many free spirits. People who take themselves or life in general too seriously, will get roasted big-time and mocked for their foolishness.This is as it should be!
Just my opinion
-- Just (my@2.cents), August 23, 2001.
Dennis-It was not just one poster who called the local CPS. When I read the newspaper article, I called the local CPS and was prepared to fax them all of the threads about this attempt at child abandonment. They immediately knew what I was talking about and said I was the tenth person who had called them about this issue within the previous two days.
I am all in favor of adoption, however, giving your grandchild to strangers with no other criteria but that they are white, Christian survivalists sounds like a recipe for disaster. I figured, like a lot of other people, that someone who didn't have a vested interest in seeing this child given to the nearest Y2Kook should take a look and make sure everything was okay.
There were three aspects to this story that set off the alarm bells in my head. Number one, the person offering this child for adoption was admittedly not the parent of the child. Number two, the non- parent of the child in question wanted an adoption to take place right away, as in barely a week. Number three, the mother in question was herself a minor. Number four, there was no mention of the rights and wishes of the father. That child has a father who has parental rights. Should his rights be ripped away from him without his knowledge and consent? And could this be a partial explanation for the urgency behind the adoption?
There was a lot here that didn't add up to me. The grandparents of this child were supposedly so prepared that they had even bought a bug-out shack, but they didn't prepare for the birth of a grandchild. There was an adoption all lined and ready to go, but the birth mother changed her mind at the last minute. The grandparents were only concerned about the health of their grandchild, and to preserve that health, they were going to give him to complete strangers. A legal adoption, complete with criminal background checks, was supposed to be done after the rollover but the grandparents believed that Y2K was going to be a 9 or a 10.
I don't know about the other people who called CPS, but I didn't "jump at the chance to call in Big Brother government on another citizen". I called CPS for the same reason that anyone would call the police after hearing a woman scream for help in the dead of night, or the fire department after seeing flames on their neighbor's roof. I saw a situation where someone else could be in danger and I couldn't live with myself if I just sat on my hands.
-- (anonymous@whistle.blower), August 23, 2001.
May the LORD bless and keep you for your actions, Anonymous.Matthew 19:14.
-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), August 23, 2001.
anonymous@whistle.blower,You did the right thing back then and it still amazes me that anyone with a lick of common sense would find this situation to be OK.
You would expect Helen to defend Dennis; she was trying to get the baby herself for Pete’s sake. Wrong then, wrong now.
Dennis I can understand. We all know someone like Dennis. Physically and socially repulsive but desperate for respect, these ‘outcasts’ will always circumvent acceptable behavior in their quest for ‘the spotlight’. My guess is that Dennis has been shunned by most that have met him and he must manipulate ‘strangers’ to stay in the action. Olson will discover that the Internet world is chock full of weak minds looking for a master.
They will make quite the team.
Just my opinion
-- Just (my@2.cents), August 23, 2001.
anonymous,
It does not surprise me that you are anonymous. I would attribute it to either shame, cowardice, or both.
You seem to be a little contradictory, in that, you complain that the person offering the child for adoption was not the mother (she was the grandmother), and then in the next breath, you say that the mother was a minor. If the mother of an infant is a minor herself, then wouldn't the infant's grandparents be the logical answer to who would oversee the relinquishing end of an adoption? Or should the Big Brother government automatically have custody of the children of minors?
The one thing that continues to amaze me about those who continue to agree with calling the state into the life of a fellow citizen when nothing had been done wrong (contrary to your screaming woman, burning house analogy), is that you seem to all assume that the baby could have been just given away. And that, with no problem whatsoever, the new parents would just suddenly have a new baby, without a birth certificate, or adoption papers, or any of the other normal paperwork associated with the addition of a new child to a family.
I am sure that it would be no easy task to add a child to your health insurance coverage, or get him a Social inSecurity card, or a myriad of other items, without any paperwork trail showing his heritage. Because of this fact, it should have been obvious that no formal adoption was going to take place in such a short period of time, and without the approval of the appropriate state agency, regardless of the wishes of the mother or the grandparents.
So instead of being the "hero" who saved this poor child from... a loving home, all you were was a harassing, busybody, government lackey, who caused a government agency to invade the privacy and generally hassle a caring citizen who opened his home to a young unwed mother and her infant son.
You must be oh so proud.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 23, 2001.
Be you him, or be you not, you be dumb like him. End of story.
-- Dennis ('need@baby'.Olson), August 23, 2001.
JBT, the situation was always more complicated than anything that got posted. This young girl wanted more than anything to keep her baby. Balloons got sent up over the issue of whether adults in the girl's life would separate her from her baby. The end result is that with the Olsen family's help, the mother and her baby remain together. Just remember that the girl wanted her baby, and in the end she got to keep her baby. Given that she was nearly powerless in the situation, I think she was smart to back out of a forced adoption. Backing out was the only option she could exercise. They had to have her signature on the papers.My husband and I were willing to shelter both the mother and her baby or give the baby back to the mother if she found she could care for him after the (fizzled) rollover. The thought of anyone giving up a baby out of fear for a nonevent was intolerable. I can't remember the name of a movie I saw years ago where a whole civilization killed their children out of kindness out of fear of some catastrophe that didn't happen, but that isn't a bad analogy this situation.
Anyway, Dennis knew the family and did one of the finest things I know of that was associated with the whole y2k mess.
JBT, I don't know what Dennis says on his board, and I don't agree with his posts here. It isn't a good thing for him to lump us all together with shit. I defend what he did regarding the baby. It was a good thing.
-- helen (the@rest.of.the.story.is.never.known), August 23, 2001.
It does not surprise me that you are anonymous. I would attribute it to either shame, cowardice, or both.This sort of taunting does nothing to make your case. You really should restrain yourself.
Jane works in this area and we are in the middle of adopting her (our) nephew, so I feel I can speak with some authority on this situation.
If the mother of an infant is a minor herself, then wouldn't the infant's grandparents be the logical answer to who would oversee the relinquishing end of an adoption?
No. The mother of a child to be given up for adoption must give her permission to give up her child, unless she is completely incompetent, and even then there are some protections for her rights. In cases where the mother is a child herself, someone must ensure that the mother is giving her own child up for adoption of her own free will, not due to any coercion from any source, including her parents. Without the involvement of a neutral party, how can her interests be looked after?
Anonymous also make a good point about the father's rights. The father of the child must also give up his parental rights, otherwise he can reclaim them at a future point. There have been a number of high profile cases where this has happened, and it causes heart-break all around.
I am sure that it would be no easy task to add a child to your health insurance coverage, or get him a Social inSecurity card, or a myriad of other items, without any paperwork trail showing his heritage.
You're assuming way too much here. The child was less than a week old. It would have been an easy matter to get a fake birth certificate from, say, Canada and use it to get an American SSN since the birth certificate would show that the child was born to American parents. Also, since adoption laws are byzantine and vary greatly from state to state, it would easy to show falsified adoption paperwork from another state in place of a birth certificate. FYI, birth certificates are usually altered when an adoption is finalized to show the adoptive parents as the birth parents. There's generally a lag of up to a few months between the time an adoption is finalized and an altered birth certificate is produced. Due to privacy concerns, states don't even give information about natural parents to the adoptees themselves, let alone some SSA wonk. Not that they would have enough time to check too closely.
Of course, all of this assumes that the complete strangers who might have gotten the baby wanted to actually be his parents. They could just as easily have acted as brokers for someone else or worse. Once they were given the infant, anything could have happened to him.
Because of this fact, it should have been obvious that no formal adoption was going to take place in such a short period of time, and without the approval of the appropriate state agency, regardless of the wishes of the mother or the grandparents.
Yes, that much is extremely obvious.
I for one am curious as to when and how the grandparents, who were hardcore doomers, thought a legal adoption would take place after the rollover, or how they even expected to keep track of the baby. At the time, I was skeptical that this situation could even be real, since the grandparents had at least a few months to prepare for the birth of the baby.
So instead of being the "hero" who saved this poor child from... a loving home, all you were was a harassing, busybody, government lackey, who caused a government agency to invade the privacy and generally hassle a caring citizen who opened his home to a young unwed mother and her infant son.
Come on. Neither you nor anyone else has any idea who that baby could have ended up with. Maybe it would have been Mother Theresa. Maybe it would have been John Gacy. Probably it would have been somewhere in between, but the potential for disaster in this situation was so great that several people felt they couldn't just sit in silence.
As far as I am concerned, this situation is analogous to this situation in Detroit in which a woman gave her three month old to a stranger at a bus stop to take care of while she went to get her purse. I hope that you won't defend this woman's choice as her private business.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 23, 2001.
Congrats on your expanding family, Tarzan!!:)
-- helen (theres@a.new.kid.at.tarzans.house), August 23, 2001.
Thanks Helen. He's actually been staying with us for quite some time. Jane's sister, his mother, has a fearsome drug problem and has been in and out of jail and our nephew has been bounced around to various relatives. Last year his mother came to the realization that not only was this constant uncertainty bad for her son but it was also hindering her recovery. We have a good counselor and a good school, so hopefully the future will be brighter for everyone concerned.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 23, 2001.
Poole started a thread on cults that degenerated (with my help) into one that mirrors this one. The skinny view.Still this one's great fun to read and reminds the common ground available to those who bother to look. Here's me loving Deano & Maria. Whodda thunk?
-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 23, 2001.
Tarzan,
Congratulations on your marriage (I assume that it has been completed since we last traded posts here at Unk's), and on your impending fatherhood. While your current immersion into the world of adoption and child family services does indeed give you more experience than I in this area, it is my opinion that experience alone will not suffice to back up some of your more outlandish claims.
First, as you said, adoption laws vary greatly from state to state. Forgive me if your experience in Georgia doesn't make you an expert in the laws of the state of Wisconsin in my eyes. It may very well be as you say, that the parents of a minor child who is a mother have no say or rights in such a situation as the Olson family encountered. However, you may be totally wrong, as well.
I will agree with your point about the father's rights. But with the exception of Cherri (who related a story about a child of one of her brothers), I am not sure that those who called the Wisconsin Dept. of CPS had the rights of the father in mind nearly as much as they did the creation of problems for Dennis Olson.
I didn't realize how easy it was to obtain forged documents. You must be a real James Bond type. : )
Needless to say, your baseless claim notwithstanding, I don't think that you can obtain fake adoption documents or birth certificates as easily as you can obtain prepaid phone cards. Of course, maybe I just don't run in the same circles of international espionage that you do. : )
You're right, in that, no one knew with whom that baby could have found himself. Your belief that "the potential for disaster in this situation was so great" somehow justifies the state's intrusion into the privacy of the families involved is wrong. It is not analagous to that horrible situation in Detroit, as much as you would like it to be. It is, instead, analagous to one of your busybody neighbors sicking the Georgia Dept. of CPS on you because they don't like you, and they have found out that you now have a child.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 24, 2001.
First, as you said, adoption laws vary greatly from state to state. Forgive me if your experience in Georgia doesn't make you an expert in the laws of the state of Wisconsin in my eyes. It may very well be as you say, that the parents of a minor child who is a mother have no say or rights in such a situation as the Olson family encountered. However, you may be totally wrong, as well.Sorry old man. Although there's a lot of variance in state adoption laws, there are a lot of commonalities. Just as there are no states where you can sell a baby, there are no states where you can put another person's child up for adoption, even if you are the grandparent. Let me know if you want the Wisconsin statute regarding termination of parental rights.
I will agree with your point about the father's rights. But with the exception of Cherri (who related a story about a child of one of her brothers), I am not sure that those who called the Wisconsin Dept. of CPS had the rights of the father in mind nearly as much as they did the creation of problems for Dennis Olson.
I have read a few accounts of people who called CPS and all of them expressed concern for the child rather than you. Regardless, the motivation of anyone involved has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this infant was being offered to complete strangers.
I didn't realize how easy it was to obtain forged documents. You must be a real James Bond type. : )
You're being rather naive here. If you live anywhere near a large group of illegal immigrants, you will find a thriving illegal documents industry. You may not have to go that far, if you have a computer and a credit card. And if all you need is a birth certificate, most states issue ones that can easily be altered.
Needless to say, your baseless claim notwithstanding, I don't think that you can obtain fake adoption documents or birth certificates as easily as you can obtain prepaid phone cards.
Calling my claim baseless doesn't make it so. Just because it would take some effort doesn't mean it is unworkable; eight million illegal aliens can't be wrong!
Of course, all of this assumes that the person or people who would have taken possession of the baby were interested in actually faking an adoption and remaining in the US. I noticed that you didn't address this point in my previous post.
You're right, in that, no one knew with whom that baby could have found himself. Your belief that "the potential for disaster in this situation was so great" somehow justifies the state's intrusion into the privacy of the families involved is wrong. It is not analagous to that horrible situation in Detroit, as much as you would like it to be. It is, instead, analagous to one of your busybody neighbors sicking the Georgia Dept. of CPS on you because they don't like you, and they have found out that you now have a child.
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong. In Detroit, as on the original board, we had someone offering to give an infant to a complete stranger. The only difference is that this situation was a lot more visible.
And by the way, fostering and adopting a child generally gives CPS Carte Blanche to go through your life in order to determine whether or not you can give the child a safe, stable, home. Why you think that certain people should be exempt from this is absolutely beyond me.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 24, 2001.
Hey Tarz, way to go on the nephew thing. It sounds like You and Jane are going to be giving that kid a real advantage in life. Should be more out there like you two.
-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), August 24, 2001.
Would someone like to adopt me?
-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 24, 2001.
Tarzan,
Actually, it is you that are the "old man". I can run circles around you, you old codger. : ) While I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, why don't you enlighten the forum as to the Wisconsin adoption laws.
"Offered to complete strangers". Why is it that so many get worked up about a baby being adopted by "complete strangers"? Aren't many, many adoptions done where the birth mother doesn't know the adopting parents other than through the contact caused by the adoption? Or are you going to try and claim that every adopting parent is helping out a crack addicted relative?
Yes, as I said earlier, I am naive compared to your hobnobbing in the circles of international espionage. I suppose that you are currently admiring your forged Paraguayan passport, with which you will be able to obtain a suitcase nuke from the former USSR.
You said, "Calling my claim baseless doesn't make it so". And yet, without any documentation, you somehow believe that your claim that obtaining forged official documents is as easy as stopping by the local Wal-Mart, is valid. LOL.
Yes, yes; your "point" about potential parents wanting to cause harm to this baby rather than to adopt it as their own. Your story about the Detroit ghetto notwithstanding, where some young mother left her infant with some drug addict/dealer at the bus stop, while she went to "get her purse"; I am of the belief that most potential adoptive parents are just that: potential adoptive parents. Yes, there is the possibility that someone could pose as a loving couple just so that they could get their hands on an infant for some ungodly purpose, but there could also be a psychopath with a knife in your closet at home right now waiting for you to return home from work. Should I call the police to come over to make sure that you are safe?
This point also brings up the question as to why those whistle blowers believed that the baby would necessarily be given up for adoption illegally, just because the search was on for potential adoptive parents who were "prepped", "complete strangers" though they may have been?
No, I am not "flat out wrong". In Detroit, some mother left her infant with a drug addict/dealer at a bus stop in the ghetto at 1:00 in the morning, so that she could "get her purse". In the Olson situation, a grandmother was trying to do a pre-adoptive screen so that she could find a home for her infant grandson where the family was "prepped". I suppose that those situations could be the same... to you. I'm sure that most of the rest of the world sees the difference, however.
Again, many, many adoptions are to parents who were "complete strangers" to the birth mother prior to the adoption contact. In fact, some birth mothers don't want to meet the adoptive parents at all. They want to make sure that their baby's new home will be a safe and loving one, of course, but emotionally, they would rather not ever meet the parents of their baby.
I never claimed that someone should be "exempt" from government oversight during an adoption. I simply took issue with those who were eager to unleash the government on a fellow citizen for some alleged wrong. The difference seems to be "absolutely beyond" your ability to comprehend.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must be a good party member and go write down the license plate numbers of my neighbors who might be speeding.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 24, 2001.
Aren't many, many adoptions done where the birth mother doesn't know the adopting parents other than through the contact caused by the adoption?Nope. In most voluntary adoptions (i.e., where the birth parents voluntarily terminate their parental rights) there is actually quite extensive interaction between the adoptive parents and the birth mother, if not the birth father as well. The trend these days is for open adoptions, where the birth mother continues to be a presence in the life of the child after the adoption.
Yes, as I said earlier, I am naive compared to your hobnobbing in the circles of international espionage. I suppose that you are currently admiring your forged Paraguayan passport, with which you will be able to obtain a suitcase nuke from the former USSR.
This does nothing to make your point. But I guess you know when you've been beat, even if you can't directly admit it.
And yet, without any documentation, you somehow believe that your claim that obtaining forged official documents is as easy as stopping by the local Wal-Mart, is valid. LOL.
So now you're resulting to lying about my previous statements. Cute.
If it's documentation you want, then it's documentation you will get.
Just doing a quick search for false birth certificates netted me over 200 results, including several dozen sites actually offering false birth certificates. I will not post those links here. Suffice to say that even someone as naive as yourself could easily obtain false ID. It seems to be as common as buying drugs.
Yes, yes; your "point" about potential parents wanting to cause harm to this baby rather than to adopt it as their own.
Actually, my point is that without any sort of background investigation or oversight, this infant could have ended up with anyone who had any kind of intentions. It's not a certainty that the infant could have ended up with someone who wanted to kill him, but without even a cursory background check, the likelihood was very high.
I am of the belief that most potential adoptive parents are just that: potential adoptive parents.
Yes, exactly. And they remain potential adoptive parents until there is a thorough background check to discover whether or not they have a history of child abuse, sex crimes, baby bartering, etc.
Yes, there is the possibility that someone could pose as a loving couple just so that they could get their hands on an infant for some ungodly purpose, but there could also be a psychopath with a knife in your closet at home right now waiting for you to return home from work. Should I call the police to come over to make sure that you are safe?
Ironically, when we first moved in, we had a very similar situation happen. We managed to lock ourselves out the first weekend we were here. Jane stayed on the front porch while I went to the back porch to see if I could get in. I found a large screwdriver and was prepared to pry the back door open. One of our neighbors saw me and phoned the police. We managed to get back into the house just as the cops pulled up. I identified myself and we explained everything to them. It was a momentary inconvenience, but I sure am grateful that our neighbors are concerned enough for our safety that they would report a break-in.
Some people are just that way. They would rather prevent a crime and risk inconveniencing someone than wait for a crime to be committed and then step forward as a witness.
This point also brings up the question as to why those whistle blowers believed that the baby would necessarily be given up for adoption illegally, just because the search was on for potential adoptive parents who were "prepped", "complete strangers" though they may have been?
The baby was offered for adoption "ASAP" with eight days to the rollover. The grandparent was explicit about wanting the adoption to take place before the rollover.
In Detroit, some mother left her infant with a drug addict/dealer at a bus stop in the ghetto at 1:00 in the morning, so that she could "get her purse". In the Olson situation, a grandmother was trying to do a pre-adoptive screen so that she could find a home for her infant grandson where the family was "prepped".
Where are you getting this from? Certainly not from the thread where the baby was offered for adoption. No mention was ever made by the grandparents about arranging a "pre-adoptive screen". In fact, the grandmother was specific about turning down two couples who had already been screened.
They want to make sure that their baby's new home will be a safe and loving one, of course, but emotionally, they would rather not ever meet the parents of their baby.
And yet in this case, there was no way for the mother to make sure the baby's new home would be a safe and loving one. Given the grandmother's views about Y2K, and given the distances they were willing to go to give the baby away, it's reasonable to assume they knew that if they were right about Y2K they couldn't have checked on the baby themselves or get anyone else to check on the baby, let alone get the baby out of a bad situation. Had Y2K turned out the way they expected and believed it would, they would have been putting the baby in a modern day basket or rushes and metaphorically setting it adrift on the Nile.
I never claimed that someone should be "exempt" from government oversight during an adoption. I simply took issue with those who were eager to unleash the government on a fellow citizen for some alleged wrong.
Who, exactly, was eager to "unleash" the government on a fellow citizen?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 24, 2001.
Does anyone else appreciate the irony of supposedly blood-thirsty pro- abortion advocate Tarzan knowing so much more about adoption than supposedly pro-life Y2J? You would think that someone who believes abortion is murder would have adopted at least one kid.Also I wonder if Tarzan will change his mind about immigration now that he's proven that illegal ID is ridiculously easy to get. Will he make the connection between illegal immigrants creating a market for illegal ID and a rise in crimes like identiy theft which rely on illegal ID?
-- Laughing (laughing@you.ha), August 24, 2001.
Tarzan,
To my question about many adoptions being done where the birth mother does not know the adopting parents other than through contact during the adoption procedure, you give me a simple "Nope", followed by your assertion that in most cases, "there is actually quite extensive interaction between the adoptive parents and the birth mother... The trend these days is for open adoptions, where the birth mother continues to be a presence in the life of the child after the adoption".
Again, forgive me for not believing your assertion just because you say that it is so. Especially when your assertion is exactly opposite to my, albeit limited, experiences with adoptions.
Let's move on to your "documentation" about the ease of obtaining forged documents. The article from the first link only says that, "Computer technology has made it much easier to create false documents from birth certificates to full blown driver's licenses". It does not necessarily follow from that statement that the typical American citizen can easily obtain a forged birth certificate. It may indeed be easier to create these forged documents with current technology, but easier is a relative term. If the baseline is "next to impossible", then easier can still be a far cry from easy.
The article from the second link states that a man "was found to have 108 counterfeit birth certificates ...". What you failed to mention is that the man was a former FBI informant, and he had just returned from Peru. Since most Americans have never been in the employ of the FBI as informants, and few Americans travel to Peru, this article does little to prove your assertion that obtaining forged documents is easy, and actually furthers my point about needing to hobnob in the circles of international espionage to obtain these types of documents. Thanks.
The article from the third link is actually a summary piece that cites an excerpt of an article from the New York Times. The two paragraphs that you quoted are not actually referring to counterfeit birth certificates, but rather the problem of people obtaining birth certificates under false pretenses, especially from various counties in California.
I am sure that no eyebrows would have been raised when a few month old infant of Scandinavian heritage was introduced as a three year old named Juan Gonzales, or some other equally ludicrous scenario.
"Several dozen sites actually offering false birth certificates". I am amazed! Absolutely amazed, I tell you! I bet that there are only a few more "How to get rich quick" sites than that on the internet. And probably not quite that many "How to lose a 100 pounds in 30 days...Guaranteed!" sites. I guess that I am quite naive. By the way, can you tell us how many "How to steal AOL passwords" sites there are?
"It's not a certainty that the infant could have ended up with someone who wanted to kill him, but without even a cursory background check, the likelihood was very high". That may be the single most assinine comment ever uttered on this forum. Do you also believe that, "without even a cursory background check," every stranger that you encounter has a "very high likelihood" of wanting to kill you? LOL!
I would guess that the "very high likelihood" of wanting to kill you doesn't lie in the group of people that you don't know, but rather in the group that you do know. : )
"It was a momentary inconvenience, but I sure am grateful that our neighbors are concerned enough for our safety that they would report a break in". I am sure that you will feel exactly the same way the first time that marital bliss is interrupted by a heated argument between you and Jane, and the "concerned" neighbors call the cops again. Or when soon to be adopted, Boy, falls and breaks his arm while playing basketball, and after seeing the cast, the "concerned" neighbors call the Georgia CPS to report you for abusing the child.
But after all, some people "are just that way", right?
anonymous coward,
Tarzan is still far from convincing me that he knows "so much more about adoption than" I do. He has, however, convinced me hands down that he knows more about international espionage than I do. In fact, he is probably traveling to Paraguay or Peru with a fake passport as we speak.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 25, 2001.
Again, forgive me for not believing your assertion just because you say that it is so. Especially when your assertion is exactly opposite to my, albeit limited, experiences with adoptions.Fine, you certainly don't have to take my word for it. You seem to want to sidetrack this issue to one of trends in adoption. Of course, whether or not there is a trend toward open adoptions, the fact remains that regardless of the type of adoption, whether closed, open, or familial, extensive background checks are conducted, including criminal. The fact remains that in this case, such a background check would not have been possible.
It does not necessarily follow from that statement that the typical American citizen can easily obtain a forged birth certificate. It may indeed be easier to create these forged documents with current technology, but easier is a relative term. If the baseline is "next to impossible", then easier can still be a far cry from easy.
Keep trying, old man. You're being a good sport and I really admire the way you're struggling.
Since most Americans have never been in the employ of the FBI as informants, and few Americans travel to Peru, this article does little to prove your assertion that obtaining forged documents is easy, and actually furthers my point about needing to hobnob in the circles of international espionage to obtain these types of documents. Thanks.
Please. The man was caught with 108 birth certificates in his possession, coming into the US. What do you think he was going to do with them, use them to wall paper his bathroom?
The article from the third link is actually a summary piece that cites an excerpt of an article from the New York Times. The two paragraphs that you quoted are not actually referring to counterfeit birth certificates, but rather the problem of people obtaining birth certificates under false pretenses, especially from various counties in California.
And of course, false birth certificates couldn't possibly be of use to someone attempting to conceal a child obtained under false pretenses now, could they?
No, of course not.
:-)
"Several dozen sites actually offering false birth certificates". I am amazed! Absolutely amazed, I tell you!
So was I. For a serious federal crime, there sure are a lot of web resources out there. It makes me wonder what would happen if I tried to buy drugs over the web. Gee, it sure is easy to break the law using the web.
I guess that I am quite naive.
You do, in fact, seem quite naive on this subject, even rather ignorant. I confess to being shocked.
Do you also believe that, "without even a cursory background check," every stranger that you encounter has a "very high likelihood" of wanting to kill you? LOL!
If I don't know someone, I assume that they could be capable of anything. So I don't pick up hitchhikers, I check behind my back when I use the ATM, and I damn sure don't go around handing infants over to people I see on the street.
I am sure that you will feel exactly the same way the first time that marital bliss is interrupted by a heated argument between you and Jane, and the "concerned" neighbors call the cops again. Or when soon to be adopted, Boy, falls and breaks his arm while playing basketball, and after seeing the cast, the "concerned" neighbors call the Georgia CPS to report you for abusing the child.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. When you apply to be a foster or adoptive parent, your life becomes an open book up to and including surprise visits where ever aspect of your parenting is examined. It's a sacrifice you make in order to ensure the safety of the child or children entrusted to you. If you can't or won't make that sacrifice, you have no business applying to be a foster or adoptive parent.
I have nothing to hide. I don't beat my wife and I don't beat our nephew. But I guess if I were the kind of person who had an inclination toward abuse, I would be nervous about that kind of scrutiny.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 26, 2001.
Tarzan,
With an argument as flimsy as yours, I suppose that it should be of no surprise that you would resort to taking my words out of context to try and build your argument. Ah well, others looking in on the debate only need to scroll up one post to see all of my words in their original context.
A couple of quick points: First, you said, "...and I damn sure don't go around handing infants over to people I see on the street". Bravo! If nothing else, we can say that you are smarter than that woman in Detroit.
And secondly, the classic, "I have nothing to hide. I don't beat my wife and I don't beat our nephew. But I guess if I were the kind of person who had an inclination toward abuse, I would be nervous about that kind of scrutiny".
So any American citizen who values his or her Constitutional right to privacy must have something to hide, is that it? Nice try, comrade, but I'm not buying it.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2001.
With an argument as flimsy as yours, I suppose that it should be of no surprise that you would resort to taking my words out of context to try and build your argument.Looks like you're coming up dry. That's okay. I had thought that you had more to draw on than ad hominems and chest thumping, but I understand this issue strikes a little close to home for you. Ahem.
Since this seems to be the issue that will not die (it's been two and a half years and it's still around), here's some questions to get you thinking for the next time this issue comes up. Given your performance of the last few days, I'm sure no one actually expects you to address these. Just mull them over for a while.
1) Since the people who were offering the baby up for adoption were insistent on handing over the child before the rollover (eight days from their original notice) and since they believed Y2K would be bad enough to warrant a bug-out shelter, how do you reconcile your belief that this was merely a "pre-adoptive screen"?
2) How do you reconcile the mother's alleged desire for an open adoption with her apparent belief that Y2K would render transportation and communication moot and with her apparent willingness to give the child to anyone within the tri-state area (which even you must admit is a lot of area)? In other words, if she believed that she wouldn't be able to visit or communicate with the family after the rollover, how could she pursue an open adoption?
3) Given the fact that the father had apparently no input, and possibly no knowledge, of this situation, how does it follow that his parental rights are eclipsed by the maternal family's right to privacy?
4a) Given the fact that even you admit (grudgingly) that anything could have happened to that baby once it was turned over, when do you think it would have been appropriate to call CPS, or even the police? Given the fact that child abandonment is a crime in Wisconsin (and every other state), would it have been appropriate to wait until another crime was committed, or would one have sufficed?
4b) Since you are apparently certain that false documents would be quickly discovered by someone, somewhere, if that person called the authorities, wouldn't they also be"jumping at the chance to call in Big Brother government on another citizen"?
5) We know that "Dennis" (ahem) screams loud and long at even the slightest suggestion of government intrusion. We know that nearly a dozen people, at least, called the CPS in his home town/county/locality. We know that there was no hue and outcry from "Dennis" (ahem). Given these three factors, how likely is it that "Dennis" (ahem) felt that his rights and privacy had been violated?
If nothing else, we can say that you are smarter than that woman in Detroit.
That also puts me a couple of points ahead of you, old man. After all, giving her baby to a complete stranger was her private business, wasn't it?
So any American citizen who values his or her Constitutional right to privacy must have something to hide, is that it? Nice try, comrade, but I'm not buying it.
Ah, the commie canard. I would be insulted if I weren't so embarrassed for you.
We do have a right to privacy (and thank-you for acknowledging it!). The right to privacy is one of my personal faves. However, as Americans we also have the right to choose to sacrifice some of that privacy. For instance, joining the military means you surrender a whole bunch of privacy. Choosing a job which requires a security clearance, whether military or civilian, also means you surrender your right to privacy. Likewise the choice to become a foster or adoptive parent means you surrender privacy. You don't HAVE to join the military (except in the active draft, which hasn't happened in about thirty years), you don't have to even apply for a job where a security clearance is required, and you don't have to become a foster or adoptive parent. The choice and the responsibility belong to those of us who voluntarily put ourselves in that position. You wouldn't want to take away our freedom of choice because it makes you uncomfortable now, would you?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 26, 2001.
Just seeing this thread progress, and thinking back to the original statement that Dennis made, "We don't like them, we don't need them, we don't WANT them" it occurred to me that the beauty of THIS WWW forum is that there IS no "WE".
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.
Tarzan,
Oh yes, first you insinuate that I am abusive, and that is why I value my right to privacy, and then you say that I am drawing on ad hominems. LOL. Who exactly do you think believes this tripe that you post?
Actually, the issue has been around for one and a half years, not two and a half years, but I know how difficult simple math can be for the... simple.
Considering that they had hired an attorney, and had gone through the background check procedure with at least one other couple, I see no reason to believe that they were going to abandon this protocol. Where they were mistaken, in my opinion, was in believing that they could get all of the appropriate work done in just eight days.
"Alleged" and "apparent"; maybe those two words hold the answer to your question. I don't know the answer.
If you had been able to read between the lines, it appeared as if the father of the baby may have raped the mother. Are you advocating parental rights for rapists?
Yes, one crime would have sufficed; as in one more than what happened.
You have finally stumbled on to something. The difference between a crime that is occurring, and a crime that may occur, is analagous to the difference between a concerned citizen and a government snitch.
Why don't you ask Dennis?
"Old man"? What was it that you said earlier about ad hominems? LOL. Once again, I will point out that you are a doddering old fool compared to me, a man in the prime of his life. That must really irk you, but it is the truth, so you should learn to live with it.
Actually, it was her private business until the man harmed the baby. Then it became the business of the state. Or do you want to force everyone to live in an America where the government tells us which babysitters we may and may not use?
You insinuate that I must be hiding something if I believe in my Constitutional right to privacy, but when I correctly label that line of BS for what it is, it's a "canard" in your eyes. LOL. You're not insulted because I hit the nail on the head, and you're embarrassed not for me, but for yourself.
Your last paragraph shows just how stupid or deceitful you really are. Feel free to relinquish as much of your privacy as you wish; your own privacy. My point of contention has never been with someone choosing to relinquish his own privacy. My beef is when some government snitch decides for you, that you have had enough privacy. You seem to be perfectly all right with that line of thinking, for after all, they must be hiding something, right?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 28, 2001.
Boy, you just don't know when to quit, do you? :-)Before you read this, you should definitely wipe the spittle off your chin, take a couple of Xanax and wait for the throbbing to slow down in that vein on your forehead. Just a little friendly advice!
Oh yes, first you insinuate that I am abusive, and that is why I value my right to privacy, and then you say that I am drawing on ad hominems.
Sorry to disappoint, but I did not insinuate anything. You really should stick to what I actually post, not what you wish I had said.
Actually, the issue has been around for one and a half years, not two and a half years, but I know how difficult simple math can be for the... simple.
Congratulations, you finally found something. Of course, it's a typo, but it's a start. Good for you!
Considering that they had hired an attorney, and had gone through the background check procedure with at least one other couple, I see no reason to believe that they were going to abandon this protocol.
Now how did you know they hired an attorney? Is this another example of reading what you wish had been written, or do you have some special knowledge?
Where they were mistaken, in my opinion, was in believing that they could get all of the appropriate work done in just eight days.
If they had actually gone through this with another couple, they would have known that it would take longer than eight days, not accounting for holidays of course. Either they didn't go through this with another couple, or they had no intention of going through it again before the rollover.
If you had been able to read between the lines, it appeared as if the father of the baby may have raped the mother. Are you advocating parental rights for rapists?
"Reading between the lines"? The last refuge of a bankrupt argument.
Unfortunately, there are only two ways for the parental rights to be terminated. Number one is for a voluntary termination, as in an adoption surrender. Number two is for an involuntary termination, as in the commission of a crime (such as child abuse or rape). In the second case, the accused parent must be convicted. Surely you wouldn't brand a man a criminal and take his children away without due process, would you?
I didn't think so.
If the girl had been raped, and didn't report it (as is too often the case, especially with date rape), the father could still exercise his parental rights.
Yes, one crime would have sufficed; as in one more than what happened.
Okay. So in addition to murdering federal workers, you're okay with child abandonment. Got it.
The difference between a crime that is occurring, and a crime that may occur, is analagous to the difference between a concerned citizen and a government snitch.
Exactly. We had several people here who saw a crime occurring, and as concerned citizens, took steps to stop it in progress.
And by the way, the word is spelled "analogous".
:-)
Why don't you ask Dennis?
Because I'm asking you (ahem).
Once again, I will point out that you are a doddering old fool compared to me, a man in the prime of his life. That must really irk you, but it is the truth, so you should learn to live with it.
If you actually had anything, you wouldn't have to resort to such cheap chest thumping tactics. Why don't you simply brag about having a bigger penis and be done with it? It would be at least as intelligent as this response.
Actually, it was her private business until the man harmed the baby. Then it became the business of the state. Or do you want to force everyone to live in an America where the government tells us which babysitters we may and may not use?
Good night! You constantly amaze me. First, you defend Tim McVeigh as a patriot, now you claim that giving your child to a stranger at a bus station for an indeterminate amount of time is nothing more than choosing your own babysitter. What's next, claiming that Jonestown was about free exercise of religion?
You insinuate that I must be hiding something if I believe in my Constitutional right to privacy, but when I correctly label that line of BS for what it is, it's a "canard" in your eyes.
No, calling someone a Communist because you're out of arguments is a canard. If you were paying attention to what I actually wrote, instead of what you wish I had written, you would not have to resort to cheap tactics.
You're not insulted because I hit the nail on the head, and you're embarrassed not for me, but for yourself.
I don't consider being called a Communist an insult because I'm not one. It's as relevant as calling me a "piece of shit car". There's no insult because it's simply not reality.
And I am deeply, deeply embarrassed for you. There was a time when you could actually make a cogent argument without resorting to looking for insinuations, reading between the lines, and chest thumping. I guess those days are gone.
The worst part is, you still haven't addressed questions 1, 2, 4b, and 5.
My point of contention has never been with someone choosing to relinquish his own privacy. My beef is when some government snitch decides for you, that you have had enough privacy.
Adopting and fostering a child has to be one of the least private transactions in the US today. It's ridiculous to put yourself in a position of surrendering privacy and then whine about losing that privacy, more ridiculous still to whine about the loss of privacy for someone else volunteering to put themselves in that position. "Dennis" (ahem) chose to put himself in that position, and despite some early posturing, said nothing more. It's pretty clear that "he" didn't feel "his" rights had been too violated. Unless you know something that I don't?
;-)
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 28, 2001.
Tarzan thank-you for speaking up for me. I can't add a word to anything that you said but there is one point I want to address.This issue has never been about Dennis Olson. The only reason I gave CPS Dennis contact information is because that is where the mother and child were supposed to be staying. All I cared about was making sure that the child would be safe and CPS seemed to be the only people willing to do that.
-- (anonymous@whistle.blower), August 28, 2001.
J: You sure make it SOUND like you have something to hide. I'm not suggesting that you DO, but if one of my neighbors called the police or CPS to suggest that something MAY be wrong in my household, I'd be grateful.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 28, 2001.
I always had my doubts about the Dennis Olson/J thing but now I'm certain. There's a reason why J defends this situation so tenaciously. He just keeps coming back for more and throwing insults around hoping something will stick. Either J's crazy or he's got a very personal reason for defending that nut, Dennis Olson.
-- Convinced (convinced@sure.now), August 28, 2001.
See, I told you so.
-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), August 28, 2001.
Again, I'm not suggesting this was the case in the instance being discussed, but it's probably something folks should read who might consider adoption via the internet.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.
J: I thought of you when I read the story on this guy. He has kindof a "Boswell-type" way of speaking, dontcha think?Jessee Ethredge
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.
"It's ridiculous to put yourself in a position of surrendering privacy and then whine about losing that privacy, more ridiculous still to whine about the loss of privacy for someone else volunteering to put themselves in that position. "Dennis" (ahem) chose to put himself in that position, and despite some early posturing, said nothing more. It's pretty clear that "he" didn't feel "his" rights had been too violated. Unless you know something that I don't?"That's a fully fledged bastard of a good point.
-- (dennis.is.j@j.is.dennis), September 04, 2001.