Phat Phuc Phlings Phit at Plint : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

More trauma at FatOlsonLand today. Denny the Dip has gone postal and banned Flint and someone named Dorthy. How dare anyone speak their mind or get in the face of the Freak From Texas, Santanta.

Couldn’t help but notice that JBT stood tall as usual and Anita didn’t, as usual.

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 21, 2002


The part I love when this happens, is the frightened old maids who praise the heavens and thank Dennis for protecting them from evil wordsmiths like Flint. Of course, Lard Ass Olson is quick to point out that he has 6 or 7 other mutants on staff to help guide him on these tough decisions.

How bout’ Stu dissing Flint? Here is a low-life scumbag thief, who is about to become some Bubba’s bitch, and he’s laying smack on the Flintster. How comical is that?

Quite the show over there.

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 21, 2002.

If you think that Flint or Dorothy Davis are the defenders of free speech, then I guess Flint has finally found his inferiors. How much time do you guys spend over there anyways?

-- bogsworth (running@on.8cylinders), April 21, 2002.

Time for a tune-up boy, you have a bad miss.

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 21, 2002.

The gun-toting, baby-selling Fat One is having a conniption that anyone dare oppose the banning of Flint (and to their credit, there are a few...)

Stu the Criminal is, of course, fully supportive of the banning...

-- Dennis Molson (, April 22, 2002.

And the beat goes on……………

More bannings from the Blubberous One and a rambling discourse on why he has moved to save the board. Looks to me like the Porker from Hudson lost his job and has plenty of time on his hands.

Who should be surprised?

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 22, 2002.

The sheeple over there are lining up to kiss the Fat Ones ass for "banning" folks who don't believe in poison contrails and alien visitations. No wonder their a gated community - they need to keep the freaks in...

-- Norm (, April 22, 2002.

Mebbe a gated community is better than no community at all (like here)

-- (unk's@down.tubes), April 22, 2002.

Only a cowering, poison contrail fearin', low IQ'd moron would feel the need to have a "community" that existed only on the Internet...

Go back to your insular, Jew-hating crap hole where you belong...

-- Dennis Molson (, April 22, 2002.

Molson, why do you feel the need to hide behind that handle? Is it because you don't want anyone to know what a horrible person you are and have become, inside, where it counts? You are consumed by the darkness of your heart.

I feel sorry for you, for a lot of reasons, but mostly because you must be so miserable.

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 22, 2002.

"Dennis Molson" is the same as "Send mo money" and "FatOlsonLand".

Obviously a very disturbed individual.

-- (Not @ Beautiful. Mind), April 22, 2002.

I'm thinking fatolsonland sounds a lot like CPR.

-- (spells@like'em. too), April 22, 2002.

Only a cowering, poison contrail fearin', low IQ'd moron would feel the need to have a "community" that existed only on the Internet...

Go back to your insular, Jew-hating crap hole where you belong...

Who said they needed a "community" only on the Internet? The point is that, increasingly, the vibes at Unk's suck. Sometimes that is amusing, mostly it's boring.

You don't like "jew haters"? Me neither. I assume that means you support Israel in the legitament defense of their nation and their lives.

-- (Unk's@down.tubes), April 22, 2002.

Cin, you seem to have some serious issues yourself. "Molson" is just a handle that this poster chooses to adopt as opposed to using a real name for various and obvious reasons. I happen to agree that the carnival act known as FatOlsonLand deserves to be derided at every opportunity. You, on the other hand, seem to one of the TB2000 mutants and it would be expected that you would be offended by any derogatory comments directed at your fellow morons.

You have always seemed to appreciate the ability to freely speak your mind here at Unk’s, so why have you become another of the comatose sheeple that bow to the Fat One in fear?

“Molson” is just providing an intelligent overview of the twisted logic and doomsday delirium that prevails at FatOlsonLand. Your reaction speaks volumes about where you stand regarding those who live in reality and those who have found their own little ‘middle earth’.

See the freaks, join the freaks, be a freak.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), April 22, 2002.

Bow to the fat one in fear? You really are nuts you know that. Obviously I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who's rationality is a mere halucination. If anyone needs to get their head examined, it's YOU

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 22, 2002.

"Dennis Molson" is the same as "Send mo money" and "FatOlsonLand". Obviously a very disturbed individual.

No cin, I'm neither of those folks. I used to be Y2K Pro, but I moved to Canada and changed my name (Molson brews a crappy beer also found in the States) I thought the new name was a modestly clever idea. For a while I used the tag:

"I'm just like Dennis Olson except I'm thinner, smarter and I've never tried to buy or sell a child on the Internet." The denizens (or is that dennisans?) of FatOlsonLand were pissed at that one...

-- Dennis Molson (, April 22, 2002.

Not the Y2K Pro! Not Y2K (does that fucker need to get a life, or what?) Pro! People, we just aren't worthy.

-- Peter Errington (, April 22, 2002.

Hi Pro!

-- helen (banning@not.a.good.idea.most.of.the.time), April 22, 2002.

Molson I did not make that statement.

You are calling other people paranoid when in fact YOU seem to be the most paranoid of all.

-- major eye roll (cin@cin.cin), April 22, 2002.

Pro, I'll admit you had me fooled. I thought you might be CPR. I haven't read the kind of deliciously nutty invective that you just directed at cin since the days of The Legendary One.

-- Peter Errington (, April 22, 2002.

Y2K Pro? The very same Polly that relentlessly opposed the idiot doomers at TB2000 in 98/99? I am honored to make your acquaintance sir!

Cin is basically OK, I guess. But like the other droolers at FatOlsonLand, she tends to lump those who poke fun at them into one person. She should know by now that there are many such as ye who find daily humor at the ‘Lord of Lard’ forum.

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 22, 2002.

Ah, Dennis is just going through that time of the month. Still, the rules of politeness seem distinctly poster-dependent. I have to laugh at how eagerly people lined up to tell Dennis what a wonderful job he is doing, oh yes, just wonderful. When Dennis says kiss, they don't even ask which cheek, they don't risk missing the right spot.

I do agree that his chosen moderators are a depressingly mediocre lot. You have to wonder what purpose he thinks they serve.

However, all in all, the requirement (and ability to enforce it!) that people pick one handle and stick to it makes the difference between an actual forum and a gaggle of anonymous noise. Discussion of arrant nonsense beats lack of discussion entirely. I decided sometime back I wouldn't respond back at unknown random handles here, and this has come to mean not responding at all. Something to think about.

-- Flint (, April 22, 2002.

Flint, I have no idea what goes on in Olsonland. What was it you got banned for?

-- Peter Errington (, April 22, 2002.

Howdy Flint:

I decided sometime back I wouldn't respond back at unknown random handles here, and this has come to mean not responding at all. Something to think about.

Of course, that carries with it the assumption that your responses are of value. Something to think about or not. ;<)

Best wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, April 22, 2002.


That's not an assumption at all. You either recognize this or you don't, but that's up to you!


Officially, I've been suspended for being "disprespectful of the staff." Disrespect in general is a rather flexible crime, and there is a very strong inverse correlation between forum popularity and suspension. You must understand that they don't want "troublemakers", they don't want Officially Enforced Opinions, but necessarily those who disagree with the majority opinions cause trouble. This happens because of the difficulty of distinguishing idiotic opinions from the caliber of those who hold such opinions.

However, NO criticism of any moderator is tolerated at all. You might also ask Anita about this, since she's kvetched about it a few times. So specifically what I did was disagree with a moderator who holds it self-evident that there is a truly massive, multibillion dollar *hidden industry* spraying us with chemicals from aircraft. Not just military aircraft, mind you, but EVERY aircraft on days when temperature and humidity at high altitudes cause contrail formation. (If you don't understand, don't ask. Those who Believe accept this as gospel, NOT to be questioned.)

This moderator gets her doctrine from rense's crackpot site, and calls herself Wise Owl. I chose to refer to her as Wise Owl (ROFL!) due to the wisdom displayed, and that turned out to be unacceptable.

That forum is a strange and rather interesting place generally. The original kernel membership, as you recall, was limited to those who feared the worst from y2k. Today, few are left from those days, but they continue to recruit those who Fear The Worst. It's basically a religious thing. Now the challenge is to be *respectful* of these people. I suppose I could try praying for them, but Dennis (at least) might sense sarcasm.

-- Flint (, April 22, 2002.

Yeah, this place ain't what it used to be. I've tried, Lord knows I have, and a few posters here have done yeoman's work (lars comes to mind right away) in keeping the flow going. But, the place is not at all what it once was.

Any suggestions are welcome.

-- Uncle Deedah (, April 22, 2002.

Hey Molson, aka "Send mo money" aka "FatOlsonLand", you need to get a new hobby or something else to waste your pathetic life on. Your obsession with Dennis is getting real tired.

-- (give it @ up. dimwit), April 22, 2002.


The problem is, this forum lacks even a hint of a theme. Yes, there is lars posting some occasionally thought-provoking material, but few here are thoughtful. There is cherri and dumbya and either a dozen others who exchange political insults (who might all be the same person, though either way it shows an amazing attention span since their material is more boring than a test pattern). What characterizes all of them is (1) A lack of any understanding of what a political system is all about; (2) A lack of any interest in learning this; and (3) A refusal to hold still under one name to discuss anything, political or otherwise.

So you have lars who is earnest, and Nipper who is a bit supercilious but usually thoughtful. Rare visits from you, Anita, Stephen, and a couple of others. And nothing to speak of, or hang your hat on. Hey, I'm not opposed to a bunch of people saying "you're a jerk", so long as they explain WHY they think so, give some context and background against which their position makes sense. As I've said before, most of these people have the delivery and depth of cheerleaders who memorize their lines and wouldn't know a first down from a linebacker.

So much as I hate to say it, what we need is a Paul Milne. He may have his head permanently up his ass, but he takes a position and tries to support it, and does so under the same handle every time, and cites supporting documents (of dubious parentage, perhaps, but still something).

What's obvious is that memories of the past can't pump any vitality into the present. And given the very self-evident shortcomings of Greenspun's software, whatever theme might tie a forum together must be *intrinsically* compelling, so that people are willing to tolerate the poor signal strength in order to address it. Even when y2k looked real to us, and many were sincerely concerned, threads had half-lives of only a few hours before they had become overrun by the intellectual whoopee cushions. Now, with no such topic, they start out that way.

So I think Olson is right, that some enforceable structure is necessary. You wouldn't have tried to confine this place behind a password if you didn't recognize the same. Even so, the noise dominates what little is volunteered. What's to talk about? And why?

-- Flint (, April 22, 2002.

...yawn... flint=death of a forum

-- wake me up (when@it's.over), April 22, 2002.

I like Flint's observation. I check in here occasionally for old time's sake (and in part because I'm interested in seeing how long this forum will hold together and in what form).

But, I can't say that much of interest has happened here recently, other than a lot of political types playing the "you're a jerk . . . no you're a jerk" game.

On the other hand, not having contributed anything myself to better the situation, I suppose I'm not in a position to criticize those who are at least making an effort. Those that are still working at it -- keep up the good work.

-- E.H.Porter (, April 22, 2002.

Welcome back to the villianous village Flint. Still no link in this thread to the "crime". Please do.

Angels & Rangers. Looks like we're both suckin hind tit again pal.

-- Carlos (, April 22, 2002.


I thought about starting a prayer request thread for you over at tb2k but I figured 1) very few of those people have a sense of humor so they wouldn't be amused or 2) that it would draw no response so why waste the time. I do think that it is a little ironic that the idiot moderators that Dennis has recruited (I'm thinking Satanta here) demand that they get respect from those that post on that forum but feel free to abuse the members themselves.

I know that you think that the Wise Owl/chemtrail exchange is what got you banned but I really think that was just the most convenient excuse. I think that what really got you on the list was your comments on the thread where Gods1sheep was so insulted that you were picking on her. It might have been the casual way that you pointed out that Wise Owl's mother croaked despite all their prayers. I think the combination of your callous assessment of her mothers death coupled with your calling her a dim witted idiot for believing in chemtrails was a little too much for her and Dennis felt that he had to do something to placate her.

As far as livening up this forum I think that you are on the right track when you say that maybe more structure is needed. Maybe if Unk would randomly ban someone every once in a while that would do it. At least the bannings over there seem to stimulate a few threads of debate over the action taken.

You are also right that this forum needs some stimulating opposition on a variety of topics. The problem at tb2k is that most of the stimulating opposition obsseses on the subject of religion. Even if a Patrick offers you a worthy opponent to debate you can only go so far until it boils down to "belief" and what do you do then? Especially when the belief is some strange offshoot of religion that you can't begin to comprhend. Maybe we should all try to recruit new people to the board and try to expand the political, economic and social viewpoints around here. Do you think that if I invited INVAR he would check this place out?

-- Jack Booted Thug (, April 22, 2002.

Who cares what you think Flint? You've been banned from every forum you've been on except this one! LOL, better not push your luck!

-- (Flint is always trying to make everyone else @ think. the way he does), April 23, 2002.

Maybe the single best thing we could do is require that everyone post under a consistent screen name. That would discourage the extremes of abusive smatassy stuff that is now so common. It would encourage each of us to take resposibility for our words.

I suggest this reluctantly because I have enjoyed occasionally posting under pseudonyms and also because it would require someone to be a sysops policeman.

I don't think we need a "purpose". If a group of people is insufficiently compatible to sustain an entertaining and stimulating dialog in this endlessly fascinating world, then I guess we just doomed to be dorks.

-- (, April 23, 2002.


I think the doomer dorks theme has already been spoken for. Perhaps "master baiters" would be more appropriate.

-- Jack Booted Thug (, April 23, 2002.

Flint and Jack are on to something. I hardly even lurk anymore, this place is so stale. Why not try their suggestions?---

Get Paul Milne to post here
Invite Invar
Delete Cherri's spam
Ban somebody...I know! What about Y2K Pro?
Add some structure

Of course, then we'll need somebody to enforce the law. Hey! Maybe we could get Diane Squire back!

-- (just, April 23, 2002.

We have no enemy to battle with.

Unk’s allows us to debate unabashed but where is the opponent?

A forum must have a purpose to thrive.

I suggest that those of you that frequent TB2000 extend an invitation to the participants that may be looking for some unrestrained debate on subjects of their choosing.

That’s how we all got started.

We’re just bored.

-- So (, April 23, 2002.

Like some others, I can hardly muster the enthusiasm to click the mouse and enter the password. During the Y2K debate (our tiny tempest), some of the doomers seemed like reasonable folks who were simply swept up in the hysteria. There were actually a few people who were willing to listen, discuss and even alter a position... however slightly. There was a single catalytic issue and passionate debate.

Unlike Flint, I cannot see any reason to spend time in Dennis Olson's forum. It is not a place for the exchange of ideas, but for the reinforcement of beliefs. It is an online support group for the lunatic fringe. For me, it would feel like "crashing" a Catholic Mass to engage in a theological debate with the priest and the attendees. Unless one delights in offending others, what's the point?

I congratulate Lars who has made a game attempt to carry this forum. Unfortunately, there isn't a galvanizing issue nor a polarization of opinion. Arguing with Cherri has all the intellectual appeal of painting over the graffiti written on a bathroom stall.

The truth here is that most people do not want their beliefs challenged. This is America (for most), the great overstuffed recliner of a society where the inconvenient or unpleasant is simply discarded by pressing a button on the remote. As a culture, we are more worried about celebrity romances than Mideast violence. We fret more about our weight, our tans or the colors available in the 2003 models than about global issues.

Y2K created a reason (albeit false) to worry, to fret, to wonder. Absent another threat, I imagine the mass of Americans will sleepwalk through a suburban slumber for the next few decades. It makes me sleepy just to zzzzzzzzzzzz.

-- Ken Decker (, April 23, 2002.

Y2K Pro (as Dennis Molson) wrote, earlier on this thread, "only a cowering, poison contrail fearin', low IQ'd moron would feel the need to have a 'community' that existed only on the Internet..."

There is nothing in the world wrong with wanting to be part of an Internet forum community. Speaking for myself, I am a member of a fair number of real-life communities, and they are all more important to me than any Internet community will ever be. Still, communities are like friends, the more the better.

I think what Y2K Pro does is tied in with his self image in the following way: I annoy, therefore I am. Even Pro, I suspect, values his standing in the little community of chronic annoyers.

-- Peter Errington (, April 23, 2002.

[TIP] Flint has been banned for a week

With 1,611 registered posters, Flint attacks ONE person's handle: mine!

-- (here@you.go), April 23, 2002.

"I annoy, therefore I am."

Peter, as pathetic as I might be, I am quite sure I have not devolved into the character described above. It does amuse me to annoy pompous blow-hards like Dennis Olson, but I hardly gauge my self worth from that occasional task.

The problem on this forum, as has been eloquently described by Decker and Flint, is a lack of religious purpose. "Back in the day" it was easy to engage in conversation (or derision) with someone who "believed" in poison contrails/Y2K/concentration camps for GIs/white trucks on the highway/UN troops massing in Mexico and an entire series of hilarious, illogical suppositions about how our world works. The problem we currently face, is that the loony brigade packed up their toys and left - leaving only the (relatively) rational behind.

Let’s face it, arguing about the relative merits of George Bush’s intelligence, while mildly entertaining, lacks the cohesive “entertainment” quotient of the old forum. In short, we need some crackpots to come back – and I second the recommendation to invite INVARiably Stupid to return to the fold.

If that doesn’t work you can ban me…

-- Y2K Pro (, April 23, 2002.


-- (DELETE@DELETE.DELETE), April 23, 2002.


The hardcore lunatics like Dennis Olson or Paul Milne are far less engaging than folks like Russ "Big Dog" Lipton or Stan Farina or Steve "Ego" Heller. What made Y2K interesting was the otherwise normal (or at least semi-rational) people who went nuts... and then defended their collective insanity with unmatched vigor. There was a often thread of reason (if twisted) and an awareness that arguments ought to be supported by evidence. Dare I say, there was even enough intellectual competence to frame an argument, however flimsy and insubstantial. This does not exist with the chemtrail crowd.

-- Ken Decker (, April 23, 2002.


Come on now. Absent any threats, *every* society tends to be stable, peaceful, and uneventful. Why would it be otherwise? It strikes me as inherent in the human condition that we prefer narrowing our personal horizons to those things that affect our everyday lives -- our jobs, marriages, incomes, immediate gratifications. The longest scope our normal regards reach consists of planning for a retirement during which we can continue to do the *same thing* without financial inconvenience. We really don't want interesting times, do we?

The membership of the Church of Olson also create a reason (albeit false) to fret. They are fairly diligent at digging up threats, some of them really creative, by combing through crackpot sites, reading fringe group newsletters, and generally immersing themselves in the blanket paranoia and drastic oversimplification that true fundamentalism seems to lend itself to (for reasons I'm 50 years too old to ever grasp).

Yeah, I suppose they'd all be happier if there were no heretics barging in and pointing out a real world they've all decided to reject. But at least their convictions provide some purchase, some challenge to get the discussion to resolve into (as JBT notes) a straight religious position. So I get the satisfaction of demonstrating that they've lost their grip on reality, and they get the satisfaction of knowing their faith is still sound.

You make it sound like you were involved in the y2k debate for the altruistic purpose of letting the chicken littles know the sky wasn't about to fall. Somehow, I've always doubted this. The debate was simply fun. There was plenty of grist to debate about, there was at least hypothetical validity to the concerns people had. And for many, y2k was a genuine article of faith.

Anyway, I find I prefer to spend some time there presenting a contrasting viewpoint to those who hold and defend real (if often silly) views, rather than here plowing through endless posts by nameless jerks who never seem to tire of throwing spitwads. And probably, sooner or later, I'll lose interest in fringe folk as well.

-- Flint (, April 23, 2002.

In historical terms, I suggest "stable, peaceful and uneventful" tends be the exception rather than the rule... but that's probably quibbling. The comfortable often look longingly at the "greener grass" of the exciting. As I noted during the Y2K debate, the post- Apocalyptic world would not be a "Little House on the Prairie" paradise. If civilization did collapse, I imagine life would again become "nasty, brutish and short." Given the success of apocalyptic fiction, it seems the curiousity about survival in vastly different circumstances is a compelling notion. I imagine the Olsonites feel more "alive" given the mythical threats and more secure with their panacea "preps."

I do think, however, there is a difference between normal people who become afraid and people who build a lifestyle around fear. Our mutual acquaintance Helen is an example of the former. Helen was one of the few people who actually read my little essay on folly of fixed defense and "got it." During the Y2K debate, there were a few people who were honestly struggling with questions. For me, the rare sound of a light bulb coming on was worth the acrimony. Honestly, my motive was less altruism and more just a mule-headed streak. To disengage would have been an admission of defeat to the Y2K doomsayers.

As noted by your infamous anthill comment, you enjoy playing the devil's advocate. Had I shared your fondness for this, I would have entered one of the post rollover "password" fora... or at least tried and been refused. My careful avoidance of such places should serve as evidence of my preference.

To enjoy discourse, I find a certain minimal level of sanity necessary. Perhaps it's a personal weakness, but I cannot find the patience to debate chemtrails because I find the whole notion so silly. At least Y2K had mainstream media attention and some semblance of credibility as a threat. I agree with your appraisal of this forum. There is little interest in posting here. While there may be more sanity, there is little interest or energy.

On a personal level, I am channeling my desire to write into something with at least a potential for profit... a novel drawing upon some themes discussed during the Y2K debate.

-- Ken Decker (, April 23, 2002.

A challenge to you Ken and Flint and others: let's make Unk's a more interesting place. If you let the yahoos win by default then that is your choice.

Personally, I don't see that an overriding, ongoing issue (nonissue) like y2k is necessary for a successful forum. Yes it helps but is not essential. I know, it all depends on what you want. I search for a virtual CHEERS, where everyone knows your name (at least one of them), where there are continuing topics and side-topics; some of gravity, some of levity.

I think that we need 50-100 more regulars here. I think that we need mutual respect and civility to temper the legit and passionate disagreements. I think we need less copy n pastes and more direct conversation/debate. Copy n pastes can sometimes be the basis of a conversation but they are only the beginning, a point of reference.

I thank some of you for your generous remarks to me. Yes, I want this place to thrive and I have tried in various ways to contribute (not always successfully). It is relatively easy for me to contribute because I no longer have all the professional and personal activities that you all do. But many here could do more. Let's try.

The fact that we are here at all means that this place (or its promise) is important to many. What if everyone made a conscious effort to make four (say) posts per week, no matter how trivial? Let's give it a shot!

-- (, April 23, 2002.

Hey Pro, did you get fired from the King? You really should get another job, spying on Olson all day won't pay your bills. Have you tried KFC, McDonalds, or Taco Bell, or have they already fired you too?

-- (, April 23, 2002.

Hey I am doing my best to turn every thread and discussion into a sexual orgasmic frenzied ORGY. Don't even say I am ruining every thread, because sex is just the most natural instinct and if you don't like it then you are just a P-R-U-D-E.

Let's have cyber sex right here right now, who cares who will be offended. I have no shame.

-- It's all about SEXXX (, April 23, 2002.

Slutty Suzy, you make ME look like Snow White.

(PS- I laughed at your sister's name too.) : )

-- Pammy (, April 23, 2002.


While I share the same goal, I just don't see how it can be done effectively. I count *at least* 20 posts of anonymous non- contributory noise on this one thread alone -- and Unk's intention in passwording this forum was precisely to weed that out.

Unlike Olson (who wants politeness) or Decker (who wants sanity), I'm perfectly happy with the most acrimonious and useless discussions. I enjoy KoFE's tax nonsense, Milne's political ravings, even Elbow's creationism. My sine qua non requirement is different -- I want all posters to have a single handle of their choice when they're given the password, and ANY AND EVERY post using a non-registered handle gets deleted summarily.

For me, a discussion forum is a place where people discuss. They can rant and rave, but not hit and run. When people are tied to a single handle, they tend to *support* opinions, because they can be addressed specifically with questions.

However, as I'm sure Unk will be quick to point out, the Greenspun software is simply not amenable to this requirement. This leads to unacceptably high maintenance, *unless* the jerkwads can't get the password. But knowing Unk, I accept that this requirement must be nearly impossible. We have at least one dead rat in the walls here, and that's enough so the stench makes the forum unbearable.

Beyond logistical problems, what sorts of things are we all that concerned about? As Y2kPro says (when he makes an effort), Bush's intelligence is thin entertainment except for our dead rat(s).

-- Flint (, April 23, 2002.

Bend over Suzy! I'll start with that poontang to get lubed up, then I'll throttle your bungie.

-- Buddy (The @ Bum. Pumper), April 23, 2002.

Totally sane people are totally boring. ;o]

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 23, 2002.

It's so good to see so many of you back here! I think part of what made the y2k thing interesting was the finite date to prove or disprove the particular theories concerning the outcome.

I did things to better myself because I met you guys online, and if you all go away ... what a grey place this world is without you. I can't even tell most of the jokes I know to people in my real life.

I dunno what we should do to make the forum more interesting. But maybe we could get together sometime in October? Place?

-- helen (, April 23, 2002.

Oh Buddy, I just love men and meat and penises. But you need some viagra darlin.

-- ssssexsssexsssexsss (, April 23, 2002.

I usually just scroll past Decker and Flint's posts.

-- (yawn@ho.hum), April 23, 2002.

Hell, I’ll chip in some more noise!!!

The shit storm over at FatOlsonLand is approaching Category 5 status: s=fa1959566e70a26ff0a03a85ec035eaa&threadid=28343&perpage=40&pagenumbe r=1

I’ll leave the heavy thinking to others and stick to comedy. This thread alone is bringing back fond memories of forums past. When was the last sighting of Flint, Mr. Decker, Lars, E.H. Porter, Unk, Carlos, Errorton, and many others, on the same thread? Throw in 1 pimply teenager that mistakenly swallowed 4 of his Dad’s Viagra’s, and we have a lively mix..don’t ya think?

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 23, 2002.

I miss KoFe, The little, tax paying, tax protestor.

I even miss Al-d, he must be so disappointed that the rapture hasn't occured yet.

-- Jack Booted Thug (, April 23, 2002.

What makes you think KoFe is "little"?

-- helen (where@is.KoFe?), April 23, 2002.

What makes you think he's not?

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 23, 2002.


Yeah, the Rangers stink again. Maybe if they hadn't had so many key injuries (their best starter, their closer, their best setup man, their cleanup hitter, their all-world catcher) they could have finished second last, but maybe that's wishful thinking.

I think JBT is right, and so is Ken. Mostly, I was getting increasingly fed up with the lack of any real notion of what disagreement is all about. The Olsonites really do not want to discuss ideas, they want to *avoid* ideas. They visualize their place as somewhere they can advise each other about Things To Fear, make "preps" that keep them happy, agree how the economy will soon implode, how the UN is out to get them, how government is evil and getting worse, and all of this embedded solidly in a kind of wacko WAY-off-center Christianity. They are only content in a world without any shades of gray, where absolutes have driven out all ambiguity, where reflection is a sin and thus the most flagrant personal inconsistency need never be recognized. As I used to say of the y2k True Believers (and that type person has not changed), they all greatly prefer certainty to accuracy. They even have a feature over there that lets them tune out any opinions they don't prefer to be exposed to. Apparently, some of them have tuned out nearly everything!

Maybe "online communities" of stable people aren't stable?

-- Flint (, April 23, 2002.

Oh great, another Decker and Flint intellectual masterbatory discourse. Has it ever occured to you simpletons that you could say the same thing and only use 1/3 of the words?

-- Joe Six Pack (just@another.joe), April 23, 2002.


Flint and Decker are notorious blowhards. They love hearing themselves talk. That's why no counterargument will ever satisfy them, because it didn't come from their mouths.

-- (they have @ inflated. heads), April 23, 2002.

I am afraid, Lars, I agree with Flint. The real problem isn't simply the lack of civility or sanity. Y2K was rough-and-tumble with a fair measure of lunatics on both sides. The forum lacks a catalytic issue, a focal point, an intellectual anchor, a structural frame... relevance! Sans Y2K, the fora drift like rudderless boats.

I admire your intentions, Lars, but one single issue will draw your 50 or 100 people and keep them interested day after day? Unlike Flint, I find Kofe et al (D) terribly boring after a time. Discourse is much more interesting when the opposition is able to parse a sentence. For me, a visit to Olson's forum would be like arguing with an armless stone monument. Despite what some may think, I am not that fond of my own voice. (chuckle)

What I want is a higher quality of lunatic!

-- Ken Decker (, April 23, 2002.

"I even miss Al-d, he must be so disappointed that the rapture hasn't occured yet."

Yeah, but I bet he's really happy that the Catholic church is in so much trouble with homos and pedophiliacs. The downfall of the Catholic religion was prophesied, so he knows we're getting closer.

-- (come back @ rappin. Al), April 23, 2002.

It's been months since I've posted on this forum and years since Y2K... and there are still some bruised egos. (laughter) Alas, my prayer for a better class of lunatics remains unanswered.

-- Ken Decker (, April 23, 2002.

Osama Yo Mama = cpr

-- (yes@it.does), April 23, 2002.

Al was certainly more interesting than the FatOlsonLand, Flint, Decker, Dennis Molson quartet. Come back Al, we need you.

-- FatReubenLand (home@2.bores), April 23, 2002.

Maybe the Rapture has already occurred and Al and his ducks have vanished in the twinkling of the Cosmic Eye.

He tried to tell us.

-- (, April 23, 2002.

Are you saying that this is Hell? Is that why this place has been so dull?

-- Jack Booted Thug (, April 23, 2002.

It's pretty typical that common interest forums do fairly well, while forums without a shared focus don't.

The Doomers took their toys, left the field and moved to a new home. The Doomer board is active and growing because they have a common interest in survivalism. Some are interested out of fear of government conspiracies, some out of fear of economic collapse, some because they believe in End Times Prophecy, and some just because they enjoy it. The motivations may be different, but the common interest is the glue.

This board is on life-support. The most active threads, like this one, are about the Doomers. I find that fascinating. Flint says he doesn't post here because of multiple ID's. But, that sure never kept Flint away in the Yourdon TB2K days when he was one of the most active posters. Maybe some people from the old Yourdon days shared a common interest, too. Kick the Doomers. But, the Doomers are gone, so where's the purpose now? I'd bet that if Paul Milne, Invar, and the others Flint mentions returned to this forum, so would Flint. In spite of the multiple ID's.

And, Y2K Pro really is pretty pitiful with his nose pressed up against the glass at FatOlsons, and breathlessly reporting back here with all the latest gossip.

Long ago, on the old Yourdon board, some decried the Polly's and asked why they wouldn't just go away if they hated the Doomers so much. My answer then was the same as it is now. They wouldn't go away because they NEEDED the Doomers. Still, I'm rather amazed at the depth of the NEED. In my humble opinion, it bears examining.

My previous post above was just a shorter way of saying this same thing. Before Flint gets his knickers in a knot, this IS the only name I've used on this forum. And, before Y2K Pro starts howling, I don't post on the FatOlson forum. Neither a Polly, nor a Doomer. Never was. I'm a student of human behavior, and this has been one of the more fascinating laboratories! I'd like to see all the Doomers come back, too. But, they're not going to, and this forum cannot continue to exist without them. I'm actually sorry about that.

-- (just, April 23, 2002.

Pro is not alone and it's not gossip when factual.

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 24, 2002.

You might wanna check you Webster's. Gossip has nothing to do with whether it's fact or fiction. Y2K Pro may not be alone. It doesn't mean he's not pitiful, it just means he has company. Kind of argues in favor of my theory.

-- (just, April 24, 2002.

Ya know, when I came to the original TB in '99, I came seeking information. One of the reasons I still come. I also come to share thoughts and time with people who have become friends over the years. True, there's only a handful of us left. And I still communicate with others from the original board, via e. Some previous posters still ask, "what do ya hear from so and so?". So the polly doomer thing doesn't hold water for this ole girl. And as for the reincarnated Ezboard, I rarely go-probably been a coupla months. So the theory doesn't work. There are no absolutes, no black and whites. Just like life.

-- Aunt Bee (, April 24, 2002.

- (just

Best said. When themes die the needers of conflict are the last to leave. Add me to that list. But, but can't, can't we just find something to argue about. Where there's hope.....

-- Carlos (, April 24, 2002.

I still check in here from time to time, but the topics usually don't interest me. The latest rehash of the "fact" that Bush is a moron bores me almost as much as Ain't's relentless posts attacking Clinton over at the old TB2K.

Plus, as usual, I've gotten busy again. My job tends to move in spurts; I'll work like a maniac for 6 months, then have a few months to relax. Another spurt is starting. :)

There is one other thing: once everyone gets to know each other, there's no point in rehashing the same positions over and over. Abortion, Bush, Clinton, whatever. There's nothing NEW here, just the same old, same old.

Y2K at least offered a few twists and turns, such as the flawed chemical studies, Jim Lord's latest "revelation," etc.

There's nothing NEW here.

Shoot, Cap'n hasn't even been moved to re-open the Tiki Hut lately, and Z has gone fishin'. :{

-- Stephen (, April 24, 2002.

-- (just Dennis Olson

-- Not Norm (, April 24, 2002.

LOL Stephen, gee... Iv'e been so busy planning to build the real McCoy that I guess I've neglected the cyber version, shame on moi. I'll do better.

I think we all have our own perceptions of what the perfect fora would be, some thrive on the content offered at the Sleazy board while others reject it. Some want a constant turmoil between factions and bring their stick to stir shit with while others want peace and harmony and for us all to just get along. Some want overdoses of intellectualism while others want simple, direct communication with a community spirit. Truth is, (at least to me) the best fora probably offers a bit of each.

Me, I like it here, regardless of the software's limitations, personaly I think it only has one major flaw and that is its inability to defend against DOS attacks and spam floods. I preferr a community fora over a battle ground fora, though that doesn't mean that heated discourse should not exist within the community, just as it does in a real community.

I could count on one hand the times I have surfed over to the other board, always via a link because i have no bookmark for it. I never registered because I knew I wouldn't last a day without being banned because of my disdain for that type of authoritarianism (sp?), which has puzzled me. Why does a group of people who supposedly hates being domineered by the Fed try so hard to emulate that which it despises? But I digress.

I have met some of the best people anyone could ever hope to meet via this board, the get togethers in LV, MB and SoCal are priceless to me and I hope that life allows for more in the future.

As far as content is concerned, Lars is right, it's up to us all to inject the forum with that which we desire a prepondered outcome from, no give, no take.

As a side note: the pics of the dolls at the MB and So Cal gatherings has recieved over 1,600 hits, I find that amazing : )

-- capnfun (, April 24, 2002.

And, Y2K Pro really is pretty pitiful with his nose pressed up against the glass at FatOlsons, and breathlessly reporting back here with all the latest gossip.

Not unlike Olson, who constantly reported back to the TimeBomb crowd the latest goings on here at the "Debunkie's House O' Trolls."

-- (what@i.think), April 24, 2002.

I'm chuckling over this thread. To find people discussing their boredom and lamenting about the lack of acrimony are amusing topics to me. Unlike Flint I didn't see the old Y2K forum as 'fun'. I found it compelling in a sick sort of way to prove that they were wrong. Now I've moved on and especially after the recent events in my personal life as well as 9-11, I have no need to argue over politics, religion, homophobia, or chemtrails. Life is too short to waste time on those who can not see. Either someone gets it or doesn't and no amount of discussion on an obscure forum will change that. I've also concluded that the world is filled with really strange people, a high percentage of them on the Y2K forum. Even high profile 'experts' can be fairly strange. Trying to 'teach' them anything *was* like talking to a stone monument. There wasn't anything 'normal' about it.

I come here each morning to 'check-in' but I spend no more than a few minutes clicking on a few threads. As I said, life has changed for me. That's my two cents. BTW, hello to the 'old' folks who haven't been here in awhile.

-- Maria (, April 24, 2002.

Ah, Maria, you share my stubborn streak. I probably would have missed most of the Y2K debate had not someone cross-posted my "Raiding" essay to TB 2000. The reaction was so "over the top" I responded (originally as "Mr. Decker"). It was like hitting the proverbial tar baby. Darned if I wasn't hard-headed enough to stay on TB 2000 until after rollover.

As Poole notes, Y2K provided a steady stream of new data... even if most was gross speculation. It was a story with plot twists, a hard deadline and an amusing cast of characters. TB 2000 wasn't just a bickering, it was a online novel. Like Flint enjoys debating the nuts, I enjoy a good story... and Y2K was a good tale.

Like you, Maria, reality keeps me quite busy. I've also realized that my enjoyment of writing can be channeled into more productive outlets. When I finish some editing, perhaps I'll post a chapter or two on this forum for your perusal.

-- Ken Decker (, April 24, 2002.


Yes, you're right. There are two separate issues here. (1) How can we improve the overall signal-to-noise ratio; and (2) How can we tune the signal to something interesting to everyone here (and lots of new recruits) indefinitely?

Sure, the more interesting signal I can find, the more noise I'm willing to live with. Like you, I'm kind of fascinated that entire threads can continue for dozens of content-free posts by the jerks. What satisfaction they can possibly get from that mystifies me. But I know it's true that even if all this noise could be eliminated, that still fails to address the issue. That's just logistics.

Today, about all we have in common is an increasingly hazy recollection that the late great y2k debate was really a lot of fun, and the deadline was really ambivalent -- it provided an immediacy that added wonderful spice to the debate, but it obviously meant that post-deadline all that remains is memories and momentum, and those fade. Certainly we can't recruit new people to share old memories, or even retain current people.

Maybe my taste in lunatics isn't as refined as Ken's, but there is no passion here. Even before y2k, the debunker-boards were moribund, consisting mostly of CPR talking to himself. I wouldn't mind any genuine political, legal, or economic debates, but I don't hold out much hope. Not because of the "you're a, you're a jerk" level of discussion, but because we lack any urgency. We can each state our position, and then what? State it again? Should I comb through news sources looking for anything unusual, so I can become the backup band to Lonely Lars and the Bronx Cheers?

What has happened is that the price of baseball cards is just outrageous today. Anyone trying to collect (rather than just kind of accumulate) cards can spend hundreds of dollars a month if they're careful and focused, or many times that if they aren't. That's simply too rich for my budget, whereas at least pointing out the lack of doom to the Doomers is free (but you gotta be polite about it!).


We certainly look at these things differently. I never have any illusions of opening any eyes or changing any minds. So each thread I join serves two purposes I can enjoy -- to try to get others to make it clear they started with their conclusions, which in turn were based on wishful thinking rather than logic and evidence; and to help me focus my own thoughts, which often turn out to be based on the same approach! It's entertaining for me, and keeps me reading and researching and thinking. So basically I debate the nutcases for the same reason other people jog -- I think the exercise is potentially good for me.

Other things compete for my time as well. I just got a new Harley, so there isn't a whole lot of time available right now. Life is pretty good, and unemployment might wreck it any day. No time to waste.

-- Flint (, April 24, 2002.

Fascinating to see all the losers from olson's posting here anonymously...

-- Not Norm (, April 24, 2002.

Y2K brought a wide range of lunatics out of the closet. The Y2K issue was mainstream and the issue had the interest of credible individuals. The anti-government survivalists, the Gaia earth worshippers, the 21st century homesteaders, the religious Apocalypists, the terminal Chicken Littles, the neo Luddites, the tax nuts, the Consitutionalists, the milita and some just frustrated or overwhelmed by modern society boiled forth. It was a rainbow coalition of crazy with just enough scared but normal folks.

It wasn't just Y2K "the event," but Y2K, the aftermath. The years of deep suspicions about falling over the edge, people finally had a name, a threat, a reality. Deep down, the "doomers" knew our day was coming, and the sheeple were about to hear the silence of the lambs. The fabled rusty hubcap image is a personal favorite because it distills this into a single, striking image. The wise, the deserving will sip stablized, pure water from ample stockpiles while the wretched (like me) have a less appealing array of beverage and container options.

Without a real issue, the doomsayers don't really want Flint around. On some level, they understand their pre-rollover moment of relevance is gone. Without a cover of "Wired" magazine or press release from the Federal Reserve, the stories they tell each other have to become even more fantastic, the imagined conspiracies far more grand. The cultural angst faded, and with it, the hopes of doomers.

-- Ken Decker (, April 24, 2002.

Flint, that's a great post, and gives words to a lot of what I enjoyed on the Yourdon forum, as well as why I found the Debunking fora terminally boring.

From your response, it looks as though you and I shared a similar basis for our enjoyment of the Y2K Wild Days. The big difference between us is that you enjoyed engaging in the fray, and I enjoyed observing it. If you think collecting baseball trading cards is expensive, you should take a look at the TOPPs Lord of the Rings cards! I love them, and collect them, but there are some cards that go for as much as $1,200!! All the Y2K off-shoot forums are much cheaper entertainment. Unfortunately for me, and perhaps you, the entertainment quotient is in serious decline.

Ken, likewise there's nothing I'd disagree with in your last post, except this: The cultural angst faded, and with it, the hopes of doomers. I think the popularity, and the continual stream of new members on Olson's forum, proves that the hopes of Doomers do not (maybe cannot?) die. That, too, is fascinating.

To the other anonymous idiots who are as wrong about my ID as the Doomers were about Y2K --- LOL!!

-- (just, April 24, 2002.

Oh, by the way, Y2K Pro? You rather ruined your Phairly Phunny topic headline by leaving the "H" out of PHlint. Somehow Plint just isn't as funny. LOL!

-- (just, April 24, 2002.

I need to chime in here...

This has to be the most popular thread currently...

I have to say though, that like others, the real world has my full attention right now, and I find myself with less and less free time to go wandering around all the boards I used to frequent on a daily basis.

I find my focus, when I do go on-line, centers more on my hobby interests than on some debate forum (or lack thereof) like this place used to be. So now, my #1 websites deal with old Dodges, motorcycles, pistols and rifles, etc... not discussion forums with no topic. Sure, I participate in the word association game on this board (thanks Pammy) and I occasionally post to one or two interesting threads, but this place is merely a ghost of itself...

Flint, what flavor of Hog did you get??? My taste would draw me to a Buell, but I am not much of a Harley guy...

Good to hear from all of you oldsters...

Chasin' the cat...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 24, 2002.


I simply traded in my 10-year-old Heritage on a new one. Hey, I used to be a Ninja racer, back when I healed faster than I do today. At my age, you get a Hog or a Wing, depending on your interpretation of the meaning of life.


I'm not familiar with anything but baseball cards. I remember they used to have this "magic" game with cards, and for a while some of the rarer cards cost a bundle. But like most fads, the magic game faded away and those cards have no market anymore. Who knows, maybe another work stoppage and the market for baseball cards will dry up, and I can get them cheaper. I'm not holding my breath.

This is wood season for me -- cutting, splitting, and stacking. I need about 5 cords. Gotta start getting it done as soon as heating season stops, to give them enough time to sort of dry out before heating season starts again. So for about 3-4 weeks it's hectic labor, leaving us stiff and bruised. Did my hour tonight. About 3 cords now split and stacked, and perhaps one more collected but not split yet. Believe me, if it were possible to strain (or sprain) fat, I'd be in serious trouble!

-- Flint (, April 24, 2002.


-- Pammy (, April 24, 2002.

Why would anyone look at a Dodge site.


-- My sister's a SLUT (, April 24, 2002.

"Oh, by the way, Y2K Pro? You rather ruined your Phairly Phunny topic headline by leaving the "H" out of PHlint. Somehow Plint just isn't as funny. LOL!" Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but is is not my thread. Try again...

-- Y2K Pro (, April 24, 2002.

It's always something

-- (Roseanne, April 24, 2002.

Q. What's more pathetic than a 40 year old man driving around with his high school tassle hanging from his rear view mirror, and constantly reliving high school memories?

A. The usual band of crackers reliving how great the original Time Bomb 2000 was, when they did everything in their power to disrupt it.

-- FatReubenLand (home@2.bores), April 25, 2002.

Hidee ho Dennis! Don't you feel a little hypocritical spending so much time here?

Fond regards,

-- Stanley (, April 25, 2002.

Ken I've always enjoyed your posts and particularly your writing style. Please post the first chapter when you're ready. :)

-- Maria (, April 25, 2002.

When Ed Yourdon put up his TB2000 site in 1998, it was done as a means of promoting the book of the same name that he and his daughter wrote. I suspect that most of us that found that place reacted in one of the following ways:

1). Became a full-blown doomer and stayed that way.

2). Left the doomer nation sometime after the rollover

3). Initially bought into the Y2K issues, but became a ‘Polly’ during the summer of 1999.

4). Tried to debate with the doomers in a rational manner.

5). Never believed any of that crap and spent time at Doc’s place, laughing your ass off at those fools.

Well, the doomers are still around but you can’t play with them anymore. As Carlos said, we need something new to argue about.

-- So (, April 25, 2002.

As an old friend of mine once said, "From the beginning of the world, people have predicted the end of the world." I think some people just find modern civilization overwhelming. As amply demonstrated during Y2K, most people do not understand how the modern economy works. They don't understand the natural redundancy of capitalism or the tenaciousness of economic self interest. To the uninformed, it looks like a house of cards. Without a mainstream crisis, the doomers have no real reason to leave the bunker. And we know from experience the most "disruptive" behavior in any doomsayer forum is calm, rational analysis.

To the Dog, I favor the new Indians, though I'd need more free time and a bit more spending money to indulge. As for firearms, I favor the old over the new. I am wondering if I shouldn't buy a place on the waiting list for a Shilo Sharps. If you want to start a rifle or pistol thread, we can argue the ballistic merits of the 7 mm as opposed to the other middle calibers and the usual shooters nonsense.

Finally, Maria, I would be delighted to post a "teaser" here sometime. The skeleton of the book is finished, but there's a great deal of writing and polishing to have a marketable product. As Mark Twain once said, the only reason to write is money....

-- Ken Decker (, April 25, 2002.

To Trollette: Fords are the vehcles that REALLY suck IMO. I have to work on one this weekend (yes I own one, so I know what I am talking about)...

Ken, have you seen the "new" Highwalls they have now? They are quite pricey, and I think I still would prefer a Ruger #1. As far as the Sharps repops, man, you must have more disposable income than I do...

Flint... Of the new bikes I have looked at, the one that strikes my interest most is the KTM Duke... There is something strangely appealing about an elemental single-cylinder motorcycle. Not to mention the endless wheelies a one-lunger is capable of... : ) (I don't heal very fast anymore either unfortunately)

It IS funny to read the troll "noize" between the real entries on this thread. How pathetic...

Looks like this thread will clear 100 entries... Kewl.

Scratchin' an itch...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 25, 2002.

The Ruger No. 1A is close to perfection as a rifle. I've owned a few and have my eye on a #1 in .375 H&H for a trip OUTUS. The Browning 1885 High Wall is also a nice rifle. The flat surfaces of the falling block action create an ideal space for engraving and gilding. While I enjoy a good "working" rifle, over time I have become fond of personalized firearms. I prefer a rifle (or pistol) with some subtle gold or engraving work. Take the Ruger Single Six. Finished in black chromex, a couple of thin gold bands around the cylinder and a few more around the barrel make the piece much more distinctive. I have a project in mind for a Winchester 94/22, a favorite plinking rifle. The firearm as object d'art... a concept our friendly liberals like Nipper would find most annoying.

While I do not remember TB 2000 as "fun" per se, I do remember chuckling at the occasional discussion on firearms. A trip to Walmart for a Mossberg 500 and a case of 00 buckshot seemed a popular route to "defending the Y2K stronghold." Hope you are holding out well in the desert, Dog.

-- Ken Decker (, April 25, 2002.

The firearm as object d'art... a concept our friendly liberals like Nipper would find most annoying.

That is the trouble with guesswork, Ken; it is so hard to know your own ignorance. In this case it is your profound ignorance of my attitude toward guns. The concept of a firearm as an object d'art doesn't annoy me in the slightest. Why on earth should it?

You seem to conflate liberalism with hysteria. I have news for you, Mr. Decker. This kind of stereotyping cuts both ways and is equally stupid in both directons. Hysterical, illogical people can be either conservatives or liberals. Cast your eyes in the direction of the 'doom forum' this thread has been discussing. How many of those folks are liberals? How many are hysterical and illogical? I rest my case.

-- Little Nipper (, April 25, 2002.

I think that's the standard reply to liberals. Folks ASSUME that we're anti-gun because Rosey somebody is.

One of the reasons I continue to post at TB2k is because of these generalizations about us that seem to take on new meaning. It's almost humorous to read about how we're responsible for the downfall of public schools, the lack of morals in society, etc. Had I known I had such power, I would think I would have used it.

It doesn't bother me that a few of you see TB2k as the source of your gossip of the moment. The same thing happened on the original forum and the debunker's forum. Like old women with nothing better to do, the two groups posted what was said on the opposing forum. I didn't engage in the gossip THEN, and I'm not going to engage in the gossip NOW. I moved freely between the two forums in 1998, and my freedom of movement on the internet will NOT be distracted by comments of those who feel I'm in agreement with any particular group.

As to how Dennis runs his forum, I couldn't care less. As to who he chooses to be moderators, I couldn't care less. As to who he chooses to ban for a week [or even permanently], I couldn't care less. I have no particular taste or distaste for what goes on there. It's just another obscure internet forum [much like THIS one.]

-- Anita (, April 25, 2002.

Now we got it going!!! Nothing like a whimpering liberal like ‘Little Thing’ to get the juices flowing.

Take another spin (just, and thanks for playing. BTW, I purposely left out the ‘H’ in Plint to see what anal attentive asswipe would come forward.

You da winna!!

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 25, 2002.

All right!!! 2nd Amendment!!! Gun Control!!! NRA!!!

Choose your sides... (snicker)

Bleeding heart what??? (snicker again)

Sniffin' the air...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 25, 2002.


Rollin' on the floor...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 25, 2002.


Have your lips gotten bigger since you have been: well you know the answer and the question.

Way to go JBT.

Best Wishes,,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, April 25, 2002.

A trip to Walmart for a Mossberg 500 and a case of 00 buckshot seemed a popular route to "defending the Y2K stronghold."

Good enough for Navy Seals, good enough for me.

-- Uncle Deedah (, April 25, 2002.


Yeah, but I prefer a Benelli M1 and Rottweil slugs... (snicker) I must be a gun snob... (snicker again)

Z, that was a particularly cheap shot... Good aim though... (snicker once again)

More people are killed by Fords and Chevys, than Rugers and Winchesters... (let's see if that gets a stir...)


Harassin' the mail man... (GRRRR...)

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 25, 2002.


I wonder how much personal experience counts when evaluating brands? Something about very small samples, you know? I've owned one Ford, an F150, for 4 years now. I've changed the oil regularly and worked it hard, and nothing has failed. Someone I work with has another 1998 F150, with 120,000 miles on it. No breakdowns at all. So whose experience is most representative? All I can say is, I'm highly pleased with my purchase and so is he. I guess when you buy any vehicle, you can only hope you get a good one. While I don't doubt that you know what you are talking about, I suspect you are talking about a single vehicle. Then you engage in synecdoche, a logical error.


Have you actually looked at the new Indians? They are basically put together out of after-market Harley parts (engine, transmission, frame, etc.) with a little bit of custom sheet metal. I have nothing against S&S Harley-clone engines, I suppose they're perfectly OK. The original Indians were cheap and fragile machines. The new ones are like the Studebaker Avanti or the Erector Set -- whoever now owns the name puts out a product most of whose appeal is nostalgic.


Good point. Illogical hysteria is hardly monopolized by any political orientation. Indeed, they take straw polls in the asylums (whatever the current emphemism is) every 4 years, and these track the national voting results extremely closely. I have no idea what you think about guns and gun ownership, but I'm sure it's perfectly rational, well thought through, and resting solidly on comfortable and appealing assumptions. One key difference between liberal and conservative philosophies, at least from my perspective, lies in our reaction when empirical results fail to match intent. But that hardly applies to the notion of collecting guns for their beauty. If you don't do so, you might try it.


[Folks ASSUME that we're anti-gun because Rosey somebody is.]

Are you serious? People OBSERVE the party platforms, the bills submitted and who submits them, the wildly one-sided media coverage (combined with, as Stephen posted, the overwhelmingly liberal editorial policies and editors) of and about guns, the parties in power and what they represent in countries and at times when gun crackdowns are imposed (or lifted!), etc. The pattern is so consistent, it's fatuous to deny it.

[Had I known I had such power, I would think I would have used it.]

You do, and you have. For the most part, they're not talking about individuals. Candidates promising more services have been defeating candidates promising less government since before we were born. Schools and curricula, for example, really have changed over the years. You might consider the change to be for the better while others might feel the opposite (and apply slanted labels to their convictions), but as a group liberals have been primarily responsible for these changes. Whether you decry then or take pride in them isn't the point. It's your collective power that drove the changes. One example of many thousands, which together constitute a trend and embody a viewpoint.

[...Dennis...I couldn't care less...moderators, I couldn't care less...ban...I couldn't care less.]

Obviously you COULD care less, because here you are. So these fora might be obscure (and they sure are!), but they entertain you at least enough to look in now and then, and even attempt to communicate with whomever might read your words. Hi, Anita!

-- Flint (, April 25, 2002.


There's a place here that just opened called Bob's Tiki Hut. No kin, is he? :)

Good luck with your place. Let me know where it is, if I'm ever in the area, I'll stop in.

I can now tell WHY I'm busy again now. It has been under wraps for the past two weeks, but we just bought another 100,000 watt FM station in the market.

I'm going to be even busier in the next three months .. .... I'll NEED a break by then. :)

-- Stephen (, April 25, 2002.

Ken, I hope you do post a chapter or two from your book! Way cool!

While we're all looking for a reason for forum life, could someone please answer a gun question? When I clean the barrel with those little gauze thingies -- they never come out of there a shade less than dark grey. No matter how many I use, they always come out dirty. So ... when do you know you're finished? When is it clean enough?

-- helen's home for willful females (got@boys.on.the.front.step), April 25, 2002.


It sounds like you have a serious coating of lead in the barrel of your gun. A good brushing with a quality solvent, like Hoppes #9 or equivalent, is in order. And it make take some TIME if it is built up in there.

An alternative is to seal up one end of the barrel and fill it up with a good quality motor oil, and leave it for about two days. The detergents in the motor oil will slowly break down the lead deposits. You STILL need to brush the barrel afterwards and run about a dozen solvent soaked patches (one at a time...) through the bore, but the patches will eventually come out as clean as they entered.

Sniffin' the #9...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 25, 2002.

Ah, Nipper, ever the predictable. Please read carefully. I did not say you; I said liberals like you. I don't know how you personally feel about anything. I know that many, if not most, liberals support greater regulation of firearms. I don't think liberals are hysterical. In my experience, liberals are usually calm and deliberate... in increasing the role of government. The only time I see hysteria is when the political winds of change blow against this collectivist ideal... like when a republican is elected. (laughter)

Unk, the Navy Seals are well-trained enough to be dangerous with a packet of handi-wipes. Paranoid, untrained people are dangerous with any firearm... but it's a different kind of dangerous.

Flint, I understand the new Indians have their own engines. Call them what you will, I think they are gorgeous. Some men like blonds, some like brunettes.

Helen, the first step is to buy quality cleaning equipment. It's available online and I'll post a website or two. If you are not using bronze brushes and a good solvent (as noted), you must. As the Dog advises, a good brushing with solvents will solve your problems.

-- Ken Decker (, April 25, 2002.


There is indeed hysteria on both sides. One need only visit World Net Daily or NewsMax to see it. Right now, for example, NewsMax is stridently warning that Hillary is planning to run for President in 2004, and that we need to "mobilize."

Right now, I'd rather watch TV and eat pizza, seeing as how this is the first small break I've gotten in several days. I'll mobilize later. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (, April 25, 2002.

OMG, Hilly promised me she wouldn't do that, the lying-diesel dyke.

-- (Al Gore@chaddaqua.gasp), April 25, 2002.

I did not say you; I said liberals like you.

This is a distinction without a difference. If said liberals do not think as I do, then how are they like me? If they are annoyed and I am not, it seems to me we are rather unlike and that liberals who are indeed like me are, like me, not annoyed by the idea of guns as objects d'art.

On further reflection, it is unthinkable that you could have been wrong about this matter. You seem to have no doubts on that head. Why should I cling to mine?

Consequently, I apologize for inconveniencing you, by failing to meet your standards in this regard. I promise, in the future I will let you define my beliefs and ideas to the rest of the world. Further, once I know what opinions you think I should hold, I will strive to believe them to the best of my abilities, even if my own judgement tells me that only an ass and an idiot would think what you would have me think. It is the least I can do.

-- Little Nipper (, April 26, 2002.

BTW, I am concerned that our conservative friends like Ken Decker want to strip mine out National Parks, teach creationism in our publicschools, stop government funding of innoculations for school-aged children, and outlaw all forms of contraception. I believe conservatives like Ken Decker must be stopped from putting these irresponsible ideas into effect.

Just because conservatives like Ken Decker want to enforce their dubious morality on all of us and line their pockets with private profits from public lands, doesn't mean their ideas deserve respect. When conservatives like Ken Decker propose ideas that border on insanity, we should oppose them.

-- Little Nipper (, April 26, 2002.

Paranoid, untrained people are dangerous with any firearm... but it's a different kind of dangerous.'re saying I shouldn't look into that long metal tubey part while I'm fiddling with that little curved metal thingy that clicks when I pull it??

-- Uncle Deedah (, April 26, 2002.


I don't think me and Bob are kin, maybe just kindred spirits.

I guess I should clarify that Capnfuns' Tiki Tavern isn't a biz, at least not yet. It's a 30 x 15 addition to my pool area connected to my office with double French doors, more like a non-profit party pavillion : ) You're welcome to stop by anytime though, drinks are on moi. It'll have all the bells and whistles plus high speed internet access.

LMFAO Unc!!! Toooooo funny dude.

-- capnfun (, April 26, 2002.

Thanks for the gun cleaning tips, gentlemen. Now about looking into the tube-thingy ... how do I know there isn't a bullet chambered or otherwise stuck in such a way as to blow my head off while cleaning?

-- helen's henhouse (fox@sniffing.around), April 26, 2002.

Try checking the chamber BEFORE you look into the tube-thingy.

-- duuuh (, April 26, 2002.

Helen the Threadkiller...

Nosin' the dead thread...

The Dog

-- The Dog (, April 26, 2002.

I killed it??

Where's the chamber?

-- helen (is@this.thing.loaded?), April 27, 2002.

Give me a Gibson and a stack of Marshalls and I'll show you lethal.

-- Mid 80's (power@metal.again), April 27, 2002.

I haven't had a chance to check in on TB2000 for a few days. Y2K Pro, could you give me the Reader's Digest version on what's been happening there?

-- maybe he is (good@fro.something), April 27, 2002.

From the very brief peeks I've ever taken at Dennis' forum, I think one problem is that he doesn't censor and ban enough. I am thinking specifically of a truly loathsome anti-Semite named Patrick.

-- Peter Errington (, April 27, 2002.

Patrick is merely stating his beliefs and studies. It's others who, when they cannot convince him otherwise, become infuriated and insulted.

-- (Patrick@rocks.), April 27, 2002.

All is well at FatOlsonLand as Gideon and Flint have been re-instated by the head hog hisself.

And in this thread we find ‘Cin’ asking details on the upcoming ‘DOOMFEST’ extraviganza: s=a402c76db29cac63b09ed8dcbcd4ce3e&threadid=28687

Looks like a big crowd Cin, so you had better make your Trailway’s reservations soon.

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 27, 2002.

Thanks for the update, Send. What would we do without you {major eye roll}

Or better yet, what would YOU do without Timebomb? You'd have to get a life or something.

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 27, 2002.

"Or better yet, what would YOU do without Timebomb? You'd have to get a life or something."

He'd probably go back to his #1 favorite activity, jerking his little pecker off until it's raw. The reason he started drooling over Timebomb is because he needs to satisfy his perverted urges while waiting for his weenie to heal between spanking sessions.

-- lol (send@mo.sicko), April 27, 2002.

Some pictures of residents of TimeBomb2000. I have sent a "feeler" to Darby.

-- (, April 27, 2002.

Anita stood tall. You just aim your sights so low your pee brain couldn't understand it.

-- The Dork (yelling@screaming.ranting), April 27, 2002.

I think one problem is that he doesn't censor and ban enough. I am thinking specifically of a truly loathsome anti-Semite named Patrick.

Actually, there are a few rabid anti-Semites there who are even more blatant in their hatred than Patrick, such as Dinky and ReadAlot. Most have been now verbally spanked by Dennis and have congregated on RAL's so-called Full Topic forum. Any topic can be discussed there as long as it involves hatred of Jews, the TimeBomb forum, or anyone who doesn't practice the exact brand of Christianity as RAL and Patrick. It's a fascinating place.

-- (, April 28, 2002.

The ‘Dork’ says:

“Anita stood tall. You just aim your sights so low your pee brain couldn't understand it.”

I’d ask you to ‘splain’ the reasoning behind this post but why task you any further.


RAL and her (?) flock are joined at the lip with the freakazoids at FatOlsonLand. Occasionally, Dennis and RAL will get into their little tiffs but for the most part they seem to attract the same type of mutants. Personally, I’m just about fed up with ALL religions and the misery they cause throughout the world. Time for us to create a universal faith with a single God whom we can look to for the answers to life’s mysteries.

I’m thinking Kobe here.

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 28, 2002.


Would your church require tithing?

-- (You're not getting@my.wallet), April 28, 2002.

Not at all friend, just pray attention to the spread.

-- FatOlsonLand (home@2.fools), April 28, 2002.


Does your church dig sex?

-- (YNG@M.W), April 28, 2002.

What ‘church’ would that be friend? Don’t recall mentioning anything about a church.

-- Send (mo@money.please), April 28, 2002.

Send is a PHAT PHUC

-- (go@phuc.yoself), April 29, 2002.

Duuuuh, anyone who is kewl knows that "phat" is a compliment.

-- (go@fornicate.yoself), April 29, 2002.

Duuuh, what about PHUC?

-- (kiss@my.schlong), April 29, 2002.

Meet me at Pfat Phuc's Noodle Bar, London, and I'll kiss your schlong (if it's long).

-- (long dong silver @ DN.C), April 29, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ