In praise of the original TB2000 forum

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread
I realize that my subject line is provocative (and that I may even incur the wrath of CPR). Nevertheless, I shall persevere.

A fairly large precentage, of my rather scanty participation in that forum, had to do with pessimistic discussion about stocks, and especially about tech stocks. A lot of this discussion really didn't have anything much to do with Y2K. We focused on the dot-nothings (that was my phrase.)

Now that the NASDAQ is moving in the 2200 range, it would seem that fair-minded people such as yourselves would admit that there were some smarts on that forum.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

Answers

Yep, there were some smarts on that forum, mine.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001
It doesn't take much work to appear a genius in that fashion. if you want, I can start predicting that the market will rise again; it might take five or six years, but all everyone will remember is that I engaged in the profound prophecy of saying the market will do the opposite of what it's doing right now.

interestingly enough, the esteemed Dr. North is engaged in something similar right now. He's currently touting his economic record Here. I find it interesting that they mention he predicted the end of the bull market in '99, but don't mention why he predicted it. Nor do they mention his strategies for dealing with it.

I must also mention that Gary seems to have gotten optimistic lately, everything is Recession this, Recession that. Perhaps the dotbombs are making him more sanguine about the future, and his expectations are rising.

mpc

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

mpc, as I recall, NASDAQ's demise started one horrible day last April. That's not too far off, from the general tone of our warnings: "Any month now.."

I will also say that up to then in 2000, NASDAQ had me flabbergasted.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

So Peter, in your opinion the reasons don't matter, just that it's happened?

Hope you don't go into an actual debate with that strategy.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

"it would seem that fair-minded people such as yourselves would admit that there were some smarts on that forum."

Yes there were Peter, however, a dim-bulb like yourself could never be included in that category. You were categorically wrong about every single Y2K prognostication you made - every single one.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Patricia, our reasoning was correct. These stocks were grossly over-hyped with nothing but a sexy name in many cases. No plausible business plan, for actually making any money. And even if they had had a business plan worthy of the name, look at the competition - there were so many of them.

Cherri, no dispute with your remark, but what I really remember about you was that you had a very good forum of your own (EZ board?) about the lessons of the Y2K experience now that it was over. I posted there a couple of times, but eventually people, including me, ran out of things to post.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

To Y2K Pro:

You poor blind fool, you do not realize the total accuracy of many of my predictions. Wrong every single time? ESAD, pal.

For example, I argued that moving out of one's home was a fool's move, that there would not be societal collapse or rioting in the streets. I devoted an entire thread to the rioting in the streets hypothesis.

I also argued that people who did not invest in gold were not stupid, but rather canny investors like myself.

I said that the evidence was indicating that the large American businesses would be able to do the necessary before rollover.

So which of these conclusions do you have a quarrel with, little man?

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

You're confusing attraction with inspiration. TB2000 was filled with a collection of people looking for justification through economic decline; it attracted people who were arguing that the stock market would decline because of, among other sources:

However, the case you bring up, Dot-com hype, was neither unique nor special to TB2K. I can find articles on the topic in 98-2000 from The Motley Fool, Forbes, Yardeni, Alan Greenspan, and so on. You're engaging in the same retroactive wishful thinking that makes Jeane Dixon look accurate - picking out a correct prediction which is only marginally connected to the thesis of the original board and using it as evidence of a predictive capacity that I, quite frankly, find lacking.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

To mpc:

There were a handful of people, of whom I was one, who concentrated on the bubble aspects of the market, ignoring the fiat currency arguments and those other arguments which did indeed, as you say, swirl around in old TB2000.

But why anyone thought the bubble would hold is beyond me. The only question in my mind was when, and how violently, it would cease to hold. We've actually been very lucky, at the gradual rate that it has lost air.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

I will admit there were some smart folks posting to TB2000. However, one can be smart in many respects and delusional in what counts. This was far too prevalent on TB2000.

Also, there was too much "groupthink" going on there. Most folks there were more interested in validating there own delusions than in seeking the truth.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Why does anyone pay attention to erringBoy just because he has a long weekend from the hospital. BUT, erringOne proves the case that no matter how STUPID or ABSURD the Extremists' Views were and are, there are always Denser People who will buy either the Whole "ball of wax" or big chunks of it and to "justify" their actions subsequently, make an effort to find more converts (to avoid being lonely if nothing else. And most will agree that the Doomzies and strange people like densestTon are essentially most isolated from the mainstream and unable to "process" information in any sort of a "Rational Manner" if it DISAGREES with their Apriori views. Its called: PREJUDICIAL VIEWs. erringLoser is an example of that. As The Y2k PRO has stated, erroneousTon was wrong time after time. Before, during and After Y2k.

Even his case is absurd: if NOTHING HAPPENED re: Y2k, why blame any "economic impacts" on the Y2k computer date problem?? But that is TOO EMBARRASING a matter for any of the Doomzies and the Doom Symp Fellow Travellers (like the erringOne)...to understand.

AS FOR THE TRASH GN IS NOW PUSHING:

http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/RMRV/TheGravyTrain/HOME.CFM? PAGE=2&PCODE=W23759&ALIAS=DR5

JUNK.

His doctorate is NOT in "economics" as claimed on that page. Elsewhere he brags about his Doctorate in History in particular about the History of the Puritans in Mass. Bay Colony.

and HIS "CAREER" WITH CONG. PAUL.......CHECK AND SEE HOW LONG HE LASTED WAS IT 3 MONTHS OR 6?



-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Peter,

Perhaps there was a community of you genuinely interested in the potential of a tech-stock downturn and the consequent recession. Why then, out of all the millions of message boards on the web, did you decide to hold the discussion on a board dominated with conversations about solar heating, dread beans, the NEW WORLD ORDER and the like? Especially given greenspun.com's fairly poor conversation system, it seems to me that you could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by putting up a tech-stock recession only discussion.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Buddy, I won't deny that there was a lot of delusional groupthink on old TB2000. But we weren't all like that. Someone like Y2K Pro or CPR will assume we were all mindslaves of Ed. That is nonsense, certainly in my case.

Regarding CPR, all his latest howling rant proves is that he can't read English. The discussions I have been referring to had to do with a bubble economy that was bound to run into big trouble, Y2K or no Y2K. As I made clear, to any reader with half a brain.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

mpc:

My main reason for sticking with TB2000 was that there were a fair number of people capable of making intelligent points about computers (including Anita).

My interest in the stock market wasn't great enough to seek out a board specializing in that topic (I wasn't in the market, was in real estate instead).

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Heck, I said the market was overpriced in 98. And it was.

Evidence is pretty clear that the increase in the money supply through 99 was mostly winding up in the market, fueling what Greenspan was calling "irrational exuberance".

I dunno. If I had jumped in and bailed out at the right time, I'd claim to be a genius. Since I didn't, I suppose I'm a pessimistic goat.

Market will always go up and down. Knowing when it is about to stop moving in one direction, and consistently move in the other direction, is the total key to market success.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Are you kidding? Any undergraduate finance student or reasonably bright individual could see that there were grossly over-valued stocks and as far as the market falling, it was always just a question of of when, not if.

To talk about people on the old TB2K being smart because they foresaw a fall in the stock market is akin to claiming to be intelligent because you can predict that after you eat you will have to take a dump several hours later.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

To CJS:

I'm not claiming that my little TB2000 subgroup was original, or overly brilliant, or anything like that. Just smarter than the investing herd, which has very predictably taken a pounding in the tech stocks.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001

Me too Davis. Out in early '99 and felt pretty silly for a year or so. Still out.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001
You're right! I just took a dump, and I feel a lot smarter!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001
I might point out that the case for the bubble economy, which I was making in the fall of 1999, did not rest only on an analysis of the dot nothings. The price-earning ratios of some of the other tech stocks were simply astounding.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001
Peter:

I pretty much limited myself to discussions of technical things relating to computers on TB2000. I NOTICED that some were discussing the stock market, as well as politics, but I didn't feel that either of those subjects should be MIXED with the computer problems. At the time, I looked to Wall Street fora regarding the stock market and political fora for politics. The Y2k issue in itself seemed emotionally charged; investment discussions and political discussions seemed to me to just add fuel to the emotional fires.

It's odd for me, in retrospect, to look back at it all. NONE of us had anything in common outside of an interest in Y2k, whether we stood on the polly side or the doomer side. Certainly some folks were either previously interested in disaster scenarios, or developed a fascination of same and these folks continue to communicate on the TB2000 EZBOARD. Many have left that board. Old Git grew tired of the religious threads and moved on. It's unclear in my mind why I'm even still communicating with folks from that era, outside of Patricia and Doc, who I've met IRL and really enjoyed.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

"I'm not claiming that my little TB2000 subgroup was original, or overly brilliant, or anything like that. Just smarter than the investing herd, which has very predictably taken a pounding in the tech stocks.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 02, 2001."

What about those of us that took profits in mid 99....and cleaned up?

You are a fool Peter.....a fool on a fool's errand.....you search for praise for a defunct weboard that was populated by extremists, illogical crystalworshippers, and morally bankrupt snakeoil salesmen.

(I shit you not, one of the stocks I sold was to the penny....the highest it has ever been. Talk about timing the market! Seriously, that one was pure dumb luck, but I knew the time had come to take profits and do alittle re-shuffle of the portfolio....and it has worked out pretty well. most anything I am holding that dropped drastically is long-term anyway....no damage done.)

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001

CJS, Unk: ROTFLMAO.....

Peter, I guess I'm confused. You titled this thread, In praise of the original TB2000 forum, implying that the forum had "something special" about it. You then go on to "clarify" that it was merely you and a select (elite?) few who were dead-on about a prediction (a prediction that, frankly, anyone with any financial savvy could have made; and they probably did).

IIRC, the majority of the TB2K posters who were "predicting" the crash of the "dot-nothings" were "predicting" the crash of EVERYTHING (stock markets) specifically because of Y2K -- a **computer problem**. Then you had the "not-satisfied-with-my-life-so-I'll- wish-ill-on-those-who-are-doing-better" crowd who just WISHED it would happen so they could somehow feel "justified" and "vindicated".

So what is the point of this exercise?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Minor point first. One can say that he personally realized the dangers of the market and took appropriate action, or that any financially savvy person would have. The fact remains that such people were greatly outnumbered in the investing herd.

Major point: There were enough good people worth conversing with on TB2000 to make it worth my while to continue participation. There were also loons and nasties. But we were a much more interesting mix of people than I think the pollies ever realized.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

"But we were a much more interesting mix of people than I think the pollies ever realized."

"Pollies" - you mean the people who were right about Y2K? That was what you meant to say, wasn't it?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Peter, you must learn to let go and move on with your life. For many months, you were a major voice proclaiming the certain disaster that was Y2K. You wanted us all to consider you an intelligent source of viable information and predictions. But Peter, you were very, very wrong. But who really cares? Is your self-esteem so fragile that you must continue to attempt convincing us all of your perceived knowledge? Why would a small group of total strangers be so important to your life? If you are so devastated over your past transgressions then why not change your forum name? I’m not a big fan of professional ‘shrinks’, but in your case………….

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001
Sigmund writes "For many months, you were a major voice proclaiming the certain disaster that was Y2K."

Sigmund, you aqre a shit-eating liar. The archives are there, prove me wrong when I say that.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

There, there my boy. Just relax and let the medication soothe your troubled soul.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001

Major point: There were enough good people worth conversing with on TB2000 to make it worth my while to continue participation. There were also loons and nasties. But we were a much more interesting mix of people than I think the pollies ever realized.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 04, 2001.

There were enough good people worth conversing with on ...

NAME ONE........just ONE.

and don't delude yourself by naming yourself........Jerk Off.



-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001
To Sigmund:

How's your life going, Louis?

To CPR:

I can't remember them all. Some names that do come to mind are "I'm Here, I'm There", Bok, and Rachel Gibson, all of whom have more brains in their little toenail than you've got.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001

Now, now my son, you must calm down before your already disturbed psychosis becomes irreparable. As we have been discussing in the last two sessions, you should not allow your past delusions to interfere with your current critical thinking skills. Remember what we agreed upon: that you can not continue this angst over the image you think you have with the strangers on this forum.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2001
Hey Peter, why are you still so invested in your Y2K MEMEspeak?

Things must be getting pretty boring over at the "new and improved" TB2000 board, hm? They don't let "pollies" in there, do they? After all, the black helicopter/NWO/UN blue vans/crop circles crowd doesn't like debating those of us who can easily disprove their theories.

I'll admit that there were some "smarts" on that forum when the parade of "doomers" like Diane Squire, Old Git, INVAR, Chuck a Night Driver, Ed Yourdon, Gary North, bla bla bla pay us a visit and admit how incredibly wrong they were, and how they misled family, friends and co-workers with their incredibly flawed logic.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Well, Julie, you sure can blab the blab.

FYI, I did not go over to EZboard TB2000. I stuck with Uncensored. The idea of Flint being banned for anthill-kicking was repugnant to me, since I don't mind being an anthill-kicker myself.

Which I was doing when I started this thread. I don't care what you crowdpleasers think of me, I could care less. My motives were a tad mischievous. But I talked very good sense, and look what I got. CPR being his usual inane self, that was to be expected, but a couple of little mind-slaves of CPR? Can you imagine how strange it is to be a mind-slave of that very strange person. Louis in particular ought to do something more constructive with his life, work to turn himself into a babe magnet, or something.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

Here, here me lad. It appears that all of our hard work to correct your mental ravings are for not. As talented as I am, there are some humans that are beyond salvage.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001
Then, Peter, I must ask: What exactly did you think you were going to get by "anthill kicking" here? I don't need CPR to think for me, and I would hazard a guess that most here are fully capable of having many independent thoughts. We're also able to do our own research, without the imprimatur of Ed Yourdon, Gary North, Jim Lord, Karen Anderson, and -- let's not forget -- Art "I'm never, ever coming back to radio" Bell.

If it makes you feel better to think that we're all infected with the CPR MEME, so be it, but we all know the truth. Even though I have very much disagreed with CPR on several subjects, I must point out that he encourages people to think for themselves, and didn't take a penny for his efforts to get the word out about the Y2K non-event.

I just returned from a trip down Memory Lane via the "new and improved" TB2000. They're still parroting the "preps" MEME, still convinced that society will collapse at any minute...

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

I must confess, I really enjoyed the old TB2K asylum, until the inmates got the keys anyway. During my normal boring workdays, I deal with engineers who can't generally afford wild half-assed unsupported theories. Real life sits there and mocks any engineer who tries it.

So it was fascinating for me to watch that Good Old Time Religion in all its dubious glory. I got to watch people knock themselves out basing their data on their conclusions, making no pretense of working the other way around.

I've been away from school a long time now, and I felt I was seeing what our educational system is now producing -- a nation of people willing to believe in the preposterous, subject it to nothing resembling examination, support it with pure personal attacks followed by straight censorship of all disagreement. It was a show I'm glad I attended.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

"Crowdpleasers"? Is that an insult?

I was once referred to as one of "CPR's ilk" and I assumed that was an insult, but "crowdpleasers" is just a bit beyond me.

Flint, do you really think the people to whom you refer are products of today's "education"? I would think they were a bit older than that (though you honestly couldn't tell from some of the postings.....) and thus products of pretty much the same education as you and/or I had. I thought it was the interpretation of that eduction that decided how one goes about "deducing".

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Julie:

I didn't mean to imply that all pollies were CPR mind-slaves. Just Louis and Y2K Pro, because they will support CPR no matter how asinine he is being.

EZboard TB2000 means nothing to me. Never has.

I have to disagree with you about CPR encouraging people to do their own thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. You will think precisely as he does or he will start screaming.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Patricia:

I suppose you're right, they just sounded like spoiled children. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that TB2K attracted and selected for that subset of people for whom critical thinking is hard and unreliable, while absolute faith is simple and unambiguous.

In a wider view, hardly anyone really paid enough attention to the problem to reach the point of even dismissing any serious concern. So we were looking at a very small subset of people, the real lunatic fringe. Who knows, maybe we like being surrounded by lunatics? Maybe I'm still here because now I feel surrounded by Democrats, which is damn near the same thing. Isn't it?

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

I know I've written this before, but for me, aside from working on Y2K projects, the Internet was the "be-all" and "end-all" of my Y2K experience. I even received a copy of the Remnant Review from the One and Only Gary North in Spring, 1996. Have no idea how he got my info, but he did.

Sure, there were a few of my "IRL" friends who had heard about it (by 1999) and they mostly turned to me for info. So my whole experience (again, as it were) was centered on the Internet. For a time, I was simply horrified that no one seemed to be taking this seriously. That didn't last long.

It never occurred to me (until around February, 2000) that this was a painfully small group of people. Most people NOT on the Internet either didn't know or (more likely) didn't care. (There was my friend in NJ, whose neighbors were actually featured on a local news show for their Preps. Their "storage room" looked like a Costco. When my friend found out about them (prior to the newscast), she had asked me if there was anything to "this Y2K thing". These people even had chickens -- in NEW JERSEY (and NOT in "farm country"; we;re talking 1/2 mile from the Geo. Washington Bridge). A couple would get out every now and again. Good thing my friend's cat was an indoor cat.)

I honestly thought (for the longest time) that the "doomers" severely outnumbered the "pollies". Well, they did -- but only "vocally". Heh, it was quite a wake-up call to realize they didn't. "Welcome (Back) to the Real World, P."

I spent at least the last half of 1999 trying to figure out just why the "doomers" believed what they did. Having studied people (informally) most of my life, it wasn't all that difficult to "type cast" so many of them. Hey, it passed the time.....

And FWIW, I think we were ALL, in some way, part of the "lunatic fringe". Not necessarily a bad thing; I learned an awful lot about an awful lot of "life things".

Uh, don't know if you've noticed, but there are about five posters (tops) on this particular board (probably less on Unk's) who DON'T subscribe to the "compassionate conservative credo". **We** are the ones "surrounded"; not you.

It just seems as if there are more of US because we make infinitely more sense than you do. Then again, at least on Unk's, you guys have "Ain't" who alone seems as if he's an army of "compassionate conservatives" at times ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Patricia:

When it comes to politics, I find "ain't" as absurd as Cherri. I'm just naturally opposed to extremists, because regardless of the extreme, they don't do any critical thinking at all.

Well away from the extremes, we find there is a great deal to be said in favor of many proposed courses of action, from either party or elsewhere. Balancing them all, weighting relative strengths and weaknesses, being willing to accept that your spouse has warts, these things are not the stuff of slogans and mud slinging.

So I wouldn't call either extreme sensible, nor would I say any position makes infinitely more sense than any other in the practical middle. Values conflict, viewpoints are necessarily parochial, opinions are largely based on contingent accidents of our individual experiences, there can be better answers without any right answers. Beware of anything that looks black and white, because far more likely this condition lies in you and not what you're looking at.

Long before the dreaded rollover, I'd pretty much lost interest in y2k itself. There would have been huge, unmistakeable signs if any important danger loomed, and there were none. For me, the entertainment lay more and more in shining a light on what people were doing to themselves. I still enjoy this.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Flint, did you feel you were totally alone, surrounded by an army of loonies, on TB2000?

(I can't really gauge your experience because I pretty much skipped over the rip-roaring prepping debates. That wasn't what I was there for. Nor were the religious debates, etc.)

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Peter:

No, I felt there were reasonable people, just that they were in the minority. But look at the impressive number of people the censorites had to ban when they set up their private ghetto.

In any case, I've never needed any agreement or support to post my opinions. I sincerely feel that if there were a better opinion than mine, I'd hold it already. Now and then I actually encounter a better opinion than mine, and I change my mind and hold a new opinion as a result. So I always look for people who energetically support their positions, whatever those positions might be. Those who "defend" their positions by running away from debate or calling names, have never held a defensible opinion that I've found.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Sorry, Flint; should have labeled that line a joke. No harm, no foul.

"Impressive" is a good descriptor; *I* was also banned from Protective Custody at EZB (which was made even more hilarious when one considered that I had never posted to the original TB2K).

(Another joke; but I really was banned. Still laugh about that every now and again because the assumption by The Powers That Be was that I wanted to post over there. LOL.)

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

"There were enough good people worth conversing with on ..."

NAME ONE........just ONE.

and don't delude yourself by naming yourself........Jerk Off.


I know one right off the top of my head. Brian McLaughlin....a gentleman and a scholar as they say. Not all y2k pessimists and optimists engaged in name calling--only some of them.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001

I agree about Brian, good choice.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001
Patricia, I have a suggestion for you and your small band of surrounded liberals: You can find company by sneaking onto EZBoard TB2000, even if that requires new identities.

The reason I say this is that during this past presidential campaign, CPR stated that EZBoard TB2000 was so fucked up that it was a hotbed of Gore supporters.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001

What makes you think we'd find company at EZB even under pseudonyms? I thought they were more Repub and Libertarian. The two (vocal) liberals that were posting over there were "booted", as it were, because they spoke up against the right-wing faction.

BTW, I agree on "Brian McLaughlin", and there were others, too. Just like there were many on Debunker.

I just don't see why, over a year later, it's still important enough to discuss/argue over. I thought most of us had moved on. That's not to say that I don't miss some of the discussion; but we're on to Bigger and Better Things now.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001

Jeez, Patricia, if you can't believe CPR, who can you believe.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001
Patricia, after re-reading your latest, I agree with its basic message. It would be good, for example, for CPR and me to stop swatting each other about, and move on to bigger and better pursuits.

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001

ERRING-LIAR: ...ARE YOU ALWAYS ....DRUNK??

CUT AND PASTE THE POST .......ANY POST WHERE I EVER STATED SUCH A THING. 1/2 THE POSTERS TO SLEEZE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR FRINGERS.

The reason I say this is that during this past presidential campaign, CPR stated that EZBoard TB2000 was so fucked up that it was a hotbed of Gore supporters. -- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 09, 2001.


-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001
Brian McLaughlin....???????????

TWIT STILL LOOKING FOR Y2K "PROBLEMS". TOTAL TWIT.



-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001

Charlie, you MUST be thinking of a different "Brian McLaughlin". You simply can't be referring to the same one I'm thinking of (the guy who -- sorry, but this was absolutely hilarious -- told you a "few" times that you were RIGHT about Y2K while he was WRONG). AFAIK, he stopped "looking for Y2K problems" around about January, 2000, when most others did.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2001

"For the first time I detect a hint of fear in you. Maybe your posts indicate a bit of "Denialist" in your mental constructs. Could you be afriad of your world changing? Your ability to adapt and evolve with the uncertianties of the future? Do you ever get this niggling doubt that you will ..... fail."

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 27, 1999.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002BRP

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2001

In response to CPR's challenge, to find where he said that "sleazyboard" was giving Gore a lot of support, I looked in the "Uncensored" archives. I haven't found what I was looking for. It doesn't seem to be in the Political category. Given CPR's habit of posting his opinions on threads totally unrelated to these opinions, I guess it could be anywhere in the archives.

What I distictly remember is this: CPR did say that, using a phrase like "collective IQ of table salt" to describe all the "sleazyboarders" who were supporting Gore. Later on the thread, Hmm made the correction, that as a group, EZBoard TB2000 strongly supported Bush.

A short time later, I used CPR's phraseology in a threat to him. I told him that Anita, "Ms table salt of 2000" and I were going to kick his ass (figuratively speaking) for his crap comments on the respective merits of the two candidates.

When did this all happen? My best estimate is the time frame from late August thru ealy October.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2001

Rx. for Twit ErringBoy:

It is mandatory that this stay be extend far beyond the normal 30 days of re-hab for his DTs are producing ever greater frequency of imaginary visions.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Charlie, there are/were two "Brian M.s" who posted there; if I'm not mistaken, the one you've cited is NOT the Brian McLaughlin I'm thinking of.

Besides, look at the date of that post -- 1999. How does that equate to "still looking for Y2K problems"?

Look, I'm not saying that there weren't what seemed to be a good number of wackos looking for doom; reading "doom conspiracy" into anything and everything ("I've got a hangnail -- BUY MORE BEANS!!"). And from reading the citations of EZB posts by others (I don't even have a link to the place; can't be bothered wading through the crapola), many are now looking for OTHER reasons for doom. It's a perpetual hunt.

But like I said (over and over and over) during and after the Y2K "debate", there are people out there who just look for ANY excuse for doom. There are people out there who are dissatisfied with their lot in life, and they blame everyone else for it. There are people out there who are just nuts. Hey, they can provide endless hours of Free Entertainment.

Do you think you're going to CHANGE any of them? Please. Why do you think I gave up trying to talk political sense (contradiction in terms?) to the right-wingnuts (said with a certain modicum of affection) here and elsewhere?

I really do have better things to do with my time. I'm pretty sure you do, too.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Patricia: You're correct. Brian [imager] and Brian McLaughlin are two separate people. They're both nice people, IMO, regardless of how they were duped on Y2k stuff.

Peter: I never saw the posts you mentioned either. This doesn't mean they didn't exist, as I had neither the time nor inclination to pursue Y2k matters beyond the January 1, 2000 date, which is history now. Please don't suggest that I would have the remotest interest in helping you kick anyone's butt. OTOH, if you had ANOTHER Anita in mind, please disregard this chastisement.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Anita: Not even CPR's butt? What kind of Scandahooligan are you, anyway? Oh well, those damn Norwegians...

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001
WHO THE FUCK CARES IF SOMEONE WAS "VERY NICE***??? Hitler was probably very nice to Eva. The kid who just shot and killed two fellow students near San Diego was probably VERY NICE.

What about the Actions of the DOOMIZIES??

LOOK AT THE DAMAGE THE CULT OF EY/GN DID FOR HEAVEN's SAKE. THEY WERE A POX and the more active ones including such DIMWITS AS ROLEIGH GUMP WERE **VIRTUAL TYPHOID MARYS**.

The second Brian if he was indeed the 2nd one and not Imager thought he was being very funny by posting 100s of times that the debunkers were right but it didn't matter.

WRONG. It did matter and we still see people who think it was OK for people to move on even though they were responsible for MISLEADING and INTIMIDATING 100s even 1000s of people in the name of "their beliefs". BULL SHIT.

Someday, Mike Adams will re-surface and probably try to pull off another scam. Same for Beano Caton. North has tried 3 tacks to re- position himself. Yourdon doesn't even know what is going on.



-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

OFF....just like erringChild

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001
Pssst..Charlie...a lot of people thought Brian M's method of tweaking your tail was very funny.

P.S. I was WRONG about Y2K. You were RIGHT.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Anita:

Yeah the original Brian [imag] lives in Victoria, BC. Had a lot of conversations with him. He was sure that there would be no electrical problems with Y2k. We agreed on that one. He has posted, either here, or on Poole's in the last month. Brian M lives in Oregon. He is very green; a Nader person. Both good people.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ