I do not agree with North. But this link is scary. Sorry I don't know how to make it a link. I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me how.

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/1461.html

-- Kinda Spooked (KindaSpooky@appalled.com), September 16, 1999

Answers

It sounds like Junior is mad as hell over his father spending his future inheritance,

-- maggie (aaa@aaa.com), September 16, 1999.

Link

-- Stash (stashin@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Looked like a troll to me. Pretty successfull one too (it's responses have now migrated across forums.)

Mikey2k

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), September 16, 1999.

Kinda Spooked:

If you are really concerned, the FBI will deal with it. Just transmit the information to them. They have a site for this [I don't know the address but someone here does, I'm sure].

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Z:

Thanks. Another poster on that page said that he/she was forwarding the information to the FBI. But my faith in the FBI is non- existent. They lost my respect when they blew Vicki Weaver's head off while she held her baby. That sounded more like something the SS would do. Maybe there's no difference. There certainly is no difference for Vicki Weaver.

-- Kinda Spooked (KindaSpooky@appalled.com), September 16, 1999.

(1) Look at the (forum) source. Not exactly what I'd call a credible group of people.

(2) So that's what Gary North looks like. I always thought that he was shorter and had a beard.

(3) To make a link, code it as HTML. You need to enclose each segment in brackets (less than sign on the left, greater than sign on the right). First code the less than sign, the "A HREF="http://the.link.goes.here" followed by the greater than sign. Then code the text of the link (example: "Link to death threat.") Follow this with the close of the HTML entry: the less than sign, followed by /A, then the greater than sign.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 16, 1999.

Thanks!

-- Kinda Spooked (KindaSpooky@appalled.com), September 16, 1999.

You STUPID BRAIN-DEAD MOTHERFUCKING IDIOTS!

That is a *DOOMER TROLL*, doing what doomidiots do best. DISINFORMATION. I hope whoever did it gets there sorry ass thrown in jail. IF you bothered to READ what people said to the LOSER who posted that BULLSHIT you would understand.

you make me ill. say my e-mail addy outloud to yourself. THAT says it all.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), September 16, 1999.

Gawd, the choice of words, the grammer, the phrasing ... it is the same!!!

Super Polly, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Hey SP,

Cover up GIRL, you must be very cold.

Useful idiots are worth alot to their Masters.

Stay healthy.

Deo Vindicie!,

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), September 16, 1999.

Don't pass it alomg to the FBI, They'll burn his trialer down to save him

-- this is nuts (doomer@the.end), September 16, 1999.

Well now.

I thought that it was us food hordin' gun toten' crazy Y2K waco, or was that wacko, cult members that just couldn't wait to kill their neighbor. Guess I was wrong.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Got Prozac?

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), September 16, 1999.

Hey Super Polly:

Grow up, child. Didn't your parents pay enough attention to you?

-- Kinda Spooked (KindaSpooked@appalled.com), September 17, 1999.

Gee Super Polly, you sound so..so..MAD. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Sounds like someone played "sneaky uncle" with SP during his formative years.

--too much sunshine makes a desert--

-- Mr. T (treader@dawn.net), September 17, 1999.

Pretty rich that this gets airplay in here.

Timebomb 2000 *sponsored by MIT* - The board where discussions on the best weaponry available to most efficiently annihilate other human beings (in whatever circumstances) and more recently WHERE TO AIM TO BEST EFFECT are ON-TOPIC threads, and widely patronised by regulars and moderators alike !!!!

Remember those old classics posts detailing the (detailed and savage) treatment likely to be meted out to anyone in need coming knocking at the doors of your "prepped" contributors ? What about the delightful Y2K fiction series ? A popular essay fantasising about survivalist gunfights, rape and subjugation ? Or maybe your favourite was the "how many billions will die" thread, turning human misery and suffering into a game show in lottery format ?

Whats the problem ? Does it get a little less appealing when the supposed victim of this murderous action has a face you recognise ? Maybe someone could explain that. Such sensitive individuals some of you turn out to be. Confused maybe, but clearly sensitive in some undefined sense of the word.

Anyone able to lay aside their faux sense of righteous moral outrage, and actually SWITCH ON THEIR LOGICAL PROCESSES for a moment would recognise that ALL the regular posters to both BIFFY and De_bunky have unilaterally and unreservedly CONDEMNED that post, (and the sad individual responsible for it).

But it seems, sadly but not unexpectedly, that you folk are more interested in scoring political points than actually working out the truth and dealing with it. Which is a shame, because one might have hoped that this kind of circumstance would be one where we could set aside our differences on Y2K and actually agree for a change. But I'm being naieve.

Time and time again, the point is made by the "polly" camp that we are engaged in a philosophical and intellectual debate, (albeit a heated and bad tempered debate at times) and that while we may strongly disagree on this issue, we would at any time put ourselves on the line to protect and defend the rights of anyone from either camp to speak their mind, within the normal limitations of the laws of free speech. Even Gary. Especially Gary. So what's your point ? What part of that do you not understand ? Where do we see the evidence of your similar commitment to this moral issue ?

Is this board immune from the "lone idiot" phenomenon ? What's to stop anyone coming in here and posting threats or otherwise objectionable material aimed at any personality in the fray ? Nothing, thats what. I suspect, sadly, that your enthusiasm to delete would be directly proportional to the distance from the "victim's" opinions to your own. This forum isn't exactly famous for rushing to protect the free speech of those who dont agree with it's premise.

If you're in any doubt about that, try reading the archives. (Note the high minded and humanitarian way in which anyone with a contrarian viewpoint is welcomed here - Ken Decker, Flint, Hoff, Pro, myself. We have all been on the end of different flavours of unsavoury agression by your co-authors at one time or another. What of that ?)

Incidentally, a debate is underway in De_bunky as to whether to delete the post entirely, or to let it stand (along with the responses of the "named personalities" there) as an example of how we deal with these things using our words and not our superior firepower. Time will tell how that pans out.

So one assumes that in future, any post to this forum which suggests or threatens violent action (against another poster or any person or group of people) will be dealt with as speedily, as comprehensively and with as much energy as has been seen in this case. Indeed.

Thats the trouble with setting standards for other people . . they might turn around and ask you whether you're applying them to yourself.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

Well wolfie,

Your post is still up. If you compare the percentage of postings related to defense issues with other matters, you will see that it is a small portion. (I haven't bothered with the math, but just scroll down the list.) And the opinions expressed were by no means unanimous.

I take it you disagree. That's fine. In a few months we will all have a better idea of what is happening (we hope, anyway.) In the meantime, have another cup of decaf. That's what I,m going to do.

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), September 17, 1999.

Z1X

You said

"the FBI will deal with it." -- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

I received a death threat via computer and the FBI wasn't even interested. Could have been because of my Christian/Political angle vs nonchristian/Political. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- not hidding (not gonna do it@fbi.goosed), September 17, 1999.

Wolfscat,

You know better than this. Shall we characterize all pollies by the vituperative post of "SuperPolly," above? Other pollies have stated that we should be locked up for causing panic, and wished destruction upon all of us in no uncertain terms. We can go round and round blaming eachother as a group for the more viscious and stupid of our number - but that's petty, isn't it? Well, at this stage of the Y2k game, I suppose that if you've ruled out threats and namecalling, pettyness is all you pollies have left. You can't call it a "hoax" anymore, can you? "No one knows what will happen" doesn't work for you the way it once did, does it? No, best stick to the old standby, "LOOKOUT: THEY HAVE GUNS! THEY'LL SHOOT ANYONE WHO COMES NEAR THEM! THEY SAID SO!" You're a big fat idiot. I hope you don't have to find out why people keep firearms; that is, I hope you don't have some trio of punks crawl through your window at night and make you watch your wife being violated while they take everything you've got. Before they kill both of you. It, or some equally horrible variant, happens all the time - but NEVER does the official press report when such incidents are diverted through the display, or much more rarely, the use, of a firearm. And they rely on useful idiots like you to spread their misinformation.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 17, 1999.