Why do you leave this site up?

Charles Reuben, MS, Dallas

-- (cpr@byebye.Texas.com), September 09, 2000

Answers

WHY? BECAUSE I **CAN**.

GO HERE AND FIND OUT WHY:

LINK-to-EXPERT

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 09, 2000.

BWAAAAHHAAAAHAAAAHAA!!!

CREEPER WAS JUST AS MUCH OF A "FUD SLINGER" AS ANYONE ELSE!!

WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL TWO-FACED TRAITOR LOUDMOUTH!

-- (you.got@some.nerve!), September 09, 2000.

Note that cpr needs no defending; and I'm not a huge fan of the constant ramblings vis a vis Y2K that come from his keyboard. That said, however, enough is enough with the anonymous posting bullshit. I've noticed that not one of you who bash him has the balls to post using either your real name or email addy, or the name under which you used to post. And that says more than anything that cpr posts.

The year was 1996 (it even states that in the title of the thread). There was little, if any, information in the public domain about anything Y2K-related (either positive or negative). Most of the ones you know as "Debunkers" were all "doomers" at the time. The difference between us and those who remained "doomers" is quite simple, really.

As the information changed, so did our "positions", including cpr's. When the information started to become positive, cpr moderated his position and began fighting the nonsense spewing from the Fearless Leaders; none of whom moderated their position one iota, despite the positive information that was being released as time went on.

IOW, there is nothing "hypocritical" about cpr; he has never made it a secret that he was once a "doomer" (the web site is still there, isn't it? it was found by someone, wasn't it? and this is at least the second time it's been posted here). Of course, not having any way of knowing who you are (as you are posting anonymously), I cannot say the same about you. Tell us, can the same be said for you, that there is nothing hypocritical about the way you reacted to Y2K? Did you start out your Y2K life as a doomer, and then moderate as more and more positive news was released?

Only you can answer that.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.

I'm wondering about the MA thing. How does one get a Masters in math and have it in Art instead of Science? Is there a school that gives a B.A. in Chemistry?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

Anita,

It depends on the school. Some schools award MBA's, others MA's in Business. Admittedly it IS a bit confusing.

-- One Who Knows (OKW@top.of.the.morning.to.you), September 10, 2000.

Anita:

For most of the Universities I know: In science fields an MA is a degree program without a thesis; an MS is a degree program requiring a thesis.

This may not be true in this case.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 10, 2000.

Patricia is so right. Some of us were able to learn, and some of us refused to learn.

The rule of thumb is fairly striaghtforward. Those capable of learning post using their real names and addresses. Those unable or unwilling to learn hide behind fake names, and don't even dare use the same fake name they used to.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 2000.

Flint is so right. Some of us make up multiple fake names like, oh, The Shadow, Buff E., Archiver, etc., and have conversations with ourselves because no one else will talk to us.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.

True, Flint, and we forgot those who hide behind OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.

LOL cpr, same answer to the question "why does a dog lick its own dick?"

-- (nemesis@awol.com), September 10, 2000.

Whether or not the poster is anonymous has no bearing on the relevance of the material. The fact is that the link is real, the web page exists, it was authored by CPR, and it does show what a two-faced egomaniacal nut case liar he is. The only reason you are looking for an identity of the poster is because you want to attack from another angle, deflecting the discussion away from the validity of the original subject matter.

-- anonymous (nice@try.losers), September 10, 2000.

anonymous (nice@try.losers), uh no. Wrong. "Nice try", though.

The issue being addressed (by Flint and me) is whether or not cpr is a hypocrite based on the information posted at the top of the thread; nothing more.

As I stated above, the web site is still there, isn't it? If cpr was a hypocrite, the web site would have disappeared long ago.

As to anonymous posters, if they are so sure their "opinions" are correct, why the anonymity? Why not come forward and let us all know who they are/were? What seems to be the problem with standing behind one's words? You know, like cpr does.

Get it yet?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.

I've been reading this board almost since its inception. I can state without fear of contradiction (except by the usual suspects) that CPR is a raving lunatic. And I'll stake my name and reputation on it.

By the way, Patricia and Flint, what are your whole names? Why do you hide behind partial names, either first or last only? Do you think you're like Cher or Elvis? I don't know who either of you are, which is actually fine with me. But I do mind your hypocrisy in telling everyone else that they should post their full names when you don't do it yourself.

The email is real. As for the name, someone has to be named "John Smith", or it wouldn't be a joke. Right?

-- John Q. Smith (johnqsmith666@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

Once again, the issue is not cpr's mental health status (or the lack thereof, depending upon your perspective). The issue is the accusation of cpr's hypocrisy.

Personally, I don't care who any of the anonymous posters are/were. What is truly hypocritical is the fact that they have no problem personally attacking anyone/everyone, but see fit to hide themselves from public scrutiny.

Further, I have told no one that they "should" post their real names/email addys. As I stated above, I frankly couldn't care less, except where I noted. I do, however, feel that if one is going to launch a personal attack on another, one should not have a problem identifying one's self. Fair is fair, don't you think? It goes to integrity and credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

My real last name has been posted on this forum by someone who saw a need to personally attack me (hiding behind an anonymous handle, of course; what a coincidence); if you have been reading this board since its inception, you saw this. I have always posted with a real email addy, both pre- and post rollover. Patricia is my real name.

As you stated you really don't care who I am, does this answer your questions/accusations?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.

Aaaah, the shoe is on the other foot now!

-- anonymous (makes@no.difference), September 10, 2000.

Patricia:

Of course you are correct, but these new intercept applications are great. You can find who John Q. is beyond his hot mail address.

Collecting data.

Seek

-- Seek (Seeker@look.ing), September 10, 2000.

Aaaah, the shoe is on the other foot now!

Huh?

Of course you are correct, but these new intercept applications are great. You can find who John Q. is beyond his hot mail address.

That's just it; I don't care who these people are. I base my opinions of people on their integrity and credibility. I see none of that in these people. I could be completely wrong about that, but I have no way of knowing, as they have no way of knowing this about me. The difference is that I have always posted using my real name and a valid email addy. IMO, that signals integrity and credibility. I really believe that if people are sure of their convictions, then (in most circumstances; there are always exceptions -- this isn't one of them, IMO) what is the problem with identifying themselves?

Take a look at some of the threads here; can you see the problems with people posting as other people? This is absurd; these people are bashing cpr for his "hypocrisy" and "mental instability", but how sane is a person if they post as someone else; stealing someone's handle and, in effect, their very identity? Hypocritical goes without saying.

The nonsense has to stop. It seems the only recourse is to ignore them.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.

Yes, please do ignore us. It was okay for Hawk to be impersonated because, well, no one likes Hawk. It was okay for Ladylogic to be impersonated because, well, nobody likes Laura. And, al-d?? Yes! We were GLAD when someone impersonated him and forced him off the board!

But, impersonate cpr??? No! Never! Not Okay! We ALL like cpr and would be devestated if he was gone from here!

Selective righteous indignation is so unbecoming, and dare one say...hypocritical?

Seek (Seeker@look.ing)---get your hand out of your pants young lady!

-- (x@xxx.xxx), September 10, 2000.

Patricia:

I agree with you again. I have developed this program which is now in the beta version. Since there have been so many anon. post here, I have tested it here. I appears to work. Some bugs, but better than CPR's moron program. I have just posted these few times to tell you that I am testing it.

Seek

-- Seek (Seeker@look.ing), September 10, 2000.

Now I'm leaving. I'm really, really going. You won't see me posting here anymore. Not one more single time. Gone. Adios. Hasta La Vista, Baybee. Vamanos. Poof. Vanished.

-- Seek (Seeker@seek.ing), September 10, 2000.

Yes, Zog, your name is now in the Federal database.

SO

-- SO (Someone@looking.xxx), September 10, 2000.

Patricia,

Please, shut up!

-- anonymous (silly@whining.broad), September 10, 2000.

Seek (Seeker@look.ing) is ZOG? Oh. My. Gawd. LOL!!

-- (xxx@xxx.xxx), September 10, 2000.