"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Ron Schwarz -- reply to newsgroups on » Tue, 25 May 1999 04:00:00



Not a pretty picture:
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990524_xex_army_prep...>

--
"Sure my meme is floundering a bit but it's still spreading."
             --Alan Dechert

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Harlan Smit » Tue, 25 May 1999 04:00:00


If this is truly a "covert operation", it is a monumentally inept one:

"Over a period of several days of observation and making friendly
conversation with the men who "didn't fit in," the trainer observed them
reviewing aerial photographs of the location, hiding military clothing in a
large closet or storage area, talking with each other using rank
designations, and one man accidentally saluted another and was severely
reprimanded for his action. Two were also seen to have concealed weapons
under their coats. "



Quote:> Not a pretty picture:

<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990524_xex_army_prep...
tml>
Quote:

> --
> "Sure my meme is floundering a bit but it's still spreading."
>              --Alan Dechert


 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Ron Schwarz -- reply to newsgroups on » Tue, 25 May 1999 04:00:00



Quote:>If this is truly a "covert operation", it is a monumentally inept one:

A velvet glove can only cover just so much, after all.

>"Over a period of several days of observation and making friendly
>conversation with the men who "didn't fit in," the trainer observed them
>reviewing aerial photographs of the location, hiding military clothing in a
>large closet or storage area, talking with each other using rank
>designations, and one man accidentally saluted another and was severely
>reprimanded for his action. Two were also seen to have concealed weapons
>under their coats. "



>> Not a pretty picture:

><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990524_xex_army_prep...
>tml>

>> --
>> "Sure my meme is floundering a bit but it's still spreading."
>>              --Alan Dechert

--
"Sure my meme is floundering a bit but it's still spreading."
             --Alan Dechert
 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by nos.. » Tue, 25 May 1999 04:00:00



>If this is truly a "covert operation", it is a monumentally inept one:
>"Over a period of several days of observation and making friendly
>conversation with the men who "didn't fit in," the trainer observed them
>reviewing aerial photographs of the location, hiding military clothing in a
>large closet or storage area, talking with each other using rank
>designations, and one man accidentally saluted another and was severely
>reprimanded for his action. Two were also seen to have concealed weapons
>under their coats. "

Sounds like a militia operation ;-)
 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by A.Liza » Fri, 28 May 1999 04:00:00




>>If this is truly a "covert operation", it is a monumentally inept one:

>>"Over a period of several days of observation and making friendly
>>conversation with the men who "didn't fit in," the trainer observed them
>>reviewing aerial photographs of the location, hiding military clothing in a
>>large closet or storage area, talking with each other using rank
>>designations, and one man accidentally saluted another and was severely
>>reprimanded for his action. Two were also seen to have concealed weapons
>>under their coats. "

>Sounds like a militia operation ;-)

Sounds more to me like a plot idea rejected for "Get Smart" on
the grounds that this was too stupid to be funny.

A.Lizard
************************************************************************
            Personal Web site http://www.ecis.com/~alizard  
For reliable year 2000 info, go to:
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html            

PGP 2.6.2 key available by request,keyserver,or on my Web site
Find out what I think of the Littleton school killings at:
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html
************************************************************************

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Dave Eldenbu » Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:00





>>>If this is truly a "covert operation", it is a monumentally inept one:

>>>"Over a period of several days of observation and making friendly
>>>conversation with the men who "didn't fit in," the trainer observed them
>>>reviewing aerial photographs of the location, hiding military clothing in a
>>>large closet or storage area, talking with each other using rank
>>>designations, and one man accidentally saluted another and was severely
>>>reprimanded for his action. Two were also seen to have concealed weapons
>>>under their coats. "

>>Sounds like a militia operation ;-)

>Sounds more to me like a plot idea rejected for "Get Smart" on
>the grounds that this was too stupid to be funny.

Doesn't that mean it's probably a government authorized US Army operation? ;-)

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Eldenburg
Thistle Grove Industries, Inc.

------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by John Mille » Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:00:00




Quote:>Not a pretty picture:
><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990524_xex_army_prep...
html>

>--
>"Sure my meme is floundering a bit but it's still spreading."
>             --Alan Dechert

Consider the source, sounds like it could be BS. I'm looking at the
banner on that page, and wondering what they have to gain from a
poorly documented, sensationalistic story like that.
 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Mark » Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

> So, I'd have to question why you're going out of your way to 1) dredge up Old
> News, and 2) attempt to discredit it by demonization of the *reporter*, when the
> facts should be readily verifiable to anyone who chooses to take the effort.

> <church_lady>
> Could it be that you have...an *agenda*???
> </church_lady>

The people that doubt WND inevitably don't like the message.  It's that
simple.  They nailed the National Guard stories with insider
information, and the Guard even confirmed some of it (like the May comms
excercise).

You can easily see what is going on if you piece these stories together
with the proliferating bunker stories, the LAPD story (Drudge),  and the
stories of CEOs bailing to, "be with their kids."   Then if you get
really brave (which these gutless *s are not) you can pay attention
to what Secretary Cohen has said just in the last two weeks.  In
aggregate, it all forms a pattern and sends a uniform message.

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Scot » Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:00:00




> > So, I'd have to question why you're going out of your way to 1) dredge up Old
> > News, and 2) attempt to discredit it by demonization of the *reporter*, when the
> > facts should be readily verifiable to anyone who chooses to take the effort.

> > <church_lady>
> > Could it be that you have...an *agenda*???
> > </church_lady>

> The people that doubt WND inevitably don't like the message.  It's that
> simple.

Oh, bullshit. I believe that you two have gotten so rigid and strident
in your Y2k views that your thinking has become polarized on the
subject. Not everyone who doesn't trust WND has a polly agenda, nor is
everyone who distrusts WND fearful of the Y2k warnings that WND offers.

*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false. Caton
offered immediate corroborating evidence to support his position, posted
that information on his company's website and in this very newsgroup,
and posted an open letter to Joseph Farrah, inviting Farrah to issue a
retraction - and yet WND/Farrah failed to substantiate the WND story
with any evidence of their/his own *OR* issue a retraction.

Before this incident, I used to read WND on a regular basis; now, I
refuse to read it at all and tend to dismiss any USENET posting which
references a WND atory as supporting evidence for their views with
extreme prejudice. IMO, WND has proven themselves to be worse than
unreliable - they are irresponsible and very liberal in regards to the
truthfulness of their "reporting". It has NOTHING to do with "lik(ing)
the message" (although the very fact that there are people out there who
*DO* "like the message" that WND is sending, in regards to Y2k, speaks
volumes in and of itself - but that is another can of worms altogether);
it has EVERYTHING to do with demonstrable credibility.

Quote:> They nailed the National Guard stories with insider
> information, and the Guard even confirmed some of it (like the May comms
> excercise).

> You can easily see what is going on if you piece these stories together
> with the proliferating bunker stories, the LAPD story (Drudge),  and the
> stories of CEOs bailing to, "be with their kids."   Then if you get
> really brave (which these gutless *s are not) you can pay attention
> to what Secretary Cohen has said just in the last two weeks.  In
> aggregate, it all forms a pattern and sends a uniform message.

Just because WND panders to those whom believe Y2k to be a serious event
does in no way legitimize the veracity of their particular brand of
"reporting". People can gather information from many more credible
sources which would lead them to believe that Y2k is a legitimate
problem, without having to resort to using WND as a source of somewhat
dubious information. *I* don't need to read WND to come to the
conclusion that Y2k is going to be a Bad Thing(tm); there are many other
more reputable sources I can draw from to reach that viewpoint, and when
all is said and done, I don't have the inclination nor the time to waste
on those entities whom have shown themselves to be free and easy with
the truth.

Your Mileage May Vary.

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Scot » Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:00:00






> >> > So, I'd have to question why you're going out of your way to 1) dredge up Old
> >> > News, and 2) attempt to discredit it by demonization of the *reporter*, when the
> >> > facts should be readily verifiable to anyone who chooses to take the effort.

> >> > <church_lady>
> >> > Could it be that you have...an *agenda*???
> >> > </church_lady>

> >> The people that doubt WND inevitably don't like the message.  It's that
> >> simple.

> >Oh, bullshit. I believe that you two have gotten so rigid and strident
> >in your Y2k views that your thinking has become polarized on the
> >subject. Not everyone who doesn't trust WND has a polly agenda, nor is
> >everyone who distrusts WND fearful of the Y2k warnings that WND offers.

> I take it you didn't bother *reading* the actual article in question, since it
> *did* name names of people and companies.

No, I did not read this latest offering from WND, as it is my somewhat
cynical view in dealing with reporting entities that "once a liar,
always a liar". I take it *YOU* didn't actually read EVERYTHING I said,
as I SPECIFICALLY stated:

"*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false."

It matters not if names and companies are given, if the material
attributed to such names by WND is pure, un*erated horseshit.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
> >Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
> >Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
> >Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

> >Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
> >in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false. Caton
> >offered immediate corroborating evidence to support his position, posted
> >that information on his company's website and in this very newsgroup,
> >and posted an open letter to Joseph Farrah, inviting Farrah to issue a
> >retraction - and yet WND/Farrah failed to substantiate the WND story
> >with any evidence of their/his own *OR* issue a retraction.

> Uh, he *denied* it, but he didn't "debunk" it.  And, others challenged *his*
> claims, and he didn't counter them.  He made a lot of sound and fury about a
> lawsuit, then slunk away in silence.

Let's see - among other things, Greg Caton:

* Vehemently denied, in it's entirety, the fact that Lumen Foods had
it's assets seized.

* Provided the telephone number for the Lumen Foods loan officer at
Hibernia National Bank, so that people could independently verify that
no Lumen Foods assets had been seized.

*Provided the full context of what was said between himself and Mike
Adams, who at the time of the article's posting was a Y2KNewswire
reporter. Mike Adams was the person who allegedly reported the knowledge
of the seized Lumen funds to WND while working as a WND reporter, and
who later allegedly stated that all he did was make some minimal
observations to Farah via e-mail.

"Slunk away in silence"? When you have denied the event ever happened
and provided corroborating evidence to that fact, what more can be done
constructively, short of a lawsuit and having your day in court?

Quote:

> Say, how is that lawsuit coming anyway?

I have no idea; however, knowing how long it takes to get a civil
lawsuit to trial, I doubt that the lawsuit has seen a courtroom as of
yet. Maybe you should ask Greg Lumen.

However, even if Lumen Foods, for whatever reason, chose to back off
from its lawsuit threat, I would still personally believe that WND lied
in its reporting - simply from the specifics that Lumen provided.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >Before this incident, I used to read WND on a regular basis; now, I
> >refuse to read it at all and tend to dismiss any USENET posting which
> >references a WND atory as supporting evidence for their views with
> >extreme prejudice. IMO, WND has proven themselves to be worse than
> >unreliable - they are irresponsible and very liberal in regards to the
> >truthfulness of their "reporting". It has NOTHING to do with "lik(ing)
> >the message" (although the very fact that there are people out there who
> >*DO* "like the message" that WND is sending, in regards to Y2k, speaks
> >volumes in and of itself - but that is another can of worms altogether);
> >it has EVERYTHING to do with demonstrable credibility.

> Let's see... they do a piece that one guy claims is false, he makes a lot of
> noise about a lawsuit, then disappears, end of *that* story, and now, they do
> *another* piece rife with names and details, and you're going to discount it
> without so much as reading it on the basis of your contempt for the *earlier*
> incident?

WND gave sufficient cause to show as to why their collective reporting
was suspect in the case of Lumen Foods. WND failed to provide any
substantial proof as to the legitimacy of their reporting concerning
Lumen Foods when called on it, nor did they take the opportunity to
issue a retraction.

The Lumen piece was *also* rife with names and details, which in the
case of Greg Caton and Lumen Foods were exposed as suspect at best, and
outright lies at worst. I don't have the time to listen to, nor support,
those whom are arguably fraudulent in their practices. If someone has
proven themselves to be untrustworthy, I will not waste any future
attention on them unless and until they have conclusively demonstrated
that they are no longer engaging in such unworthy endeavors.

Quote:

> Thanks for letting us in on your unique perspective on the critical thought
> process.

No problem, Don. Not everyone seems to have the aversion to dishonesty
that some of us do.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> --
> This is not a real email address, nor a real name, so
> don't reply via email.

>                "Years don't roll over"
>                 "Ambiguity propagates"
>                         "WWSD"

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Scot » Wed, 04 Aug 1999 04:00:00


Don Joe - see signature wrote:

> On 2 Aug 1999 21:40:21 -0500, Scott <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >Don Joe - see signature wrote:

> >> On 2 Aug 1999 20:00:33 -0500, Scott <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> >Mark wrote:

> >> >> Don Joe - see signature wrote:

> >> >> > So, I'd have to question why you're going out of your way to 1) dredge up Old
> >> >> > News, and 2) attempt to discredit it by demonization of the *reporter*, when the
> >> >> > facts should be readily verifiable to anyone who chooses to take the effort.

> >> >> > <church_lady>
> >> >> > Could it be that you have...an *agenda*???
> >> >> > </church_lady>

> >> >> The people that doubt WND inevitably don't like the message.  It's that
> >> >> simple.

> >> >Oh, bullshit. I believe that you two have gotten so rigid and strident
> >> >in your Y2k views that your thinking has become polarized on the
> >> >subject. Not everyone who doesn't trust WND has a polly agenda, nor is
> >> >everyone who distrusts WND fearful of the Y2k warnings that WND offers.

> >> I take it you didn't bother *reading* the actual article in question, since it
> >> *did* name names of people and companies.

> >No, I did not read this latest offering from WND, as it is my somewhat
> >cynical view in dealing with reporting entities that "once a liar,
> >always a liar". I take it *YOU* didn't actually read EVERYTHING I said,
> >as I SPECIFICALLY stated:

> We've yet to establish the "once a liar" point, other than in your fevered
> imagination.

Says you, fuckwit. At least you are consistent...

> >"*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
> >Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
> >Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
> >Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

> >Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
> >in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false."

> "Denied" does not equal "debunked".  Unless, of course, you believe that our
> Glorious Leader is a virgin.

Strawman argument on your part (surprise, surprise). Greg Caton did
everything short of hauling Farah into a court of law (an option that is
in the works, if Greg Lumen is to be believed) to show that the WND
story was nothing but pure garbage. WND reported the story; the onus to
prove it's legitimacy falls on them - and they have been reluctant to do
so when called on it.

> >It matters not if names and companies are given, if the material
> >attributed to such names by WND is pure, unadulterated horseshit.

> Immaterial to the matter at hand, as the above is mere unsubstantiated
> accusation by someone who appears to have an axe to grind.  That's *you*, in
> case you're wondering, einstein.

Unsubstantiated? It would seem that WND would have a corner on that
particular market. "Axe to grind"? Not with WND, Spanky - I just happen
to have the opinion that they are loose with the truth in their
reporting, and therefore I refuse to read anything that comes from them.

- Show quoted text -

> >> >*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
> >> >Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
> >> >Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
> >> >Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

> >> >Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
> >> >in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false. Caton
> >> >offered immediate corroborating evidence to support his position, posted
> >> >that information on his company's website and in this very newsgroup,
> >> >and posted an open letter to Joseph Farrah, inviting Farrah to issue a
> >> >retraction - and yet WND/Farrah failed to substantiate the WND story
> >> >with any evidence of their/his own *OR* issue a retraction.

> >> Uh, he *denied* it, but he didn't "debunk" it.  And, others challenged *his*
> >> claims, and he didn't counter them.  He made a lot of sound and fury about a
> >> lawsuit, then slunk away in silence.

> >Let's see - among other things, Greg Caton:

> >* Vehemently denied, in it's entirety, the fact that Lumen Foods had
> >it's assets seized.

> >* Provided the telephone number for the Lumen Foods loan officer at
> >Hibernia National Bank, so that people could independently verify that
> >no Lumen Foods assets had been seized.

> >*Provided the full context of what was said between himself and Mike
> >Adams, who at the time of the article's posting was a Y2KNewswire
> >reporter. Mike Adams was the person who allegedly reported the knowledge
> >of the seized Lumen funds to WND while working as a WND reporter, and
> >who later allegedly stated that all he did was make some minimal
> >observations to Farah via e-mail.

> >"Slunk away in silence"? When you have denied the event ever happened
> >and provided corroborating evidence to that fact, what more can be done
> >constructively, short of a lawsuit and having your day in court?

> Yah yah yah yah yah whatever.

> Seems like I recall a bud of his contradicting him on *his* website, and
> confirming the WND story at the time.  Maybe they're not buds anymore.

Uh-huh - and I'm sure this "bud" of his posted some pretty compelling
evidence to this fact, right?

> Anyway, yeah, slunk away in silence.  Seems like he's been *damned* reluctant to
> raise his head here since then -- unlike the period *prior* to the event -- and
> the few times that he has, he hasn't been beating his chest like he did at the
> time.

I don't recall Caton "beating his chest" except in indignant rage over
being falsely accused by WND, and I have seen him post to this newsgroup
many times since then...

...all of which in no way whatsoever negates the position that WND lied
in regards to the WND story that Caton and Lumen Foods was involved in.

> If that doesn't boil down to "slinking away in silence", I'd like to know what
> does.

"Slinking away in silence" to me would be removing all references to the
episode from my website and discontinuing posting under my name in
c.s.y2k, never to be heard from again. Of course, I realize that more
...er, "radical" types pushing a set agenda might have a different
viewpoint on reality than other, more rational people would.

...which is not to say that I think you are a conspiricy-crazed
simpleton, Donno; in fact, I agree with many of your stated viewpoints.
WND just happens to be one that I disagree with you on, and until I am
shown why I am in error, we will continue to disagree.

> >> Say, how is that lawsuit coming anyway?

> >I have no idea; however, knowing how long it takes to get a civil
> >lawsuit to trial, I doubt that the lawsuit has seen a courtroom as of
> >yet. Maybe you should ask Greg Lumen.

> Maybe *you* should, since I don't really give a shit one way or the other.

Of course you don't, which is demonstrated by how you asked the question
"how is that lawsuit coming anyway?" in the first place.

> >However, even if Lumen Foods, for whatever reason, chose to back off
> >from its lawsuit threat, I would still personally believe that WND lied
> >in its reporting - simply from the specifics that Lumen provided.

> Yah yah yah yah yah.

> You make a convincing argument.

> For birth control.

Ohhhhhh, a PERSONAL slam now, rather than refuting my position with
reasoning and logic? Wow - how PeeWee Herman-esque; I suppose the proper
response would be "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I". I'm sure a highly
educated person such as yourself is well aware that ad hominem attacks
are the last refuge of a person who perceives himself to be in
possession of a weak debating position.

That's ok, Sparky - I suppose it sucks to defend someone of an allegedly
questionable moral standing.

- Show quoted text -

> >> >Before this incident, I used to read WND on a regular basis; now, I
> >> >refuse to read it at all and tend to dismiss any USENET posting which
> >> >references a WND atory as supporting evidence for their views with
> >> >extreme prejudice. IMO, WND has proven themselves to be worse than
> >> >unreliable - they are irresponsible and very liberal in regards to the
> >> >truthfulness of their "reporting". It has NOTHING to do with "lik(ing)
> >> >the message" (although the very fact that there are people out there who
> >> >*DO* "like the message" that WND is sending, in regards to Y2k, speaks
> >> >volumes in and of itself - but that is another can of worms altogether);
> >> >it has EVERYTHING to do with demonstrable credibility.

> >> Let's see... they do a piece that one guy claims is false, he makes a lot of
> >> noise about a lawsuit, then disappears, end of *that* story, and now, they do
> >> *another* piece rife with names and details, and you're going to discount it
> >> without so much as reading it on the basis of your contempt for the *earlier*
> >> incident?

> >WND gave sufficient cause to show as to why their collective reporting
> >was suspect in the case of Lumen Foods. WND failed to provide any
> >substantial proof as to the legitimacy of their reporting concerning
> >Lumen Foods when called on it, nor did they take the opportunity to
> >issue a retraction.

> Huh?

> They stood by the facts as-presented, they did not bow down to a few idle
> threats, and last time I checked, their article was still available, unchanged,
> in their archives.

Yes - and the article itself is devoid of ANY verifiable data
whatsoever. Why change something, thereby giving the impression that you
may be in the wrong? I mean, really; if you are going to do something
that is allegedly dishonest and below-board, at least stick with your
story - right?

> To you, that means that their reporting is suspect?  Hahahahah, what a card.

No, that in and of itself is non-indicative, one way or the ...

read more »

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Scot » Wed, 04 Aug 1999 04:00:00


Don Joe - see signature wrote:

> Hit a nerve, did I?

In your wildest dreams, Donny...

> Tch tch.

> On 3 Aug 1999 03:08:03 -0500, Scott <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

<SNIP for brevity>

>            ~~~~~~~
> 1.

> >> >"*I* don't trust WND because, in their article entitled "Banks seizing
> >> >Y2K supplier funds" which ran on April 14, 1999, WND *did* (to quote Don
> >> >Joe) "in fact name names, both of people, and companies" - specifically
> >> >Greg Caton (person), founder of Lumen Foods (company).

> >> >Unfortunately for WND, Greg Caton debunked the Lumen Foods involvement
> >> >in the story, stating unequivocally that it was absolutely false."

> >> "Denied" does not equal "debunked".  Unless, of course, you believe that our
> >> Glorious Leader is a virgin.

> >Strawman argument on your part (surprise, surprise). Greg Caton did
> >everything short of hauling Farah into a court of law (an option that is
> >in the works, if Greg Lumen is to be believed) to show that the WND
> >story was nothing but pure garbage. WND reported the story; the onus to
> >prove it's legitimacy falls on them - and they have been reluctant to do
> >so when called on it.

> Everything short of?  Hmm, IIRC, he said he was indeed in the process of
> litigating it.  Did he reconsider that action?  If so, I guess I'll have to take
> your (educated?) word on that, as I cannot recollect him updating the newsgroup
> on the change of course.

Inasmuch as I have seen no update or confirmation of a lawsuit on the
part of Lumen Foods against WND, yes - "short of a lawsuit" is most
appropriate in the current context.

You might want to have an adult read the contents of this thread to you,
so as to be able to follow along somewhat easier.

> >> >It matters not if names and companies are given, if the material
> >> >attributed to such names by WND is pure, unadulterated horseshit.

> >> Immaterial to the matter at hand, as the above is mere unsubstantiated
> >> accusation by someone who appears to have an axe to grind.  That's *you*, in
> >> case you're wondering, einstein.

> >Unsubstantiated? It would seem that WND would have a corner on that
> >particular market. "Axe to grind"? Not with WND, Spanky - I just happen
> >to have the opinion that they are loose with the truth in their
> >reporting, and therefore I refuse to read anything that comes from them.

> Ignorance is bliss, eh?  So why do you seem so unhappy?

You are projecting - but then again, that is to be expected on your
part.

<more SNIP>

> >> >"Slunk away in silence"? When you have denied the event ever happened
> >> >and provided corroborating evidence to that fact, what more can be done
> >> >constructively, short of a lawsuit and having your day in court?

> >> Yah yah yah yah yah whatever.

> >> Seems like I recall a bud of his contradicting him on *his* website, and
> >> confirming the WND story at the time.  Maybe they're not buds anymore.

> >Uh-huh - and I'm sure this "bud" of his posted some pretty compelling
> >evidence to this fact, right?

> Guess.

Ummmmmmm... ok(?)

I guess you really told me. Tell me - do you find your inability to give
specific answers to direct questions put to you a particularly admirable
quality in yourself? Has it served you well in your interactions with
those around you? Does mommy still speak for you at social gatherings?

> >> Anyway, yeah, slunk away in silence.  Seems like he's been *damned* reluctant to
> >> raise his head here since then -- unlike the period *prior* to the event -- and
> >> the few times that he has, he hasn't been beating his chest like he did at the
> >> time.

> >I don't recall Caton "beating his chest" except in indignant rage over
> >being falsely accused by WND, and I have seen him post to this newsgroup
> >many times since then...

> How many?  Prior to that he was what might be called a "regular poster".  Since
> then, his traffic seems to have dwindled considerably.  Not counting posts from
> sock puppets like you, that is.

Are you insinuating something, fuckwit? (4)

Wow - I have been here off and on for the last 20-odd months, and I
don't remember Caton posting all that often - then again, it could be
that he was just an unremarkable poster. I didn't really take notice of
him until this whole WND thing happened.

> >...all of which in no way whatsoever negates the position that WND lied
> >in regards to the WND story that Caton and Lumen Foods was involved in.

> Ah, the *position*!  Moderating our rhetoric, are we?  I wonder why?

"Moderating our rhetoric"? How so, Donno? Your position is that WND did
nothing wrong in regards to it's story about Lumen Foods (correct me if
my perception is in any way unfair to you), and my position is that
after after viewing the steps taken by Lumen foods, I believe that the
WND story about Lumen was absolutely false.

Show me where I have moderated my position.

> >> If that doesn't boil down to "slinking away in silence", I'd like to know what
> >> does.

> >"Slinking away in silence" to me would be removing all references to the
> >episode from my website and discontinuing posting under my name in
>                                                          ~~~~~~~
> What was I just saying about "sock puppets"?

> Shit, yer a hoot, Greg!  Er, "Scott".

Bah-hahahahahah! You "ARE" saying something - and you are absolutely
100% *WRONG*; then again, that's part of your quasi-charm. Ye-GODS,
Donno! Conspiracies ABOUND, ev'r-whar' ye LOOK!

LOL! Yes, Spanky; if I were Greg Caton, "slinking away in silence" would
entail removing all references from MY website and discontinuing posting
under MY name. Which part of this amazingly simple concept are you
having difficulty grasping, Junior?

> >c.s.y2k, never to be heard from again. Of course, I realize that more
> >...er, "radical" types pushing a set agenda might have a different
> >viewpoint on reality than other, more rational people would.

> Uh, please clean up the mess from your gored ox when you're finished, Mr.
> "Rational".

Again, says you.

> >...which is not to say that I think you are a conspiricy-crazed
> >simpleton, Donno; in fact, I agree with many of your stated viewpoints.
> >WND just happens to be one that I disagree with you on, and until I am
> >shown why I am in error, we will continue to disagree.

> No wonder you think you agree with me, you think I'm Mr. Scott, "Scott"!  I'm
> actually "donjoe".  Donno is someone entirely different, "Scott".

I'm perfectly aware of who Don Scott is and who YOU are, Donno - hence
my earlier reference to "investigative reporter/John Doe/Don Joe". I
know that YOUR csy2k persona is Don Joe, resident Doomer/Y2k preparation
advocate, just as I know that Don Scott's persona is that of a confirmed
polly - neither of which is to be confused with the csy2k persona of D.
Scott Sector. There is no confusing you with them...

> >> >> Say, how is that lawsuit coming anyway?

> >> >I have no idea; however, knowing how long it takes to get a civil
> >> >lawsuit to trial, I doubt that the lawsuit has seen a courtroom as of
> >> >yet. Maybe you should ask Greg Lumen.

> >> Maybe *you* should, since I don't really give a shit one way or the other.

> >Of course you don't, which is demonstrated by how you asked the question
> >"how is that lawsuit coming anyway?" in the first place.

> Not to digress, but exactly how *is* your^H^H^H^H "the" lawsuit coming anyway,
> "Scott"?

ROTFLMAO!

As I said, I have no idea. You seems extremely interested in it's
progress (despite your rather pointed claims to the contrary); why don't
you write Greg Caton and ask him yourself - or would you rather simply
ignore my question and try to slide by on inference and innuendo?

> >> >However, even if Lumen Foods, for whatever reason, chose to back off
> >> >from its lawsuit threat, I would still personally believe that WND lied
> >> >in its reporting - simply from the specifics that Lumen provided.

> >> Yah yah yah yah yah.

> >> You make a convincing argument.

> >> For birth control.

> >Ohhhhhh, a PERSONAL slam now, rather than refuting my position with

> Hmm, that would be, what?  Something other than calling you "fuckwit" three

                                                          ^^^

> times in one breathless posting?

Oh, I see, "Scott"  ...er, "Don Joe"! Gave yourself away like "Scott"
did earlier...  ...no, wait, I'm "Scott" and you're "Don Scott";  ...er,
no that's not right - wow, just who are we again?

> >reasoning and logic? Wow - how PeeWee Herman-esque; I suppose the proper
> >response would be "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I". I'm sure a highly
> >educated person such as yourself is well aware that ad hominem attacks
> >are the last refuge of a person who perceives himself to be in
> >possession of a weak debating position.

> >That's ok, Sparky - I suppose it sucks to defend someone of an allegedly
> >questionable moral standing.

> I think you're capable of supposing that, given your recent spate of defenses.

Only be way of example via your antics, Sparky. No one can hold a candle
to your powers of rationalization...

<even MORE SNIP>

- Show quoted text -

> >> >WND gave sufficient cause to show as to why their collective reporting
> >> >was suspect in the case of Lumen Foods. WND failed to provide any
> >> >substantial proof as to the legitimacy of their reporting concerning
> >> >Lumen Foods when called on it, nor did they take the opportunity to
> >> >issue a retraction.

> >> Huh?

> >> They stood by the facts as-presented, they did not bow down to a few idle
> >> threats, and last time I checked, their article was still available, unchanged,
> >> in their archives.

> >Yes - and the article itself is devoid of ANY verifiable data
> >whatsoever. Why change something, thereby giving the impression that you
> >may be in the wrong? I mean, really; if

...

read more »

 
 
 

"Army prepares for Y2K food crisis"

Post by Scot » Wed, 04 Aug 1999 04:00:00




> 535 lines of OCD.

> Sad, *ing sad...

> [megachop]

> >You might want to have an * read the contents of this thread to you,

> Something you've been unable to provide yourself, child.

Absolutely correct; I could find no * willing to read to such a
petulant adolescent such as yourself - but truth be told, I really
didn't look that hard. Don't get discouraged just yet, L'il One.

Quote:

> Question: why does "Scott" sound like "Terry '*' Austin"?

> Answer: they both make the same pleasant music:

Wait; I thought you said that *I* sounded like Greg Caton and *you*
sounded like Don Scott...

Quote:

> *plonk*

[Translation] - I win. Not that the issue was ever in doubt...

Quote:

> Enjoy the company, moron.

Anything to make it easier on your delicate feelings, flower. I'm what -
about the 10th person you've killfiled in the last 4 weeks? LOL!

Oh, that's right - you can't read this 'cause I'm in your KILLFILE
<*dramatic pause*>. Ah, well - another day, another doormat...

Quote:

> --
> This is not a real email address, nor a real name, so
> don't reply via email.

>                "Years don't roll over"
>                 "Ambiguity propagates"
>                         "WWSD"