Where is John Bulten?

[Joey Smith]

I thought that he would at least do us the courtesy of giving us his comments on the USA's response brief in the Pete Hendrickson case; quickly, before the court of appeals affirms it and quite possibly issues sanctions against Pete for a frivolous appeal.

Hell, Bulten hasn't even addressed it over at LostHeads. Seems like they've all put their heads in the sand over there and are afraid to discuss it point-by-point.

[LPC]

I thought that he would at least do us the courtesy [...]

Why?

Why would you assume that Bulten would provide any courtesy, or any decency, or any honesty whatsoever?

I think it's been clear from the get-go that Bulten was just another whore ready to bend over for whatever theory might justify his refusal to pay taxes. Why would you think anything else?

[Famspear]

CaptainKickback wrote:

Perhaps he [John Bulten] has been having some "come to Jesus" meetings with the IRS........

At this point, that could be an excellent tactical move for John.

[Famspear]

On a technical note, there's something I don't understand.

On losthorizons.com, regarding the thread entitled "Trolls" the main page for general forums shows the last entry as being by John Bulten on 29 August 2007 at 2:10:49 pm.

Yet, when I click on that, the last entry appears to be by Pete (admin) at 11:39:39 am (where he put his link to his revised "rules" to "clarify" things).

I don't see a posting by Bulten at all in this thread for today. What am I doing wrong?

[Disilloosianed]

He's reposted his "Trolls" thing....but is curiously quiet otherwise.

[Famspear]

Maybe Bulten's August 29 posting is in the form of the amendments to his June 3 post.

[Dr. Caligari]

On losthorizons.com, regarding the thread entitled "Trolls" the main page for general forums shows the last entry as being by John Bulten on 29 August 2007 at 2:10:49 pm.

On that board, if you go back and amend one of your prior posts, that amendment will be listed as the last entry, but the post you amended will be in its original place.

Bulten amended one of his prior posts (in which he had acknowledged that I was not a troll and was not banned) to recognize Pete's banning of me.

[Famspear]

Dr. Caligari wrote:

On that board, if you go back and amend one of your prior posts, that amendment will be listed as the last entry, but the post you amended will be in its original place.

Bulten amended one of his prior posts (in which he had acknowledged that I was not a troll and was not banned) to recognize Pete's banning of me.

OK, I see.

Regarding John ("Minor Blowhard") Bulten and Pete ("Major Blowhard") Hendrickson, can't you just see the wheels spinning now? In an unconscious or semi-conscious corner of Pete's brain somewhere, Pete's brain is saying to itself, "Damn all these little people who can't possibly properly and fully appreciate my greatness -- all these little people, these little people who post on my web site, with their own little tax theories. Why can't they just concentrate on me and on my greatness? And damn those government people. Oh, how did those government people beat me again like this?" In some unconscious or semi-conscious corner of John's brain, John's brain is saying to itself, "What have I done? I have hitched my wagon to this major blowhard loser! How can I erase the evidence and memory of everything I've ever written here, and at Quatloos? How do I back my way feet first out of this rabbit hole?"

[Joe Dirt]

Schmendrikson's Lost Horizons site boasts a "Legal Offense Fund" containing $40,434.11 as of 7/20/07.

D'ya think any of that will be used to help Bulten?

[LPC]

Bulten amended one of his prior posts (in which he had acknowledged that I was not a troll and was not banned) to recognize Pete's banning of me.

Bulten has since amended that post again to identify "Pachuco" as me, so he's reading messages here even if he's not writing any.

Also, I was wrong about having been banned twice. Looking at the list of banned "trolls," I remembered another me, so it's actually three times.

I'm still amazed that they can ban someone as a "troll" for posting something that is 100% relevant and verifiably and factually accurate. But the whole principle of CtC is assigning new meanings for words in order to make the IRC mean what you want, instead of what it says, so it's natural that they would also assign a new meaning to "troll."

[Joey Smith]

They've never been interested in the truth at LostHeads; they just want rah-rah sycophant cheerleaders thinking that there is safety in masses as they all go over the cliff together.

[silversopp]

Bulten's silence says a lot more than a post of his could.

[The Observer]

But the whole principle of CtC is assigning new meanings for words in order to make the IRC mean what you want, instead of what it says, so it's natural that they would also assign a new meaning to "troll."

Another moment of irony when you stop to consider that they are practicing the newspeak which they are always to quick to condemn the government for doing.