First, as far as any poop problems, if you are my doctor, that was a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality. If you are not, that is none of your business. As far as me being “negative”, go pound sand!!! I noticed that you skipped over much of my post because it was either positive or neutral!!!

Exactly what is “negative” about: “Nice guy??? Matter of opinion." ??? Isn’t that simply a FACT??? And I didn't even offer an opinion!!!

Exactly what is “negative” about: “Good food??? I do agree here!!! Also the only place left in town where one can get frog legs!!!”??? You can’t even recognize a compliment when you read one!!!

"illegal to have a lot of cash?

Depends!! Generally speaking, no, not illegal. But it is illegal if it is part of a gambling operation, drug operation, or proceeds of undeclared income. (This is just IMHO. I am not an attorney, nor am I accusing anyone of any of these things, or other illegal activities.)"

Sheesh!!! Spider posed a hypothetical question, and I answered it. Law enforcement agents confiscate cash in any number of potentially illegal situations. It is a FACT that, under certain circumstances it certainly IS ILLEGAL to have illegally acquired cash or unreported income on hand. I even went out of my way to say that this was just an opinion and that I was NOT referring to any particular situation. Now, if you can cite a controlling law or code that proves me wrong, I’ll acknowledge the error of my OPINION. If you want to disagree, you are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how stupid it may be.

I guess this goes back to some of my earlier posts. What’s the problem here??? I said that he didn’t own it in the late sixties, and that he did when we moved back in 1998. I also said “at least 10 years!” So “mid 80s” and “25 yrs”…yep, that would fit “at least 10 years," and it would make the start of his ownership fall somewhere between the “'late sixties' and '1998'”!!! So what EXACTLY are you trying to argue??? What the heck point are you trying to make??? That YOUR GUESS is closer than my factual range??? I won’t argue that. If I wanted to, I’d research it and find the exact year, but WHY??? Who cares??? Argue with someone else about that!!! When you said earlier that it had been 30 years, and I responded “30 years??? Has it been that long???” I was NOT disputing you. I was simply surprised that time had gone by so fast. I hadn’t been in the place from 1970 until 1998.

If you know him socially, you know him better than me.  (NOTE:  Don’t try to argue with me on this, I am agreeing with you!!!)

I’ve met him only once (that I am aware of) but I have been in many conversations with people who have known him for years--people who interact with him on a nearly day-to-day basis. My one meeting with him was a short business transaction. Before that day, I used to patronize his establishment about 3 to 5 times per week, and spent a lot of money, caused no trouble, always acted like a gentleman, and tippped well. After that, it became more like once a month. Once the two most popular bartenders (one of whom was the evening cook) left, I seldom have gone into the place at all. Socially, he may be a “nice guy” but his “customer relations” skills leave much to be desired.

YOU are the one being “NEGATIVE” here!!! Spider and I had a short, neutral, theoretical exchange on the subject of the legality of large amounts of cash on hand. YOU are “hoping” it “was JUST SKIM MONEY” and not something WORSE, and imply it is specifically about Mr. Wieser and you seem to be stipulating income tax fraud!!!

I’d say that he loves money a LOT too much, but that is only my personal opinion, and I am entitled to it. And yes, there are a lot of people who love money, both a little and a lot too much. There are also many who love money but do not put it above all else. I suggest we let that subject drop.

No, sir, if this man is your friend, I suggest that YOU “chill a little bit”, let it drop and challenge me no further on the matter. You are doing him no favors by attacking me with YOUR NEGATIVITY!!! I have tried to remain as neutral as possible on a matter that is a legitimate subject for public discussion. You may know Mr. Wieser better than I, but I doubt that you are as well-informed as I about most of the matters at hand.

Just for the record, for the rest of you, I am NOT anti-gambling, nor anti-drinking, nor any of that. People that actually know me, know that for an actual fact!!!