| |
Main
Date: 08 Oct 2006 21:13:38
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Newsgroups NEVER need net nannies! The only way to handle trolls, spammers
and stalkers is never to respond to them. However, those that do respond
need not bother anyone else either. The best filter ever invented is the one
in our own minds. I can tell in a split second whether I want to read a
message or not and also whether I want to respond or not. The mere fact of
their presence should never bother anyone in the slightest.
Yet there is always some fool who wants to kill-file and/or report and to
urge others to do the same. You wonder if such types were born yesterday.
The very best thing that such fools could do is to leave the group. They
clearly do not belong.
All newsgroups are basically made up of dumbbells who have about an 8th
grade education. So what do you expect? If and when you ever get an
intelligent post on anything, just be grateful. Even one so Great as Myself
cannot hit a home run every time I come to bat.
All newsgroups need tolerance for every kind of fool that mankind is capable
of producing. Hells Bells, I don't even bother to read 95% of all posts to
any newsgroup. It pays to be very selective about how you spend your time on
a newsgroup, especially when you get to be my age and you do not have much
time left to waste.
The only kind of fool who ever needs to be reported are those who threaten
violence or who urge others to violence. Such miscreants should be reported
to your local police and to the FBI so that there is at least a record of
it.
If I were any of you, I would just read the messages of the Great Ed Dolan
and not bother with anyone else. That way your time will be well spend and
you will reap many rewards, both in this world and in the world to come -
since I am also a Great Saint.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:02:33
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160573900.173614.237690@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
> > field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
> > baud modem,
>
> If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
> KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.
I stand corrected. I just redid the math and you have about two years
on me. The very first modems go way back into the 50's and were first
used in military applications followed shortly thereafter by the
airline industry. Fortunately, acoustic couplers were on the wane when
I first got connected. In the mid 80's things really heated up. I
recall the transition from 300 - 900 - 1.2kbps - 2.4kbps - 9.6kbps.
The 90's brought us 14.4kbps - 19.2kbps and digital phones ushered in
even faster speeds from increased bandwidth and still faster speeds ...
28.8 kbps - 33.6kbps, but soon after we reached the upper limit for
phone line transmission capacity ... 56kbps and believe it or not, I'm
still using that and for the most par r it suffices for my needs, since
I don't do huge uploads and downloads. Besides I am on the outer
fringe of the distance limitation from my telcom switching station so
DSL performance is not stellar and I still use Win98 and my local cable
company doesn't support cable internet on Win98, so I'll just sit tight
for a little while longer.
Jim McNaa
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:54:57
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160573900.173614.237690@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
> > field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
> > baud modem,
>
> If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
> KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.
I stand corrected. I just redid the math and you have about two years
on me. The very first modems go way back into the 50's and were first
used in military applications followed shortly thereafter by the
airline industry. Fortunately, acoustic couplers were on the wane when
I first got connected. In the mid 80's things really heated up. I
recall the transition from 300 - 900 - 1.2kbps - 2.4kbps - 9.6kbps.
The 90's brought us 14.4kbps - 19.2kbps and digital phones ushered in
even faster speeds from increased bandwidth and still faster speeds ...
28.8 kbps - 33.6kbps, but soon after we reached the upper limit for
phone line transmission capacity ... 56kbps.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:38:20
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160527495.588323.280770@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > Considering your explanation, you should know better than to respond to
> the
> > > troll in the first place but continued to do so.
>
> The same applies.
>
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
I presume that your terse reply referred to your advice which I have
indicated several times was not requested, required or welcome??? As
a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
baud modem, I fail to comprehend why you would assume that I am in need
your guidance. I am not!. For some peculiar reason, you seem to
believe that you are in a position to mandate what others should or
should not do and unrealistically expect everyone to heed your every
word. Good luck with that. You persist in offering advice when you
are asked not to. These are all traits that you share in common with
Ed Dolan!
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:10:27
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160573900.173614.237690@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>As a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
> field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
> baud modem,
If you've got 38 years in, you should go all the way back to 110 modems and
KSR-33's. I'll grant you that was not on the internet, however.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:37:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160573900.173614.237690@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160527495.588323.280770@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > > Considering your explanation, you should know better than to respond
>> > > to
>> the
>> > > troll in the first place but continued to do so.
>>
>> The same applies.
>
> I presume that your terse reply referred to your advice which I have
> indicated several times was not requested, required or welcome??? As
> a retiree IT specialist with 38+ years of experience in the computing
> field, who has been on the internet when connectivity was via a 300
> baud modem, I fail to comprehend why you would assume that I am in need
> your guidance. I am not!
Still, it is a mystery to me and many others why you do not use a good
newsreader instead of the Google website. Try Outlook Express (Microsoft)
for instance if your ISP supports it. It works just great for me.
For some peculiar reason, you seem to
> believe that you are in a position to mandate what others should or
> should not do and unrealistically expect everyone to heed your every
> word. Good luck with that. You persist in offering advice when you
> are asked not to. These are all traits that you share in common with
> Ed Dolan!
>
> Jim McNaa
Never fear Jim, I will take on this Erskine character from Australia with
relish. I will try to teach him what a troll is and what a troll is not. For
that, I will need the example of your good former friend Ed Gin (Johnny
NoCom) whose despicable posts to ARBR have been preserved for all eternity
on the Google archives.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:44:55
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160490121.397881.233340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The troll (Ed Dolan) has only been posting to the aus. groups for a short
> time (weeks) and he hadn't been mentioned here before.
>
> Considering your explanation, you should know better than to respond to the
> troll in the first place but continued to do so.
>
> Alan Erskine
> Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
Alan,
When are you you going to adjust your tone? You should know from our
private email exchange that I don't much appreciate the attitude and it
certainly won't get you whatever it is you want, so you best lighten
up. Remeber I am not the enemy here ... Ed Doan is.
Ed Dolan may be new to you and the aus. gropups, but with 8422 posts
spread over 25 groups (at last count) he is hardly new to Usenset
newsgroups. If you read my post...
Ed Dolan ... Portrait of a TROLL!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/a9577f8f1619c169?hl=en
you should realize that I have a very good grasp of the issue and am
not in need of advice or a lecture from you. Whether I respond to Ed
Dolan or not is my concern ... not yours. Whereas I agree that it
would be best not to respond to Ed, it my decision to make not yours to
make for me. Perhaps you missed this post since unlike Ed I don't
cross post posts that I originate. I suggest that you give it a
read...
Open message to Alan Erskine and the NEW troll
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/116d6c881f373d33?hl=en
You should be pleased to note that my posts have subsided, but as I
said in our private email exchange, I will graciously withdraw of my
own accord ... on my own terms ... in my own time. I cannot and will
not be bullied by you or Ed Dolan. Threats will neither encourage nor
hastened my departure. I don't intimidate easily.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 02:53:16
From: Alan Erskine
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160527495.588323.280770@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Considering your explanation, you should know better than to respond to
the
> > troll in the first place but continued to do so.
The same applies.
--
Alan Erskine
Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 07:22:01
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160464002.961697.31960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >The only other person whom I ever killfiled
> > (added to my block sender list) was Ed Dolan and I removed him long
> > ago.
>
> So, he had already been in your kill file? Where do you know him from?
>
>
> --
> Alan Erskine
> Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
This will be a longer answer than you expected and for that Ed Dolan
may chastixe, but I couldn't care less. Allow me to clarify. I meant
email not newsreader killfile. I know HEAD Dolan the GRATE , Our Lady
of Perpetual Sorryasses the same way that most people have come to
learn of him ... by encountering him here on Usenet newsgroups. I once
had an email exchange with him. I even called him on the phone to
assist successfully in the removal of a trojan from his PC and also
recommended numerous security applications to keep his PC safe and
sound in the future. That was all before Ed went nutso crazy on me and
challenged me to engage him openly on ARBR. Ed arguably has demons
that need to be exorcised by a professional therapist, but he's no
dummy. Nonetheless, I don't consider him all that formidable of a
challenge in the debating arena. I do, however, consider the time
spent doing so to have been a wasted effort since Ed is NEVER wong
about anything even when he knows nothing about what he is babbling
about. When he is cornered, he will stubbornly reply with regurgitated
cut and paste nonsense just to get the last word in. He is difficult
to discourage and is easily encouraged, but that's the nature of a
TROLL, something he has bot admitted to being, and denied being, and
also admitted to with qualification (good troll .... an oxymoron). One
thing I will not argue with Ed about is revealed in his own words ..."I
frankly do not have the slightest idea what newsgroups are all about. I
am merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create
some mayhem. I am superfluous. Think of me as the buffoon of ARBR and
you will not be far wrong." I concur wholeheartedly.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:14:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160490121.397881.233340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160464002.961697.31960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >The only other person whom I ever killfiled
>> > (added to my block sender list) was Ed Dolan and I removed him long
>> > ago.
>>
>> So, he had already been in your kill file? Where do you know him from?
>
> This will be a longer answer than you expected and for that Ed Dolan
> may chastixe, but I couldn't care less. Allow me to clarify. I meant
> email not newsreader killfile. I know HEAD Dolan the GRATE , Our Lady
> of Perpetual Sorryasses the same way that most people have come to
> learn of him ... by encountering him here on Usenet newsgroups. I once
> had an email exchange with him. I even called him on the phone to
> assist successfully in the removal of a trojan from his PC and also
> recommended numerous security applications to keep his PC safe and
> sound in the future.
I was and am grateful to Jim for helping me out with my computer problems.
That was all before Ed went nutso crazy on me and
> challenged me to engage him openly on ARBR. Ed arguably has demons
> that need to be exorcised by a professional therapist, but he's no
> dummy. Nonetheless, I don't consider him all that formidable of a
> challenge in the debating arena. I do, however, consider the time
> spent doing so to have been a wasted effort since Ed is NEVER wong
> about anything even when he knows nothing about what he is babbling
> about. When he is cornered, he will stubbornly reply with regurgitated
> cut and paste nonsense just to get the last word in. He is difficult
> to discourage and is easily encouraged, but that's the nature of a
> TROLL, something he has bot admitted to being, and denied being, and
> also admitted to with qualification (good troll .... an oxymoron). One
> thing I will not argue with Ed about is revealed in his own words ..."I
> frankly do not have the slightest idea what newsgroups are all about. I
> am merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create
> some mayhem. I am superfluous. Think of me as the buffoon of ARBR and
> you will not be far wrong." I concur wholeheartedly.
After Jim helped me out with my computer problem he got engaged with Tom
Sherman on ARBR on the blog issues and I criticized him via email for being
a longwinded bore. He has never recovered from this rather modest criticism
of him. That is because he goes through life with a chip on his shoulder,
never even realizing it is there.
It is really rather sad as I KNOW Jim is not a bad character. Hells Bells,
he is just a longwinded bore and that is by no means the worst thing you can
be in life. For that, I give you Ed Gin, a criminal vandal troll of the very
worst kind. I wish Alan Erskine would look him up on the ARBR archives under
the name Johnny NoCom to learn what a troll is and how destructive they can
be to a small newsgroup like ARBR.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:33:48
From: Alan Erskine
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160490121.397881.233340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The troll (Ed Dolan) has only been posting to the aus. groups for a short
time (weeks) and he hadn't been mentioned here before.
Considering your explanation, you should know better than to respond to the
troll in the first place but continued to do so.
--
Alan Erskine
Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:24:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com > wrote in message
news:0QQWg.45066$rP1.13499@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160490121.397881.233340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The troll (Ed Dolan) has only been posting to the aus. groups for a short
> time (weeks) and he hadn't been mentioned here before.
[...]
This is not true. I formerly posted to AB some time ago, trying to discover
if the Flying Dutchman was an aborigine or not. Also, I think Tamyka Bell
may be an aborigine too since her mind works in mysterious ways. I do not
understand why the rest of you on AB do not tell me the facts on these two
characters.
I would like to rest peacefully in my grave, but how can I when I do not
know for sure if the Flying Dutchman and Tamyka Bell are aborigines or not!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:06:43
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Bleve wrote:
> Alan Erskine wrote:
> > "Bleve" <carl.I.brewer@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160432898.477103.299040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Erskine, why do you bother? Chase this one away, and another will come
> > > along. Don't you have a life? Go ride your bike or something.
> >
> > Haven't chased just one away - there's been three this week.
>
> *sigh*
Don't wast your time. This self-appointed net-cop can't even count. I
presume that he is referring to Ed Dolan, myself and the irresponsible
coward who posted the addresses and phone numbers. Now Ed Dolan has
admitted to being a "good" troll which is an oxymoron, and am a
determined adversary of Ed's who will soon retire from it all, but an
adversary does not a troll make. The new troll that cross posted the
addresses and phone numbers might not actually qualify as a troll since
he was a one shot wonder, but we''ll just have to wait and see. So, by
my count that reduces things to 1 troll (Ed Dolan) and one net-nanny
(Alan Erskine). After failed attempts to reason with Alan who
threatened me in private emails much the same as he has threatened Ed
in public forums, I told Alan in a private email ... 1) Usenet
newsgroups are unmoderated forums, 2) no one requested him to be
moderator, 3) no one appointed him to be moderator and 4) he cannot
usurp the position or role of moderator and then I informed him that he
had the distinct honor of being the only person to earn a place of
residence in my killfile. The only other person whom I ever killfiled
(added to my block sender list) was Ed Dolan and I removed him long
ago. Don't waste your time with Alan. He fails to realize that
regardless of his intentions, he contributes to the problem a lesson we
all have to learn. In an open message to the gutless scoundrel who
posted the addresses and phone numbers, I said what I had to say to the
coward and the misguided net-nanny. I think I'll just sit back now and
watch the Ed & Alan show as though this were a spectator sport. Sounds
like a plan.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:55:00
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160464002.961697.31960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bleve wrote:
>> Alan Erskine wrote:
>> > "Bleve" <carl.I.brewer@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1160432898.477103.299040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > > Erskine, why do you bother? Chase this one away, and another will
>> > > come
>> > > along. Don't you have a life? Go ride your bike or something.
>> >
>> > Haven't chased just one away - there's been three this week.
>>
>> *sigh*
>
> Don't wast your time. This self-appointed net-cop can't even count. I
> presume that he is referring to Ed Dolan, myself and the irresponsible
> coward who posted the addresses and phone numbers. Now Ed Dolan has
> admitted to being a "good" troll which is an oxymoron, and am a
> determined adversary of Ed's who will soon retire from it all, but an
> adversary does not a troll make. The new troll that cross posted the
> addresses and phone numbers might not actually qualify as a troll since
> he was a one shot wonder, but we''ll just have to wait and see. So, by
> my count that reduces things to 1 troll (Ed Dolan) and one net-nanny
> (Alan Erskine). After failed attempts to reason with Alan who
> threatened me in private emails much the same as he has threatened Ed
> in public forums, I told Alan in a private email ... 1) Usenet
> newsgroups are unmoderated forums, 2) no one requested him to be
> moderator, 3) no one appointed him to be moderator and 4) he cannot
> usurp the position or role of moderator and then I informed him that he
> had the distinct honor of being the only person to earn a place of
> residence in my killfile. The only other person whom I ever killfiled
> (added to my block sender list) was Ed Dolan and I removed him long
> ago. Don't waste your time with Alan. He fails to realize that
> regardless of his intentions, he contributes to the problem a lesson we
> all have to learn. In an open message to the gutless scoundrel who
> posted the addresses and phone numbers, I said what I had to say to the
> coward and the misguided net-nanny. I think I'll just sit back now and
> watch the Ed & Alan show as though this were a spectator sport. Sounds
> like a plan.
>
> Jim McNaa
Excellent post Jim. I could not have said it better myself!
By the way, these kind of posts are really not off-topic at all. They are
what I consider to be essential house keeping posts. Every newsgroup needs
these kind of posts in order to keep their houses in order. I am performing
an extremely valuable service. The lot of you should be thankful that I
deign to stoop to even notice you, let alone to correct you in your deviant
juvenile behaviors.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 10:15:31
From: Alan Erskine
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"JimmyMac" <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160464002.961697.31960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>The only other person whom I ever killfiled
> (added to my block sender list) was Ed Dolan and I removed him long
> ago.
So, he had already been in your kill file? Where do you know him from?
--
Alan Erskine
Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 17:31:22
From: Bleve
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
> "Bleve" <carl.I.brewer@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160432898.477103.299040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Erskine, why do you bother? Chase this one away, and another will come
> > along. Don't you have a life? Go ride your bike or something.
>
> Haven't chased just one away - there's been three this week.
*sigh*
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:28:18
From: Bleve
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
> "Colin Nelson" <colin.nelson2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:DrqWg.17087$pa.12454@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > ?!?
>
> Edward Dolan is a troll and people are complaining to it's (the troll's)
> ISP - abuse@iw.net and info@prairiewave.com because of all his off-topic
> posts; he is about to get his account cancelled. Also, this troll isn't
> from Australia, despite what it has said in the past (check his ISP at
> www.prairiewave.com). If anyone has uk.rec.cycling on their server, please
> forward this on my behalf.
Erskine, why do you bother? Chase this one away, and another will come
along. Don't you have a life? Go ride your bike or something.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:28:21
From: Alan Erskine
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"Bleve" <carl.I.brewer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160432898.477103.299040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Erskine, why do you bother? Chase this one away, and another will come
> along. Don't you have a life? Go ride your bike or something.
Haven't chased just one away - there's been three this week.
--
Alan Erskine
Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 11:32:51
From: Colin Nelson
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:OKqdnX-jG_3LLbTYnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> Newsgroups NEVER need net nannies! The only way to handle trolls, spammers
> and stalkers is never to respond to them. However, those that do respond
> need not bother anyone else either. The best filter ever invented is the
one
> in our own minds. I can tell in a split second whether I want to read a
> message or not and also whether I want to respond or not. The mere fact of
> their presence should never bother anyone in the slightest.
>
> Yet there is always some fool who wants to kill-file and/or report and to
> urge others to do the same. You wonder if such types were born yesterday.
> The very best thing that such fools could do is to leave the group. They
> clearly do not belong.
>
> All newsgroups are basically made up of dumbbells who have about an 8th
> grade education. So what do you expect? If and when you ever get an
> intelligent post on anything, just be grateful. Even one so Great as
Myself
> cannot hit a home run every time I come to bat.
>
> All newsgroups need tolerance for every kind of fool that mankind is
capable
> of producing. Hells Bells, I don't even bother to read 95% of all posts to
> any newsgroup. It pays to be very selective about how you spend your time
on
> a newsgroup, especially when you get to be my age and you do not have much
> time left to waste.
>
> The only kind of fool who ever needs to be reported are those who threaten
> violence or who urge others to violence. Such miscreants should be
reported
> to your local police and to the FBI so that there is at least a record of
> it.
>
> If I were any of you, I would just read the messages of the Great Ed Dolan
> and not bother with anyone else. That way your time will be well spend and
> you will reap many rewards, both in this world and in the world to come -
> since I am also a Great Saint.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
?!?
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 15:18:04
From: Alan Erskine
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"Colin Nelson" <colin.nelson2@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:DrqWg.17087$pa.12454@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> ?!?
Edward Dolan is a troll and people are complaining to it's (the troll's)
ISP - abuse@iw.net and info@prairiewave.com because of all his off-topic
posts; he is about to get his account cancelled. Also, this troll isn't
from Australia, despite what it has said in the past (check his ISP at
www.prairiewave.com). If anyone has uk.rec.cycling on their server, please
forward this on my behalf.
--
Alan Erskine
Alanerskine1@bigpond.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:44:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com > wrote in message
news:MKtWg.44408$rP1.6005@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Colin Nelson" <colin.nelson2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:DrqWg.17087$pa.12454@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
>> ?!?
>
> Edward Dolan is a troll and people are complaining to it's (the troll's)
> ISP - abuse@iw.net and info@prairiewave.com because of all his off-topic
> posts; he is about to get his account cancelled. Also, this troll isn't
> from Australia, despite what it has said in the past (check his ISP at
> www.prairiewave.com). If anyone has uk.rec.cycling on their server,
> please
> forward this on my behalf.
Alan Erskine is the biggest net nanny to ever infest these cycling
newsgroups. He has been made to look ridiculous and a fool over and over,
but he never learns. Yea, he was truly born yesterday as he proves every
time he mutters something on Usenet.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 02:33:22
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Sure we do. It's full of Muslims here!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 06:43:27
From: bill
Subject: Re: Do newsgroups need net nannies?
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Newsgroups NEVER need net nannies! The only way to handle trolls, spammers
> and stalkers is never to respond to them. However, those that do respond
> need not bother anyone else either. The best filter ever invented is the one
> in our own minds. I can tell in a split second whether I want to read a
> message or not and also whether I want to respond or not. The mere fact of
> their presence should never bother anyone in the slightest.
>
> Yet there is always some fool who wants to kill-file and/or report and to
> urge others to do the same. You wonder if such types were born yesterday.
> The very best thing that such fools could do is to leave the group. They
> clearly do not belong.
>
> All newsgroups are basically made up of dumbbells who have about an 8th
> grade education. So what do you expect? If and when you ever get an
> intelligent post on anything, just be grateful. Even one so Great as Myself
> cannot hit a home run every time I come to bat.
>
> All newsgroups need tolerance for every kind of fool that mankind is capable
> of producing. Hells Bells, I don't even bother to read 95% of all posts to
> any newsgroup. It pays to be very selective about how you spend your time on
> a newsgroup, especially when you get to be my age and you do not have much
> time left to waste.
>
> The only kind of fool who ever needs to be reported are those who threaten
> violence or who urge others to violence. Such miscreants should be reported
> to your local police and to the FBI so that there is at least a record of
> it.
>
> If I were any of you, I would just read the messages of the Great Ed Dolan
> and not bother with anyone else. That way your time will be well spend and
> you will reap many rewards, both in this world and in the world to come -
> since I am also a Great Saint.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
Are you intentionally trying to self destruct?
Jeesh,
Give it a rest.
|
|
