bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 03 Jun 2005 21:34:54 From: Ron Teplitz Subject: Hit gravel, broke leg I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street. The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about 12 mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and broke a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes. Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions? Experiences? Ron   Date: 08 Jun 2005 18:12:03 From: rmcaskey@comcast.net Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't > really useful concepts here. > > In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had up > to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. the only trike i ever rode at 70 mph was a converted harley davidson, and i didn't like the way IT handled. i've got 50 lbs on you and speed is my last consideration. i just want to be able to ride a respectable distance without being embarassed by having heart failure. i don't like the visual i get when i think about tipping my EZ3 at high speed. :-) tin caskey millers island, yland     Date: 09 Jun 2005 08:16:01 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/09/2005 02:12:03 "rmcaskey@comcast.net" <rmcaskey@comcast.net > wrote: > the only trike i ever rode at 70 mph was a converted harley davidson, and > i didn't like the way IT handled. I don't like the way 2 wheel Harleys handle, who does? -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk       Date: 09 Jun 2005 17:34:54 From: Mark Leuck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk > wrote in message news:69916.MKUYAWUX@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/09/2005 02:12:03 "rmcaskey@comcast.net" <rmcaskey@comcast.net> wrote: > > > the only trike i ever rode at 70 mph was a converted harley davidson, and > > i didn't like the way IT handled. > > I don't like the way 2 wheel Harleys handle, who does? > > -- > Buck > > I would rather be out on my Catrike > > http://www.catrike.co.uk You don't buy a Harley for performance and handling, it's all about image (no I don't own one nor do I ever want to own one)     Date: 09 Jun 2005 00:28:10 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg <rmcaskey@comcast.net > wrote in message news:1118279523.763271.107060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > Jeff Grippe wrote: >> C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't >> really useful concepts here. >> >> In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had >> up >> to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. > > the only trike i ever rode at 70 mph was a converted harley davidson, > and i didn't like the way IT handled. > > i've got 50 lbs on you and speed is my last consideration. i just want > to be able to ride a respectable distance without being embarassed by > having heart failure. i don't like the visual i get when i think about > tipping my EZ3 at high speed. > > :-) > > tin caskey > millers island, yland You are way ahead of the game tin. You have got a long wheel base delta and it is fairly heavy. Therefore, you will not have any pedal steer worth mentioning. You will also get great exercise and maybe lose some weight. On a delta, the steering is where it ought to be - up front on a single wheel. Pity those poor fools who spend several thousand on a tadpole trike, thereby getting an inferior design and pedal steer to boot - the worst of both worlds I would say! Anything on three wheels can be tipped if you try hard enough. Hells Bells! Anything on four wheels can be tipped if you try hard enough. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota   Date: 08 Jun 2005 05:29:22 From: DougC Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Ron Teplitz wrote: > I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my > Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down > fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street. > The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about > 12 mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and > broke a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes. > > Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a > wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions? > Experiences? > > Ron I have one SWB I bought about a year ago, and have test-rode a few other SWB's and other two-wheelers as well. I notice this too on mine, when I ride through somewhat-deep gravel the front wheel creeps/slides left-and-right, even though I hold the steering in a straight line. And this gravel would be NOTHING on a upright road or MTB, so I think it is caused by heavily-loaded small front wheels. On a couple test-rides, I have slightly felt the other recumbent bikes (that I did not buy) do the same thing. And of course braking makes that problem even worse. Also I notice that most-all recumbents (at least, the ones with small front wheels that I rode) could not be ridden hands-free. So I think a tiny front wheel just does not stabilize as well as a big wheel does. ,,,, And I kind of like the Rans crank-forwad bikes. But the first year they came out, they had a little 20" wheel on the front, but Rans changed that to a big wheel. Coincidence? I think not. ---- My SWB is a 20/26", by the by. ---- ....I would suggest a LWB or a CLWB, I want to buy another bent for guests to ride on but would not get another SWB for that, I would get a LWB or CLWB. The longer bikes feel much more stable overall, the SWB's are very jittery. Some people could get on mine and ride it quickly (with platform pedals on it) but they wandered around a lot, because of the lack of steering stability. ----- I think the "most-stable" recumbent would be a LWB with big wheels, 700's or 26's. At least one company makes one [I don't recall who, but I've seen their website ], maybe two companies doing it but not very many though. --Or, one could I suppose get a regular small-front-wheel LWB and try putting a long fork and big wheel on the front.... ? Some people do this to turn a "general-purpose" SWB into a high-racer.     Date: 08 Jun 2005 11:51:44 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg DougC wrote: > notice that most-all recumbents (at least, the ones with small front > wheels that I rode) could not be ridden hands-free. So I think a tiny > front wheel just does not stabilize as well as a big wheel does. I think it's probably more to do with fork trail than directly with wheel size. > that, I would get a LWB or CLWB. The longer bikes feel much more stable > overall, the SWB's are very jittery. Though the longer wheelbase machines I've ridden have been /more/ stable, that's not the same as SWB machines being problematically unstable by design IME. I've ridden very jittery ones and many very much less jittery ones. Having ridden a Speedmachine with two different handlebar styles on an otherwise identical bike I know that jitter can be caused in part by the rider and how they personally interface with the cycle: I don't get on that well with tiller steering, but I know that's me rather than the system being fundamentally hopeless. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 08 Jun 2005 17:44:58 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3go0p9Fdg8mrU1@individual.net... > DougC wrote: > >> notice that most-all recumbents (at least, the ones with small front >> wheels that I rode) could not be ridden hands-free. So I think a tiny >> front wheel just does not stabilize as well as a big wheel does. > > I think it's probably more to do with fork trail than directly with wheel > size. > >> that, I would get a LWB or CLWB. The longer bikes feel much more stable >> overall, the SWB's are very jittery. > > Though the longer wheelbase machines I've ridden have been /more/ stable, > that's not the same as SWB machines being problematically unstable by > design IME. I've ridden very jittery ones and many very much less jittery > ones. Having ridden a Speedmachine with two different handlebar styles on > an otherwise identical bike I know that jitter can be caused in part by > the rider and how they personally interface with the cycle: I don't get on > that well with tiller steering, but I know that's me rather than the > system being fundamentally hopeless. Beware of those who think it is the rider who is at fault when a bike does not perform as promised. The fact is that LWB is a much better design overall than is SWB. This is the universal experience of all those who know both types of recumbents. But let's face it, after you have spent a couple of thousand for a SWB, you are going to defend your purchase no matter what. Tiller steering is a non-issue and even idiot kids learn how to handle it in minutes. Quick steering SWB on the other hand never gets overcome. It will plague you forever. The present fashion for SWB will soon pass and we will all go back to LWB. We should never have left it except for the desire to have a recumbent that was more easily transportable. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota   Date: 07 Jun 2005 22:29:36 From: bobleft@aol.com Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg > Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a > wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions? > Experiences? In my big SWB crash of last year, I went down due to severe rear wheel wobble trying to brake downhill on poor pavement heading into a curve. On a SWB, I have to be careful not to lock the rear wheel which is more lightly loaded under braking downhill than the front. In my big crash (so far) of this year, the front tire and tube blew while going heavy on the front brake down a twisty 14% paved downgrade. After last year's crash I was trying to focus on using the front brake mostly and either due to a clincher tire or tube defect or due to rim heating there was a kaboom and down I went. As undesirable as they have been (an average of one fall of any kind per 2,000 miles), fortunately each time the fall distance has been short with the only significant injury being road rash for the two cites crashes. One of my falls was when the short dirt road I was slowly going down became soft sand. But with dual 1 1/4" tires is this really a surprise? Now I watch for this condition like I have always kept an eye out for potholes, etc. having a 20" front wheel. But on another ride I rounded a corner on a paved bike path and hit slick mud washed down the side bank across the path. I did skid big time but while my mind based on past crashes thought about bracing for falling over I was able to hold it and made it through upright.   Date: 05 Jun 2005 10:49:28 From: LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Ron Teplitz wrote: > was going in a straight line at about 12 mph, rode into > a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and > broke a leg. Six years and one week ago, I went down in a right turn going too fast on my M5 CMPCT, and broke my right leg at the ankle due to the dreaded "leg suck". Unlike your case, there was no gravel or any other road condition responsible, only my own poor judgement of my speed. I've done similar stunts [without as severe an injury] on my Tour Easy and on various hunker-bikes, so I can't blame the bike [although my wife does]. -- "Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes, it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)   Date: 05 Jun 2005 11:16:46 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Ron Teplitz wrote: > Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a > wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions? > Experiences? I suspect that there's more to it than just being SWB or not. I ride my (SWB) Streetmachine over gravel quite a bit, simply on the grounds that our house is on an unpaved lane and if I didn't I'd have to walk the last 100m home every time I took it out... It's a little harder to hold it together than the wedgies going uphill (though not to the point of throwing control), but not really much difference going down beyond differences caused by speed (I go faster on the 'bent thanks to the full sus!). I think I'd find the same sort of thing significantly harder on a Baron, or a full-on DF racer, in the latter case because the tyres are singularly hopeless for anything much that might move a little. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 05 Jun 2005 09:11:45 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/04/2005 05:34:54 ronzoni3@comcast.net (Ron Teplitz) wrote: > I've gone over sideways four times in the 10 years that I've had my > Lightning Stealth. When an SWB's front wheel slides out, you go down > fast. Ususally I just get road rash on the forearm that hits the street. > The most recent time I did this, was going in a straight line at about 12 > mph, rode into a small patch of gravel. Went down, landed badly and broke > a leg. Am re-evaluating my choice of bikes. > Is an SWB any more likely than some other kind of 2-wheel bent (or a > wedgie) to lose control on a patch of gravel in the street? Opinions? > Experiences? > Ron Have you cosidered a trike, you do not even have to unclip at junctions, and sliding can even be fun. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike www.catrike.co.uk     Date: 07 Jun 2005 08:57:52 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <nospam@nothere.com > wrote in message news:651011.NLUCWGVG@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > Have you cosidered a trike, you do not even have to unclip at junctions, > and sliding can even be fun. Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at high speed). I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike was handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect of brake-steer is magnified at high speed. I ended up flipping the trike. A had a little road rash and the trike was fine (I was more concerned about the trike). I've been wondering if quads are more stable but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that two wheel vehicles actually do better at high speeds. The only times I every feel off of any of my recumbent bikes was when I was going up very steep hills and couldn't go fast enough to maintain my balance. This has never happened to me on a trike (obviously). Jeff       Date: 07 Jun 2005 14:19:36 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not stable > at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at high > speed). The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record in the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on the course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular instability AFAIK. > I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been > nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was > going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike was > handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect of > brake-steer is magnified at high speed. Folk regularly do *much* more than that on trikes, so it clearly isn't intrinsic to trikes, period. Same thing with brake steer: it'll very much be implementation dependent. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 07 Jun 2005 21:34:58 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3gll2iFcupkkU1@individual.net... > Jeff Grippe wrote: > >> Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not >> stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride at >> high speed). > > The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record in > the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on the > course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular instability > AFAIK. > >> I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have been >> nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. I was >> going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the trike >> was handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the effect >> of brake-steer is magnified at high speed. > > Folk regularly do *much* more than that on trikes, so it clearly isn't > intrinsic to trikes, period. Same thing with brake steer: it'll very much > be implementation dependent. > > Pete. Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about most everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience and do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you keep your speed reasonable. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota           Date: 10 Jun 2005 18:56:25 From: ___________ Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Thanks for reminding me. I got a new laptop and hadn't plonked Ed Dolan yet. <PLONK > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:cbydnU9H6ZzKxDvfRVn-2A@prairiewave.com... > > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:3gll2iFcupkkU1@individual.net... >> Jeff Grippe wrote: >> >>> Fun yes! I wouldn't give up my trikes for anything BUT they are not >>> stable at high speed (at least not the one's I've had a chance to ride >>> at high speed). >> >> The Windcheetah used for the Lands End to John o'Groats distance record >> in the UK was clocked at around 70 mph on some of the big descents on the >> course (it was fully faired, btw). No reports of particular instability >> AFAIK. >> >>> I learned this the hard way. I was going down a hill that would have >>> been nothing on a bike. The road was rough but nothing you would avoid. >>> I was going 25 MPH by the time I decided that I didn't like the way the >>> trike was handling. That is also the moment when I discovered that the >>> effect of brake-steer is magnified at high speed. >> >> Folk regularly do *much* more than that on trikes, so it clearly isn't >> intrinsic to trikes, period. Same thing with brake steer: it'll very >> much be implementation dependent. >> >> Pete. > > Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about most > everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal > steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience and > do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much > better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you > keep your speed reasonable. > > Regards, > > Ed Dolan - Minnesota > >             Date: 11 Jun 2005 03:30:13 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "___________" <__@____.___ > wrote in message news:tnlqe.43791$nG6.1043@attbi_s22... > Thanks for reminding me. I got a new laptop and hadn't plonked Ed Dolan > yet. Anyone on ARBR want to discuss anything with Mr. Blank? I thought not! Surely his brain is as vacuous as his address and his signature. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota           Date: 08 Jun 2005 09:43:35 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan wrote: > Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about > most everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due > to pedal steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own > experience and do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will > always handle much better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes > are OK provided you keep your speed reasonable. But one doesn't get pedal steer when freewheeling... These days I'm a lot happier to to do insane speeds on three wheels rather than two. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > Trike Vmax current 86 km/h             Date: 08 Jun 2005 17:29:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote in message news:3gns3kFdcts9U1@individual.net... > Edward Dolan wrote: > >> Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about >> most everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due >> to pedal steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own >> experience and do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will >> always handle much better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes >> are OK provided you keep your speed reasonable. > > But one doesn't get pedal steer when freewheeling... These days I'm a lot > happier to to do insane speeds on three wheels rather than two. > > -- > Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/> > Trike Vmax current 86 km/h Dave is right about not getting pedal steer when freewheeling. I sometimes just stop pedaling when the pedal steer kicks in and the trike will immediately stop swerving. Unfortunately, that only works when going downhill as you mostly have to pedal otherwise. Nevertheless, I do not feel as safe going fast on a trike as I do on a two wheeler whether freewheeling or not. Ed Dolan - Minnesota           Date: 08 Jun 2005 07:57:36 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/08/2005 03:34:58 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about most > everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal > steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience and > do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much > better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you > keep your speed reasonable. > Regards, > Ed Dolan - Minnesota LOL- Dolan the oracle, the world is ending. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike www.catrike.co.uk             Date: 08 Jun 2005 05:35:15 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't really useful concepts here. In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had up to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. Now I haven't tried every trike out there at high speed and there could be some things I don't know about riding them (yet!). That having been said I will never go back to two wheels. I've been able to climb things with my trike that I'm not sure I could walk up. I don't know if any of the tadpoles are better than any other tadpoles at high speed. I would guess that since the basic geometry is similar that they have similar handling characteristics. Probably a really long wheel base and wide front wheels would improve things. It would weigh a ton and be impossible to transport but it would be stable. Does anyone know if quads have the same stability problems? Jeff "Buck" <nospam@nothere.com > wrote in message news:68857.QOEGFYNB@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/08/2005 03:34:58 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > > >> Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about >> most >> everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal >> steer and brake steer can be problem too. Go with your own experience >> and >> do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much >> better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you >> keep your speed reasonable. > >> Regards, > >> Ed Dolan - Minnesota > > LOL- Dolan the oracle, the world is ending. > > -- > Buck > > I would rather be out on my Catrike > > www.catrike.co.uk               Date: 08 Jun 2005 16:50:03 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11adeuldramv1be@news.supernews.com... > C'mon guys. This is all opinions and experience. Right and wrong aren't > really useful concepts here. It is better to bottom post so that others do not have to read your message in a reverse direction. Actually, right and wrong are extremely useful concepts. Some would have you believe that it is all in the rider when it comes to handling. If you listen to nuts like them, you will go terribly astray and end up lost like a lamb in the wilderness. Never listen to anyone who claims to go fast on a trike. They are screwballs and they lie through their teeth. Thankfully, they mostly seem to reside in the UK, a land of permanent nuts and screwballs which the rest of the world stop listening to several generations ago. > In my experience with trikes including the one that some people have had > up to 70 MPH, they don't handle well at high speed. Now I haven't tried > every trike out there at high speed and there could be some things I don't > know about riding them (yet!). You bet! Ride your trike to 70 mph and I definitely will not be at your funeral as I do not want to encourage that kind of craziness. > That having been said I will never go back to two wheels. I've been able > to climb things with my trike that I'm not sure I could walk up. Crawling up a hill at 2 mph is not much fun though, is it? > I don't know if any of the tadpoles are better than any other tadpoles at > high speed. I would guess that since the basic geometry is similar that > they have similar handling characteristics. Probably a really long wheel > base and wide front wheels would improve things. It would weigh a ton and > be impossible to transport but it would be stable. A long wheel base anything will always handle infintely better than a short wheelbase anything. Elementary my dear Watson. Thus spake Zarathustra! > Does anyone know if quads have the same stability problems? Forget quads. They require internal combustion engines. A three wheeler will serve just fine. But keep your speed down. I forbid anyone ever from going 70 mph on any kind of a bike. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > "Buck" <nospam@nothere.com> wrote in message > news:68857.QOEGFYNB@news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> >> >> On 06/08/2005 03:34:58 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Hang in there Jeff. You are right and Peter is wrong, as he is about >>> most >>> everything. The fact is trikes are hard to handle at speed due to pedal >>> steer and brake steer can be a problem too. Go with your own experience >>> and >>> do not listen to those UK nuts. A two wheeler will always handle much >>> better at speed than any three wheeler, but trikes are OK provided you >>> keep your speed reasonable. >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Ed Dolan - Minnesota >> >> LOL- Dolan the oracle, the world is ending. I leave it to the reader as to who is being reasonable and who is being a nut case! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                 Date: 09 Jun 2005 05:17:54 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:PLidnblqGqeM9TrfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... > Actually, right and wrong are extremely useful concepts. Some would have > you believe that it is all in the rider when it comes to handling. If you > listen to nuts like them, you will go terribly astray and end up lost like > a lamb in the wilderness. Right and wrong have thier uses but not in a discussion about experiences. You may believe that these people you refer to as nuts really are but you don't get them to listen to your opinion by calling them nuts. You and I agree about the trike speed issue and yet I find myself wanting to have nothing to do with you. Its a free newsgroup and you should feel free to post the way you want to post but if you aim is to influence then it isn't working. Just say what you have to say without name calling and being judgemental and people will at least listen even if they don't agree. > Crawling up a hill at 2 mph is not much fun though, is it? A big emphatic "YES IT IS!". Back in the days when I was riding two-wheeled recumbents there were hills that I just couldn't keep my speed up enough to ride up. We won't even talk about what happened if I stopped in the middle to rest. There was one nasty hill in CT where I fell off the bike 5 times before I finally realized I had to walk it up. When I got my first trike I took it to the nastiest hill I could find. I popped it into my lowest gear and crawled up. I even stopped a few times to rest. The feeling of satisfaction I had when I made it up was delightful. Just call me the crawler. It beats the hell out of walking. > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota Let others decide if you are great. If the decision comes from you then everyone will know it is a biased decision. You may infact be great, I don't know, but let others decide.                   Date: 09 Jun 2005 23:45:08 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11ag2a2shjqc6b1@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:PLidnblqGqeM9TrfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... > >> Actually, right and wrong are extremely useful concepts. Some would have >> you believe that it is all in the rider when it comes to handling. If you >> listen to nuts like them, you will go terribly astray and end up lost >> like a lamb in the wilderness. > > Right and wrong have thier uses but not in a discussion about experiences. > You may believe that these people you refer to as nuts really are but you > don't get them to listen to your opinion by calling them nuts. It doesn't matter to me in the least whether anyone listens to me or not. What matters is are they able to convince me of anything. So far - No! > You and I agree about the trike speed issue and yet I find myself wanting > to have nothing to do with you. Its a free newsgroup and you should feel > free to post the way you want to post but if you aim is to influence then > it isn't working. Most on this newsgroup you have to hit over the head with a 2 by 4 just to get their attention. Recumbent cyclists are all old men and fixed in their views. So what else is new? > Just say what you have to say without name calling and being judgemental > and people will at least listen even if they don't agree. > > >> Crawling up a hill at 2 mph is not much fun though, is it? > > A big emphatic "YES IT IS!". Back in the days when I was riding > two-wheeled recumbents there were hills that I just couldn't keep my speed > up enough to ride up. We won't even talk about what happened if I stopped > in the middle to rest. There was one nasty hill in CT where I fell off the > bike 5 times before I finally realized I had to walk it up. I have walked up many a hill and think nothing of it. Those who have some hang up about walking up hills are mentally challenged. It is often very pleasant to get off the bike and do a bit of walking. > When I got my first trike I took it to the nastiest hill I could find. I > popped it into my lowest gear and crawled up. I even stopped a few times > to rest. The feeling of satisfaction I had when I made it up was > delightful. Better to get off the damn bike and walk up the hill. Jeez, I knew this much when I was 10 years old. > Just call me the crawler. It beats the hell out of walking. Cycling sure does beat the hell out of walking which is why I do as much of it as I do. But there are times when it just makes more sense to walk. I have often walked my bike up hills that were too steep to ride and I sometimes walk my bike across intersections when the traffic is very bad. Unlike you, I do not have any hang ups about walking my bike. >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > Let others decide if you are great. If the decision comes from you then > everyone will know it is a biased decision. You may infact be great, I > don't know, but let others decide. I have learned the hard way that most here on ARBR are numskulls and dunderheads and I am not about to let them decided anything about me. No, I will tell them what to think and they can either like it or lump it. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                     Date: 10 Jun 2005 09:23:13 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Frankly Ed, it seems to me that you are everything that you accuse other of being. So much for my attempt to tone down the conversation. Write whatever you want. If you believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to do something then who am I to tell you differently. If you want to walk up hills then walk up hills. If you like deltas then ride deltas. Should you happen to want to carry on a conversation and actually have other people listen to your point of view then it is better not to insult them (like I did in the first sentence of this message, now that's ironic!) I don't have a problem with people liking what they like and being fixed in their position. I just have a problem with them labeling everyone that doesn't agree with them as stupid, or thick-headed, or whatever words you actually used. As I said before I find myself in basic agreement with your ideas about trikes and speed but not wanting to listen to you because of you caustic tone. One of the best lessons I was ever taught was "The meaning of a communication is the response that you get back". So if people are responding to you with hostility it isn't "just them". Best of luck to you and may you enjoy many miles of care-free triking. Jeff                       Date: 11 Jun 2005 03:23:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11aj539qkriru91@news.supernews.com... It would be better to incude my message and then bottom post as others may be following this thread besides just you and me. > Frankly Ed, it seems to me that you are everything that you accuse other > of being. So much for my attempt to tone down the conversation. > > Write whatever you want. If you believe that there is a right way and a > wrong way to do something then who am I to tell you differently. If you > want to walk up hills then walk up hills. If you like deltas then ride > deltas. Not all ideas are equal and not everything is a matter of opinion and/or experience. That is the easy way out of an argument. I take the views I do because I believe I am right and others are wrong. > Should you happen to want to carry on a conversation and actually have > other people listen to your point of view then it is better not to insult > them (like I did in the first sentence of this message, now that's > ironic!) > > I don't have a problem with people liking what they like and being fixed > in their position. I just have a problem with them labeling everyone that > doesn't agree with them as stupid, or thick-headed, or whatever words you > actually used. I have had many years experience with the trike nuts and screwballs in the UK. I treat them the way they treat others, only I beat them to the punch. > As I said before I find myself in basic agreement with your ideas about > trikes and speed but not wanting to listen to you because of you caustic > tone. My caustic tone is the most interesting and charming thing about me. Too bad you are unable to appreciate me. I think it comes from taking newsgroups entirely too seriously. After all, there is no one here but us fools. > One of the best lessons I was ever taught was "The meaning of a > communication is the response that you get back". So if people are > responding to you with hostility it isn't "just them". A hostile response indicates to me that I have been read. That is my one and only reason for posting to a newsgroup in the first place. It is really sad to see how so many others post and they are dead in the water. No responses at all! That is not for me. That is why I call myself Great. I insist upon a response and I know how to get one - and who cares whether it is hostile or not. > Best of luck to you and may you enjoy many miles of care-free triking. Well, yes, but I enjoy posting to ARBR too! Your Friendly Neighborhood Troll, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                         Date: 11 Jun 2005 09:37:54 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:3tOdnTCOrJLhAjffRVn-jw@prairiewave.com... > Not all ideas are equal and not everything is a matter of opinion and/or > experience. That is the easy way out of an argument. I take the views I > do because I believe I am right and others are wrong. I agree but what type of bike/trike you prefer is a matter of opinion and/or experience. I test rode the Kett and hated it. The same day I test rode Greenspeed, Wizwheelz, Trice, Catrike, another delta whose name I can't remember and Sun. I ended up buying the Sun because it was the lowest investment and I wasn't sure I was going to stick with trikes. The Greenspeed was far and away my favorite although I wasn't ready to commit big $$$'s to trikes until I was sure. I finally learned that I loved trikes, don't like deltas, and prefer tadpoles. Everything you've said about deltas and tadpoles may be correct (although I don't conceed that point by any stretch) but the fact is I still prefer tadpoles. I've tried both and I have a clear preference. You can't argue with my preference and I can't argue with yours nor will I attempt to. I'm not telling you that you should embrace tadpoles. I just don't think that you should label everyone who enjoys them idiots. I told Buck that he shouldn't waste his breath insulting you and I'm telling you the same thing. Yes you are getting read but we could be talking about trikes and riding and not whose opinion is correct. I don't feel safe riding any trike at speeds above 25 MPH. I don't feel safe and I've already flipped one because I couldn't control it at high speed. Anyone who wants to ride one at 70 MPH should feel free. I won't. I like long slow rides and my big heavy trike is perfect for that. I don't mind the extra effort it takes to propel the trike as I need to lose a few (well many few actually) pounds. I don't mind dropping it into low gear and crawling up the hills. Walking a bike up a hill wasn't bad but walking a trike anywhere is awful. I'll ride thank you. > > My caustic tone is the most interesting and charming thing about me. Too > bad you are unable to appreciate me. I think it comes from taking > newsgroups entirely too seriously. After all, there is no one here but us > fools. > A little bit makes you interesting and charming. A lot makes you quite the opposite. I don't have a problem with you seeing us as fools and I would agree. So on that basis, lighten up. I get it. You and UK boys don't see I2I. So enough with the back and forth about it. > Well, yes, but I enjoy posting to ARBR too! > Your Friendly Neighborhood Troll, > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota Well post away then but lets see if we can cover some new ground. You like deltas. You think they are better. Others like tadpoles. The two of you don't agree. I think that trike can't achieve stability at high speed because of the basic design. I'd still like to hear an opinion (from someone who has experience) about quads. Jeff                           Date: 12 Jun 2005 02:36:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11alq9k964if968@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:3tOdnTCOrJLhAjffRVn-jw@prairiewave.com... > >> Not all ideas are equal and not everything is a matter of opinion and/or >> experience. That is the easy way out of an argument. I take the views I >> do because I believe I am right and others are wrong. > > I agree but what type of bike/trike you prefer is a matter of opinion > and/or experience. I test rode the Kett and hated it. The same day I test > rode Greenspeed, Wizwheelz, Trice, Catrike, another delta whose name I > can't remember and Sun. I ended up buying the Sun because it was the > lowest investment and I wasn't sure I was going to stick with trikes. The > Greenspeed was far and away my favorite although I wasn't ready to commit > big $$$'s to trikes until I was sure. My TerraTrike (an early version) has a reputation for high pedal steer. My friend's Greenspeed does not have this reputation, yet it has the same amount of pedal steer as my TerraTrike. Neither of my two deltas have any pedal steer worth mentioning. If you did not like the Kett Wiesel it was not because it had any pedal steer. > I finally learned that I loved trikes, don't like deltas, and prefer > tadpoles. Everything you've said about deltas and tadpoles may be correct > (although I don't conceed that point by any stretch) but the fact is I > still prefer tadpoles. I've tried both and I have a clear preference. You > can't argue with my preference and I can't argue with yours nor will I > attempt to. I'm not telling you that you should embrace tadpoles. I just > don't think that you should label everyone who enjoys them idiots. There are several other reasons for liking tadpoles that have nothing to do with pedal steer. I was arguing the issue of pedal steer exclusively. I am especially put off by those who argue that pedal steer is not an issue with tadpoles, when I KNOW it is. > I told Buck that he shouldn't waste his breath insulting you and I'm > telling you the same thing. Yes you are getting read but we could be > talking about trikes and riding and not whose opinion is correct. Buck is a guy from the UK who used to call himself Ian. He has been around here forever and I know him well. I don't know why he keeps changing his user name. We dislike one another intensely, but frankly I have yet to encounter a Brit who was worth talking to. > I don't feel safe riding any trike at speeds above 25 MPH. I don't feel > safe and I've already flipped one because I couldn't control it at high > speed. Anyone who wants to ride one at 70 MPH should feel free. I won't. I > like long slow rides and my big heavy trike is perfect for that. I don't > mind the extra effort it takes to propel the trike as I need to lose a few > (well many few actually) pounds. I don't mind dropping it into low gear > and crawling up the hills. Walking a bike up a hill wasn't bad but walking > a trike anywhere is awful. I'll ride thank you. Yes, I will admit I have never walked my trikes. I think if I had to do it with my delta I would just grab the front wheel and pull it up the hill after me. I am not sure how I would push or pull a tadpole up a hill. Maybe I would carry it on my back like Sisyphus carrying his great stone up the hill (only to have it roll back down the hill and then to have to carry it up the hill again - and to do this for all eternity). >> My caustic tone is the most interesting and charming thing about me. Too >> bad you are unable to appreciate me. I think it comes from taking >> newsgroups entirely too seriously. After all, there is no one here but us >> fools. >> > > A little bit makes you interesting and charming. A lot makes you quite the > opposite. I don't have a problem with you seeing us as fools and I would > agree. So on that basis, lighten up. I get it. You and UK boys don't see > I2I. So enough with the back and forth about it. Well, I try to vary how I say what I say, but let's face it, there is only so much that any of us have in our repertoires. >> Well, yes, but I enjoy posting to ARBR too! >> Your Friendly Neighborhood Troll, >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > Well post away then but lets see if we can cover some new ground. You like > deltas. You think they are better. Others like tadpoles. The two of you > don't agree. I think that trike can't achieve stability at high speed > because of the basic design. Nevertheless, I am in a distinct minority on this question of which is better - tadpoles or deltas. Most everyone in the world has been brainwashed to think tadpoles are the cat's meow when it is just not so. I am presenting a contrary view which others need to know about. Tadpoles are for cart lovers; deltas are for bicycle lovers. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                             Date: 13 Jun 2005 13:43:39 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/12/2005 08:36:47 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > Buck is a guy from the UK who used to call himself Ian. He has been > around here forever and I know him well. I don't know why he keeps > changing his user name. We dislike one another intensely, but frankly I > have yet to encounter a Brit who was worth talking to. I changed my tag on here to my last name, because of the plethora of posters on newsgroups called Ian, often with a following initial, made sense to me to go with my surname. I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so selfish at times. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk                               Date: 13 Jun 2005 23:34:16 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk > wrote in message news:6131443.YYDDSXNV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/12/2005 08:36:47 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >> Buck is a guy from the UK who used to call himself Ian. He has been >> around here forever and I know him well. I don't know why he keeps >> changing his user name. We dislike one another intensely, but frankly I >> have yet to encounter a Brit who was worth talking to. > > I changed my tag on here to my last name, because of the plethora of > posters on newsgroups called Ian, often with a following initial, made > sense to me to go with my surname. If Ian is using his real name that is a plus in my book. Frankly, I am fed up with all the scoundrels hiding behind user names. Why the hell would anyone go on a newsgroup and wish to be anonymous? If you want to be anonymous, just don't post at all. You will never be missed. Trust me on that! > I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at > times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so > selfish at times. If you would learn to read me properly, you would enjoy my posts. Too much seriousness is deadly. A friendly troll is the life blood of any newsgroup. Or would you rather just read technocrats like Bill Patterson. Who knows what the hell he is ever talking about? I only tweak those who deserve to be tweaked. I never interfere with normal posting. Can I help it if everyone wants to get in on my act? Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                               Date: 13 Jun 2005 17:14:15 From: Mark Leuck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk > wrote in message news:6131443.YYDDSXNV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/12/2005 08:36:47 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > > > Buck is a guy from the UK who used to call himself Ian. He has been > > around here forever and I know him well. I don't know why he keeps > > changing his user name. We dislike one another intensely, but frankly I > > have yet to encounter a Brit who was worth talking to. > > I changed my tag on here to my last name, because of the plethora of > posters on newsgroups called Ian, often with a following initial, made > sense to me to go with my surname. > > I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at > times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so > selfish at times. He's not selfish, he just wants to be part of the conversation and be considered an expert on it even when he knows nothing about the current subject it's easy to pick these things out from his current postings, at least he's talking about recumbents unlike a few months ago, I still think not only does he not own a recumbent but has never owned one                                 Date: 13 Jun 2005 23:54:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "k Leuck" <m..leuck@comcast.net > wrote in message news:McmdnSJnG9cMmDPfRVn-oA@comcast.com... > > "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6131443.YYDDSXNV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> >> >> On 06/12/2005 08:36:47 "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> >> > Buck is a guy from the UK who used to call himself Ian. He has been >> > around here forever and I know him well. I don't know why he keeps >> > changing his user name. We dislike one another intensely, but frankly >> > I >> > have yet to encounter a Brit who was worth talking to. >> >> I changed my tag on here to my last name, because of the plethora of >> posters on newsgroups called Ian, often with a following initial, made >> sense to me to go with my surname. >> >> I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at >> times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so >> selfish at times. > > He's not selfish, he just wants to be part of the conversation and be > considered an expert on it even when he knows nothing about the current > subject Well, at least I know something about punctuation which is more than you know! > it's easy to pick these things out from his current postings, at least > he's > talking about recumbents unlike a few months ago, I still think not only > does he not own a recumbent but has never owned one I still think k Leuck is capable of mastering the difficult art of English punctuation if he would only put his brain into gear. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                               Date: 13 Jun 2005 10:45:44 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk > wrote in message news:6131443.YYDDSXNV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at > times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so > selfish at times. I don't think you should let his posts ruin anything. If he insists on being foul-tempered and insulting anyone that doesn't agree with him, then people will stop listening. Even I will eventually grow weary of trying to suggest to him that he develop some manners. There will come a point (probably pretty soon) where he either decides to try "playing nice with us other kiddies" (I doubt it but if figure its worth a try), or he decides that he get greater satisfaction out of being insulting and nasty. Either way I won't let him ruin anything for me. It isn't the same as if he were physically present and couldn't be ignored. He can be completely ignored. I have no bad thoughts about you or people from the UK in general. I think anyone that goes 70 MPH on a trike might be taking their life into their hands but that doesn't make them bad people. Jeff                                 Date: 22 Jun 2005 12:31:43 From: the brook Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Funny, the thread started as Hit Gravel, Broke leg. Since then, of the 159 posts, 63 were by Dolan and the others are people responding to his diatribe. I know Dolan doesn't give a damn, but don't the others realise that by responding to him, they're part of the reason many people have left this group? Enough already with this crap! Time to move on to some other subject. The brook                                   Date: 23 Jun 2005 08:52:30 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "the brook" <dlr@anabay.ca > wrote in message news:1119468703.796404.211970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Enough already with this crap! Time to move on to some other subject. brook my friend, I continue posting on this thread because I'm enjoying the banter. Please feel free not to read it anymore. If you do, however, I would certainly advise not posting anything since it will likely get responded to. Jeff                                   Date: 22 Jun 2005 18:02:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "the brook" <dlr@anabay.ca > wrote in message news:1119468703.796404.211970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Funny, the thread started as Hit Gravel, Broke leg. > > Since then, of the 159 posts, 63 were by Dolan and the others are > people responding to his diatribe. > > I know Dolan doesn't give a damn, but don't the others realise that by > responding to him, they're part of the reason many people have left > this group? > > Enough already with this crap! Time to move on to some other subject. > > The brook You would be advancing the group if you would advise Jeff Grippe to post the right way. He is throwing a monkey wrench into our proceedings. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                     Date: 22 Jun 2005 21:14:46 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Re Monkey Wrenches: Ya better watch out for that Grippe guy. Once he's got his hands on a monkey wrench there is no telling what he might do. If he keeps posting like this the Earth may stop spinning and we will all be flung out into space. I hear he's even started posting in third person. Can you imagine the audacity of it? Improper quoting, posting in third person, sentences composed of sentence fragments and lacking a true verb. I tell you they'll let anybody in this group. And oh by the way, this message didn't contain one word about hitting gravel, breaking legs, or recumbent cycling! Err, until now. I still think we should take him out back and teach him a lesson. Whose with me? Lets get 'em! My gosh Ed you were right. It is this horrid style of posting that leads to insane morons making violent threats against other posters. It was so bad that I threatened myself. The next thing you know I'll be posting my address, threatening to break into my house, having my wife fired, and having the police come and give me a good talking too. And all this time I thought my posting style was a simple matter or preference. How could I be so nieve? This is really a lot to thing about. Jeff                                       Date: 22 Jun 2005 23:08:15 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bk36gmm3gms89@news.supernews.com... > Re Monkey Wrenches: > > Ya better watch out for that Grippe guy. Once he's got his hands on a > monkey wrench there is no telling what he might do. If he keeps posting > like this the Earth may stop spinning and we will all be flung out into > space. > > I hear he's even started posting in third person. Can you imagine the > audacity of it? Improper quoting, posting in third person, sentences > composed of sentence fragments and lacking a true verb. I tell you they'll > let anybody in this group. > > And oh by the way, this message didn't contain one word about hitting > gravel, breaking legs, or recumbent cycling! Err, until now. > > I still think we should take him out back and teach him a lesson. Whose > with me? Lets get 'em! > > My gosh Ed you were right. It is this horrid style of posting that leads > to insane morons making violent threats against other posters. It was so > bad that I threatened myself. The next thing you know I'll be posting my > address, threatening to break into my house, having my wife fired, and > having the police come and give me a good talking too. And all this time I > thought my posting style was a simple matter or preference. How could I be > so nieve? This is really a lot to thing about. > > Jeff Don't overdo the hyperbole. It gets very tiresome very fast. Sentences needn't be complete all the time. Sometimes a sentence fragment makes the most sense. They are called dependent clauses and should only be used by intellectuals like me. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                         Date: 23 Jun 2005 10:31:41 From: Steve Subject: Dolan humor Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan wrote: > Sentences needn't be complete all the time. Sometimes a sentence fragment > makes the most sense. They are called dependent clauses and should only be > used by intellectuals like me. > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > This is very funny Mr Dolan! Steve                                           Date: 23 Jun 2005 23:12:43 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Dolan humor Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Steve" <see@reply.to > wrote in message news:5Gzue.74604$Kk4.918633@news20.bellglobal.com... > Edward Dolan wrote: >> Sentences needn't be complete all the time. Sometimes a sentence fragment >> makes the most sense. They are called dependent clauses and should only >> be used by intellectuals like me. >> >> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> >> > > This is very funny Mr Dolan! > Steve I remember having pounded into me throughout my school years that only great writers could ever break the rules. Since I now consider myself a great writer, I feel I can break the rules with impunity. I also make up words as I go along. They almost look like they could be real words, but you will not find them in any dictionary. But only great writers like myself should ever attempt these audacious things. For everyone else it is the greatest of follies not to follow the rules of good gram and composition. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                 Date: 13 Jun 2005 23:43:42 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11ar720rssc4if9@news.supernews.com... > > "Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message > news:6131443.YYDDSXNV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... >> I do not dislike Ed on any personal level, just his trolling, he at >> times ruins the group for everyone, it is sad that he has to be so >> selfish at times. > > I don't think you should let his posts ruin anything. If he insists on > being foul-tempered and insulting anyone that doesn't agree with him, then > people will stop listening. Even I will eventually grow weary of trying to > suggest to him that he develop some manners. There will come a point > (probably pretty soon) where he either decides to try "playing nice with > us other kiddies" (I doubt it but if figure its worth a try), or he > decides that he get greater satisfaction out of being insulting and nasty. > Either way I won't let him ruin anything for me. It isn't the same as if > he were physically present and couldn't be ignored. He can be completely > ignored. > > I have no bad thoughts about you or people from the UK in general. I think > anyone that goes 70 MPH on a trike might be taking their life into their > hands but that doesn't make them bad people. Jeff has not had the experience of conversing with Brits like I have. There is not much to be said for it unless you like to be condescended to. I much prefer to do the condescending myself and do not see any reason why I should not since the Brits know less about more than any other people in Europe. In fact, the only thing that saves the Brits from their own worst tendencies are the Irish living among them. Teutonic heaviness needs to be leavened with Celtic lightness. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                   Date: 14 Jun 2005 08:54:28 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Ed, I know you think of yourself as witty, insightful, colorful, charming, etc. Have you noticed that not one single person has agreed with you? If that doesn't matter and you are only out to please yourself then may I recommend mechanical manipulation (Is that the lowest key fu you've ever seen?) Your endless tirades against those you don't like or who happen to disagree with you are boring. As far as your inference that I somehow have "newbie" status, its cute but inaccurate. My message posting goes all the way back to bbs days long before anyone ever heard of an internet. Regarding your advice to "Lighten up", good advice, I would like you to consider it yourself. Happy posting, Jeff                                     Date: 14 Jun 2005 18:21:59 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11atktd7mr1l06f@news.supernews.com... > Ed, > > I know you think of yourself as witty, insightful, colorful, charming, > etc. > > Have you noticed that not one single person has agreed with you? If that > doesn't matter and you are only out to please yourself then may I > recommend mechanical manipulation (Is that the lowest key fu you've ever > seen?) Your endless tirades against those you don't like or who happen to > disagree with you are boring. Not sure what Jeff is talking about here? It goes without saying that I am witty, insightfull, colorful, charming, etc. That is a given considering the plodding dullards that infest this group with their two cents worth of nonsense and their total lack of wit, insight, color, charm, etc. I am going to have to think of Jeff as Jeff the Earnest. I wonder why he is so serious? Does he actually think newsgroups have a purpose in life? > As far as your inference that I somehow have "newbie" status, its cute but > inaccurate. My message posting goes all the way back to bbs days long > before anyone ever heard of an internet. Regarding your advice to "Lighten > up", good advice, I would like you to consider it yourself. > > Happy posting, > > Jeff I have a very major problem with Jeff in that he does not post properly, like so many others here. A newsgroup is not email. He consistently top posts and does not include any of the previous message that he is responding to. Therefore, no matter how many years he has been hanging around the Internet, he is acting like a newbie. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                       Date: 15 Jun 2005 06:21:13 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:l66dnWZ0ON0B-zLfRVn-hg@prairiewave.com... > > Not sure what Jeff is talking about here? It goes without saying that I am > witty, insightfull, colorful, charming, etc. That is a given considering > the plodding dullards that infest this group with their two cents worth of > nonsense and their total lack of wit, insight, color, charm, etc. I am > going to have to think of Jeff as Jeff the Earnest. I wonder why he is so > serious? Does he actually think newsgroups have a purpose in life? > Ok, I give up. This is my last post about Ed Dolan. He appears to be impervious to politeness, logic, and even (albiet gentle) insults. So I give up. The Ed Dolan topic wasn't really interesting and most of you already knew I wasn't going to get anywhere. So we have reached the end (although I don't doubt that this message will get a response from Ed. His favorite subject isn't really us so called "plodding dullards" but rather Ed Dolan) Ed, you have won again. Enjoy your victory. It has become clear to me that I will never be half the person you are (and aren't I glad of that!). Your intuitive grasp of all that is correct and proper humbles my clearly unenlightened world view. May you bask in the glory of your victory. > Therefore, no matter how many years he has been hanging around the > Internet, he is acting like a newbie. And in my heart may I be .... forever young... Jeff                                         Date: 15 Jun 2005 06:21:56 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b008q7u8dh9c0@news.supernews.com... > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:l66dnWZ0ON0B-zLfRVn-hg@prairiewave.com... >> >> Not sure what Jeff is talking about here? It goes without saying that I >> am witty, insightfull, colorful, charming, etc. That is a given >> considering the plodding dullards that infest this group with their two >> cents worth of nonsense and their total lack of wit, insight, color, >> charm, etc. I am going to have to think of Jeff as Jeff the Earnest. I >> wonder why he is so serious? Does he actually think newsgroups have a >> purpose in life? >> > > Ok, I give up. This is my last post about Ed Dolan. He appears to be > impervious to politeness, logic, and even (albiet gentle) insults. So I > give up. The Ed Dolan topic wasn't really interesting and most of you > already knew I wasn't going to get anywhere. So we have reached the end > (although I don't doubt that this message will get a response from Ed. His > favorite subject isn't really us so called "plodding dullards" but rather > Ed Dolan) All you would ever have to do is to post in proper form, but since you refuse to do that (except this once) I cannot in good conscience accord you much respect. You are not playing the game of newsgroup fair. You seem like a good fellow, but you have to learn the rules and play by them. Did you not ever spend any time on a kindergarten playground with the other kids when you were a squirt? > Ed, you have won again. Enjoy your victory. It has become clear to me that I > will never be half the person you are (and aren't I glad of that!). Your > intuitive grasp of all that is correct and proper humbles my clearly > unenlightened world view. May you bask in the glory of your victory. I only enjoy the play of words and intellect. What else is there in life? >> Therefore, no matter how many years he has been hanging around the >> Internet, he is acting like a newbie. > > And in my heart may I be .... forever young... Please review the rules of proper posting by Google on their website. You will see that they make immense sense and that everyone should follow the rules for the sake of all. Usenet is not email - or did I already say that once or twice. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota PS. Jeff did bottom post properly this once, so progress is being made. But he would still have to work on his editing to get up to speed.                                           Date: 15 Jun 2005 09:20:14 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:ZcudnXwjIu7Hki3fRVn-uA@prairiewave.com... > > PS. Jeff did bottom post properly this once, so progress is being made. > But he would still have to work on his editing to get up to speed. > And I said my last post would be my last on this topic. Oh well, I've always known I'm a liar. So its form over content eh? This has always been my problem in life. Here I thought it was the content that was important. Little did I know that the good folks at Google have provided a set of style guidelines that must be followed under all circumstances. Just to make sure that I understand things correctly, It would be perfectly ok to say something like "You are a complete and utter asshole" as long as I format the message correctly and properly quote the section of your message that made me draw that conclusion. Y'know I've never really been good at following rules that appear to put form over function. I hate black tie weddings (I only threw that in because I have to go to one this summer). I love stream of consciousness (hence the reference to my summer schedule in the middle of a bicycle newsgroup). Well I'm not going to look at the Google rules because I know myself well enough to know I won't be following them anyway. I guess you'll just have to figure out what I'm talking about if I don't do the quote thing correctly. Y'know I'll bet there's a ton of newsgroup readers out there who have put me on their blocked senders list for using bad form. What can I say. Form has never been my strong suit (with the exception of Haiku which I really like. There I go free-associating again). Finally coming back to something relevant to what I quoted above, Progress is an illusion. When you say that I'm making progress, you assume that I am actually trying to get somewhere that you think it would be valuable for me to get to. Nothing could be further from the truth. But if it helps you to feel that you are molding this individual into a proper poster then feel free. From my point of view, I am doing on this newsgroup what I do on my bike, which is what I do in my life, spinning my wheels. I close with a salutation that in all seriousness is not intended to be the least bit sarcastic... I wish you many happy trails, Ed. Jeff                                             Date: 16 Jun 2005 01:55:29 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11b0apno8ugr39e@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:ZcudnXwjIu7Hki3fRVn-uA@prairiewave.com... >> >> PS. Jeff did bottom post properly this once, so progress is being made. >> But he would still have to work on his editing to get up to speed. >> > > And I said my last post would be my last on this topic. Oh well, I've > always known I'm a liar. > > So its form over content eh? This has always been my problem in life. Here > I thought it was the content that was important. Little did I know that > the good folks at Google have provided a set of style guidelines that must > be followed under all circumstances. > > Just to make sure that I understand things correctly, It would be > perfectly ok to say something like "You are a complete and utter asshole" > as long as I format the message correctly and properly quote the section > of your message that made me draw that conclusion. YES! You have finally got it. Now we are starting to get somewhere! Form is equally as important as content. It is an indication of fair play and respect for your correspondent and for the unknown readers of the message. The latter is always upper most in my mind. Usenet is NOT email! > Y'know I've never really been good at following rules that appear to put > form over function. I hate black tie weddings (I only threw that in > because I have to go to one this summer). I love stream of consciousness > (hence the reference to my summer schedule in the middle of a bicycle > newsgroup). A formal wedding is something you will remember all your life. I sometimes think the formalties matter more than anything else in the end. It is what gives some dignity to the human condition. > Well I'm not going to look at the Google rules because I know myself well > enough to know I won't be following them anyway. I guess you'll just have > to figure out what I'm talking about if I don't do the quote thing > correctly. The rules are very simple and can be learned in 15 minutes. They are just based on good manners and common sense. > Y'know I'll bet there's a ton of newsgroup readers out there who have put > me on their blocked senders list for using bad form. What can I say. Form > has never been my strong suit (with the exception of Haiku which I really > like. There I go free-associating again). It is an honor to be placed on many kill file lists since newsgroups are just chock full of idiots and scoundrels. I am an expert on this subject. > Finally coming back to something relevant to what I quoted above, Progress > is an illusion. When you say that I'm making progress, you assume that I > am actually trying to get somewhere that you think it would be valuable > for me to get to. Nothing could be further from the truth. But if it helps > you to feel that you are molding this individual into a proper poster then > feel free. From my point of view, I am doing on this newsgroup what I do > on my bike, which is what I do in my life, spinning my wheels. It is not fair to me when you do not quote my message to which you are responding. Moreover, it is not fair to the reader either. Form is extremely important in the interest of fairness if nothing else. Note how I have always treated you fair. I bottom post and I leave your messages complete. That way I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions about what is being said without any bias. I am not just writing to you, I am writing to a universe of unknown readers which I respect. You should do the same. That is what good form is all about. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                               Date: 16 Jun 2005 08:57:30 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:2OKdnauz2ML1vyzfRVn-pw@prairiewave.com... > YES! You have finally got it. Now we are starting to get somewhere! Form > is equally as important as content. Eddie baby this is a topic I can really sink my teeth into. It doesn't belong on a cycling group but here we are so I'll go with it. Generally things are context dependent. Sometimes form is less important than content, sometimes equal, and sometimes form is more important. I think you are tending to see things a little to black and white. No rule applies in all cases (such as "Form is equally as important as content") Rudeness and ethnic slurs have no place here regardless of how correct your form is. In this context form is somewhat less important. People who have been following a thread can generally figure out what you are talking about. It isn't really necessary to quote everything everytime. You are seeing rules as too absolute and applying to all contexts. When you say nasty things about people it doesn't matter (to me) that you said it using correct form. > > A formal wedding is something you will remember all your life. I sometimes > think the formalties matter more than anything else in the end. It is what > gives some dignity to the human condition. > I think this is a decision I am capable of making for myself thank you very much. I come from a family that loves black tie wedding so I've been to many and can look forward to more. I hate them. Give me a pool party any day. Dignity is a made up concept. If formal events make you feel dignified then enjoy them. To me it feels like lipstick on a pig (yes I know I just called myself a pig but I'm not really bothered by it. Its just another made up concept.) > > It is not fair to me when you do not quote my message to which you are > responding. Moreover, it is not fair to the reader either. Form is > extremely important in the interest of fairness if nothing else. > > Note how I have always treated you fair. I bottom post and I leave your > messages complete. Well you say that fairness is in the form and I say it is in the content. The last thing I would label you is fair. You have a set of fixed and rather rigid opinions that aren't open for discussion. If I present you correctly then I would say it isn't fair for you to be posting here at all. Why engage in a discussion when you don't really want to discuss? If all you want to do is present the "Ed Dolan Guide to Cycling and Life" then put up a website and those who are interested can go there and read all about it. If on the other hand you are going to participate in an online discussion then you should (I think) be open to being moved by what others are saying. Under no circumstances (IMHO) should you answer with insults or ethnic slurs. You do this a bit too often to just write it off as being witty. I'm Polish and I love Pollack jokes. I tell them and hear them with abandon. It is clear that they are jokes and nobody ever feels insulted. You, on the other hand, resort to insults and rudeness too often to just call it wit. Nobody (with the possible exception of you) finds it witty. So we have some quite far from "Hit gravel, broke leg" but here we are. Regards, Jeff                                                 Date: 16 Jun 2005 16:56:48 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11b2tr3odjhn67f@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:2OKdnauz2ML1vyzfRVn-pw@prairiewave.com... > >> YES! You have finally got it. Now we are starting to get somewhere! Form >> is equally as important as content. > > Eddie baby this is a topic I can really sink my teeth into. It doesn't > belong on a cycling group but here we are so I'll go with it. Any subject belongs on any group as long as there are those willing to engage the topic. > Generally things are context dependent. Sometimes form is less important > than content, sometimes equal, and sometimes form is more important. > > I think you are tending to see things a little to black and white. No rule > applies in all cases (such as "Form is equally as important as content") Newsgroups via Usenet are a very special discussion and not like sitting around a table discussing things face to face. Therefore, form becomes extremely important in the interest of fairness. A moderator could ensure fairness, but Usenet is a free for all. Hence, the importance of the rules and the importance of observing them. > Rudeness and ethnic slurs have no place here regardless of how correct > your form is. In this context form is somewhat less important. It always greatly amuses me that when one speaks out boldy on sensitive topics that some others are quick to charge the generic "racism." It is the favorite tactic of liberals from time immemorial and I call them scoundrels for doing it. It is what you do when you do not have a response that will stand up to any scrutiny. People who have > been following a thread can generally figure out what you are talking > about. It isn't really necessary to quote everything everytime. > > You are seeing rules as too absolute and applying to all contexts. Others do not observe the rules because they want to unfairly take an advantage. I have too much self respect to resort to such underhanded means. Observe the rules and play by them if you want to be respected. > When you say nasty things about people it doesn't matter (to me) that you > said it using correct form. But it matters to me and to the reader. Because then one can respond to what has been said IN CONTEXT. That is why we have the rules in the first place. Only scoundrels and the intellectually dishonest take short cuts. >> A formal wedding is something you will remember all your life. I >> sometimes think the formalties matter more than anything else in the end. >> It is what gives some dignity to the human condition. >> > > I think this is a decision I am capable of making for myself thank you > very much. I come from a family that loves black tie wedding so I've been > to many and can look forward to more. I hate them. Give me a pool party > any day. Dignity is a made up concept. If formal events make you feel > dignified then enjoy them. To me it feels like lipstick on a pig (yes I > know I just called myself a pig but I'm not really bothered by it. Its > just another made up concept.) Most of us only enjoy a few formal occasions in our entire lives. For many of us it is just our own funerals that have a bit of formality. You have been spoiled rotten. I have never liked vulgarians and slobs. >> It is not fair to me when you do not quote my message to which you are >> responding. Moreover, it is not fair to the reader either. Form is >> extremely important in the interest of fairness if nothing else. >> >> Note how I have always treated you fair. I bottom post and I leave your >> messages complete. > > Well you say that fairness is in the form and I say it is in the content. > The last thing I would label you is fair. You have a set of fixed and > rather rigid opinions that aren't open for discussion. If I present you > correctly then I would say it isn't fair for you to be posting here at > all. Why engage in a discussion when you don't really want to discuss? If > all you want to do is present the "Ed Dolan Guide to Cycling and Life" > then put up a website and those who are interested can go there and read > all about it. If on the other hand you are going to participate in an > online discussion then you should (I think) be open to being moved by what > others are saying. Under no circumstances (IMHO) should you answer with > insults or ethnic slurs. You do this a bit too often to just write it off > as being witty. I will discuss any subject with anyone provided that the discussion is an honest one. Let the chips fall where they may. I do not come to a newsgroup to make friends and bask in good feelings. I come for the word play and the mind play. When you do not observe proper form, it is impossible to have an honest discussion. I would know how to edit others or to omit what they say or to otherwise misconstrue what they say so as to make them look bad and me look good. But I do not do that because I want to be fair to my correspondent and most especially to the reader. A discussion that is not grounded in fairness is not worth having in the first place. Hence, the extreme importance of the rules. The rules are actually more important by far than what is being said, because content can be refuted if everyone is following the rules. Content ("ethnic slurs") does not bother me in the least, but violation of form (the rules) is a mortal sin and deserving of everlasting hell fire. By the way, my mind can be changed, but it is a very subtle process and never happens in a flash. Quiet contemplation will change my mind more than any amount of preaching. > I'm Polish and I love Pollack jokes. I tell them and hear them with > abandon. It is clear that they are jokes and nobody ever feels insulted. > You, on the other hand, resort to insults and rudeness too often to just > call it wit. Nobody (with the possible exception of you) finds it witty. I am Irish and I don't dislike Paddy jokes, even if they are mostly about fighting and drinking. Some folks are too easily insulted and mistake rudeness for forthrightness. But if someone is intent on being offended, then there is nothing to be done about it. Let him be offended and rot in Hell for all I care. I sure am not going to pull my punches because others are overly sensitized and easily offended. Maybe they should just grow up and become adults. > So we have some quite far from "Hit gravel, broke leg" but here we are. Any subject belongs on any thread as long as there are those willing to engage the topic (or did I already say that once or twice before). Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota PS. What you need to take away from all of this is that you must bottom post and include the relevant passages of the previous message to which you are responding. When you edit, it is better to include too much than too little. Follow my example if nothing else.                                                   Date: 17 Jun 2005 05:58:45 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Usenet etc: Ed, you don't know your history. Do you thing that on-line conversation began with usenet? Do you imagine that usenet was born with this set of rules that you cling to with such verosity? Before everyone was on usenet there were BBS's. BBS's were a little more exclusive since it took more technical knowledge to connect and use the BBS software to post but there were some great discussion boards on all sorts of topics. These rules you fancy so much are something someone made up along the way and you embraced them. That's fine for you and you should feel free to do so but you must also be aware that not everyone agrees. Not everyone has read the rules and not everyone cares to. Ed, if you really find the format of my posts so objectionable then feel free to put me on your bozo list. I promise not to cry. Racism, Rudeness, etc: Ed, if you read something that you don't like and want to call me or any individual an idiot that is fine. If you want to call me and all the people that agree with me idiots (note that you are distinguishing us by intellectual belief) that's ok too (in my book). But when instead you say something like "All Brits are <insert favorite Dolan Derogatory Dogma >" then you have indeed crossed the line into a form of racism. It doesn't read as speaking out boldy. It reads as racist and rude. If you want to say "Jeff, you are a moron", its a bit rude but its your opinion and its fine with me. If you want to say the same thing about Buck or Peter or even about tadpole riders, I'll tolerate it without complaining (much). But when you actually play a race card I'm going to call you on it. Formal occasions, etc: Yup, I agree that I've been spoiled and if I were someone else I'd have different opinions but I'm not and I don't. If I were someone who'd never or rarely got to go to a formal then I'd probably be anxious to put on the tux. In the end, however, we all are who we are. Who I am is someone who doesn't like formals. That's just me. If that makes me a vulgarian and a snob (in your eyes) then so be it. You probably can tell that I don't live my life in order to seek your approval. Honest discussions, etc: Ed, I don't think we will ever agree on what fairness is. I say it has mostly to do with the content and you say that form is king. As far as I'm concerned, at the moment I'm talking to you. I'm doing it in a public place where others are invited to comment but I'm responding to you. Now you didn't have any trouble understanding this message did you? Is this message really the stuff that you think everlasting hell fire was created for? The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make my content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style.                                                     Date: 17 Jun 2005 16:57:29 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b57mlk28rfv33@news.supernews.com... > Usenet etc: > > Ed, you don't know your history. Do you thing that on-line conversation > began with usenet? Do you imagine that usenet was born with this set of > rules that you cling to with such verosity? > > Before everyone was on usenet there were BBS's. BBS's were a little more > exclusive since it took more technical knowledge to connect and use the > BBS software to post but there were some great discussion boards on all > sorts of topics. > > These rules you fancy so much are something someone made up along the way > and you embraced them. That's fine for you and you should feel free to do > so but you must also be aware that not everyone agrees. Not everyone has > read the rules and not everyone cares to. > > Ed, if you really find the format of my posts so objectionable then feel > free to put me on your bozo list. I promise not to cry. What you are describing was an era no doubt when scholars and gentlemen were the only ones on-line. That has all changed now that every Tom, Dick and Harry are on-line. We need those rules to prevent mayhem. I will continue to plague you about your style of posting until you play by the rules. > Racism, Rudeness, etc: > > Ed, if you read something that you don't like and want to call me or any > individual an idiot that is fine. If you want to call me and all the > people that agree with me idiots (note that you are distinguishing us by > intellectual belief) that's ok too (in my book). But when instead you say > something like "All Brits are <insert favorite Dolan Derogatory Dogma>" > then you have indeed crossed the line into a form of racism. It doesn't > read as speaking out boldy. It reads as racist and rude. I make generalizations all the time about everything. What rankles you is that there is always a germ of truth in my every generalization. That is the nature of generalizations. Try to get real why don't you? I don't care at all about being politically correct about anything - which is all liberals like you are ever into. > If you want to say "Jeff, you are a moron", its a bit rude but its your > opinion and its fine with me. If you want to say the same thing about Buck > or Peter or even about tadpole riders, I'll tolerate it without > complaining (much). But when you actually play a race card I'm going to > call you on it. How about all liberals are fools and idiots? How about all Blacks need White Liberal Democrats to keep them on welfare and give them preferential treatment and compensation for slavery? There! That ought to keep you busy for a day or so. > Formal occasions, etc: > > Yup, I agree that I've been spoiled and if I were someone else I'd have > different opinions but I'm not and I don't. If I were someone who'd never > or rarely got to go to a formal then I'd probably be anxious to put on the > tux. In the end, however, we all are who we are. Who I am is someone who > doesn't like formals. That's just me. If that makes me a vulgarian and a > snob (in your eyes) then so be it. You probably can tell that I don't live > my life in order to seek your approval. If you want my approval, you will have to quote me in full. > Honest discussions, etc: > > Ed, I don't think we will ever agree on what fairness is. I say it has > mostly to do with the content and you say that form is king. As far as I'm > concerned, at the moment I'm talking to you. I'm doing it in a public > place where others are invited to comment but I'm responding to you. Now > you didn't have any trouble understanding this message did you? Is this > message really the stuff that you think everlasting hell fire was created > for? I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers. You do not have an inkling about Usenet. What you are doing is in essence writing an email to me with the whole world looking on. I am not interested in writing an email back to you. I am only interested in writing to and for the group. You are merely an instrument by which I do so. Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about. > The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make my > content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a > scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going > to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style. Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go away either. Ed Dolan - Minnesota                                                       Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:24:37 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >snip< > I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers. Readers have been taking care of themselves long before you got here in '03 and will be just fine long after you've turned to dust. If readers can't grasp Jeff's posts that's Jeff's problem, not yours. If a reader is sick of Jeff's posts the Usenet Way(tm) is for the reader to simply killfile him. > You do not have an inkling about Usenet. And you are projecting. > Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about. Funny how those that know the least preach the most. >> The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make my >> content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a >> scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going >> to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style. > > Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You > are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the > rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about > it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go > away either. Getting you to go away is trivial, a single keystroke away. If you knew much about Usenet you'd know that. On the first day god created the Internet, and it was good. On the second day god created Usenet, and it was good. On the third day god created kill files, and Usenet was oh, so much better. Ed, the only reason I haven't kill filed you yet is because you amuse me. The moment you are no longer an amusement, *poof*, you will vanish from the Usenet earth. -Zenin                                                         Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:06:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119071390.26973@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >> I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers. > > Readers have been taking care of themselves long before you got here in > '03 and will be just fine long after you've turned to dust. If readers > can't grasp Jeff's posts that's Jeff's problem, not yours. If a reader > is sick of Jeff's posts the Usenet Way(tm) is for the reader to simply > killfile him. > >> You do not have an inkling about Usenet. > > And you are projecting. > >> Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about. > > Funny how those that know the least preach the most. The above quotes are examples of very selective editing - single sentences taken out of context. But that is ever the way of a Usenet scoundrel. Having been around the Internet and Usenet for a long time does not mean that you have any morality. >>> The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make >>> my >>> content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a >>> scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going >>> to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style. >> >> Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You >> are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the >> rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about >> it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go >> away either. > > Getting you to go away is trivial, a single keystroke away. If you > knew > much about Usenet you'd know that. I have never kill filed anyone and I never will, unless I determine that such a person is a crazy criminal type. I read and respond to those that I so choose and I do not read or respond to those that I so choose. What could be simpler? > On the first day god created the Internet, and it was good. > > On the second day god created Usenet, and it was good. > > On the third day god created kill files, and Usenet was oh, so much > better. > > Ed, the only reason I haven't kill filed you yet is because you amuse > me. The moment you are no longer an amusement, *poof*, you will vanish > from the Usenet earth. I can make you vanish without kill filing you. I will simply stop reading you. What could be simpler? Read what I had to say about kill filers in a previous message in this thread. You sure do fit the mold! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                           Date: 18 Jun 2005 08:03:44 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:GOOdneBy0b-xby7fRVn-tQ@prairiewave.com... > > The above quotes are examples of very selective editing.... Y'know Ed, in a nutshell, this is why I sometimes don't quote. I don't want to include five long paragraphs when they are there to be found earlier in the thread and I don't want to edit because my editing will have a bias. So in those cases, instead of quoting like I did above it is easier to say Re: Editing and Quoting: followed by the same paragraph I wrote above. It is in some ways more considerate to the reader. For the reader who is folloing the thread they don't have go looking for where the >'s end to find the new stuff. For the reader who jumped into the thread in the middle, why did you do that? Back in the BBS days I would often have to read through 40 or 50 messages in a discussion in which I wanted to get involved. I would never depend on the last message to encapsulate what has come before. I don't know what your rules say and I still insist I can manage with common sense but I would say (and this is not a rule) If it is a short and complete idea, quote it. If it is long or a long discussion, refer to it. The only time I ever failed to do one of those things is when I was explicitly trying to push one of your buttons. Although there are some messages where the content is clear enough that anyone who has followed the thread understands how the new follows the old.                                                             Date: 19 Jun 2005 03:25:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b83cvrc3n42c2@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:GOOdneBy0b-xby7fRVn-tQ@prairiewave.com... >> >> The above quotes are examples of very selective editing.... > > Y'know Ed, in a nutshell, this is why I sometimes don't quote. I don't > want to include five long paragraphs when they are there to be found > earlier in the thread and I don't want to edit because my editing will > have a bias. > > So in those cases, instead of quoting like I did above it is easier to say > > Re: Editing and Quoting: > > followed by the same paragraph I wrote above. It is in some ways more > considerate to the reader. For the reader who is folloing the thread they > don't have go looking for where the >'s end to find the new stuff. Jeff, what you are doing is actually more work than just posting the previous message. I will admit you do what you do very well - which leads me to believe that you could also edit equally as well without being biased. I believe it is better for the reader to have the previous message quoted not only for content reasons, but also for stylistic reasons. Your paraphrase or lead in is not going to capture my essence. My personality gets lost when you do what you do. The very best thing about Usenet is this ability to easily provide context to everything that gets said. > For the reader who jumped into the thread in the middle, why did you do > that? > > Back in the BBS days I would often have to read through 40 or 50 messages > in a discussion in which I wanted to get involved. I would never depend on > the last message to encapsulate what has come before. I am quite sure that no one does that sort of thing anymore, certainly not on ARBR. People come to the computer these days for recreation and to be entertained. You can never depend on anyone to be up to speed on a thread. > I don't know what your rules say and I still insist I can manage with > common sense but I would say (and this is not a rule) > > If it is a short and complete idea, quote it. Agreed! If it is long or a long > discussion, refer to it. Either that, or it can be judiciously edited so only the relevant part matters. However, if you are responding to it completely, then it should be quoted completely also. I purposely do not go on at great length because it is not appropriate to do so for a newsgroup like ARBR. Note how I keep my paragraphs manageable. I can always be very easily quoted in full paragraph by paragraph. The only time I ever failed to do one of those > things is when I was explicitly trying to push one of your buttons. > Although there are some messages where the content is clear enough that > anyone who has followed the thread understands how the new follows the > old. We will get along famously as long as you bottom post and quote me in your replies. Ed Dolan - Minnesota                                                               Date: 19 Jun 2005 05:16:40 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Re Posting Style: Ed, I'm not going to edit you. Our outlook on things is almost 180 degrees. There is no way for my bias not to creep in. If you think you can edit without bias then feel free to do so. I know you can't. People (warning, whopping generalization coming...whoop whoop whoop) can't do anything without bias. You say that people aren't going to go through the thread to pickup the conversation? Then they will have limited understanding and if that is what they want then it is ok with me. Re: Kill filing you and encouraging other to do the same. I don't like this behavior either. I don't have a problem with someone deciding that they don't want to read you and using technology to keep you away. But if they do that then they should actually stay away. The type of behavior that you describe is that of an intellectual coward. Me personally, I think you deserve your voice. I don't have to read it if I don't want to. Anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to. You and I have the strangest points where we agree but I would say on many issues we are 180 degrees. Even so I welcome your voice. I don't believe that only people who think like me should be heard from. That would be boring. What could be happening to those who kill you but still jump in is that they are responding to me, who has not been kill filed, but really talking to you. Well if they are going to do that then they will almost certainly get you wrong. I think people should hear all voices. If you only want to hear the people that agree with you then go someplace where everyone agrees with you. Public forums, by definition, are not going to be such places. Re: Politics, Interational Affairs, etc. Its pretty clear that this is one of those areas where we are 180. Re: Liberterianism I sort of like the idea but I feel the same way about it that I do about communisim. They are both interesting ideas that will never work. I do feel that personal liberty and freedom should be a lot less restricted than they are now but I don't really think that will ever happen. I also recognize that there must be incentive and large rewards to innovate and succeed. I would like to see the lowest of the low taken care of but I also think that everyone deserves the chance to "play for the big money". You can't do that unless there is big money to play for. So I recognize my various utopian dreams are just that, dreams, and I seek to make things better (by my definiation which is very different from yours) within the current system. Books, etc. You know I didn't respond to that the first time because I thought you were just trying to provke a response. Ofcourse people read books. They may not read as much as they did when books were the only entertainment available but literaure is far from dead. Maybe you don't read novels but a lot of people do. But Ed you are too st not to know this alerady. So is this the response you were trying to provoke. I told you it was easy to do.                                                                 Date: 20 Jun 2005 03:46:45 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11badv0likb0r67@news.supernews.com... > Re Posting Style: > > Ed, I'm not going to edit you. Our outlook on things is almost 180 > degrees. There is no way for my bias not to creep in. If you think you can > edit without bias then feel free to do so. I know you can't. People > (warning, whopping generalization coming...whoop whoop whoop) can't do > anything without bias. I can edit anyone perfectly without any bias whatsoever. I will simply include all of the relevant post and only eliminate that which is irrelevant to what I am responding to. This is not difficult at all for anyone with a college education. Even st high schoolers can be very good at this. However, in the absence of any education at all, simply include the entire preceding post and forget about relevancy. Your objections to proper posting do not make any sense to me. > You say that people aren't going to go through the thread to pickup the > conversation? Then they will have limited understanding and if that is > what they want then it is ok with me. But I am not as selfish as you are. I want others to benefit from my wisdom and so I want to make it easy for them to read what I have written and what others have written. It must be the educator in me. I do not understand why you do not follow my example since it is not only correct but easy to do. > Re: Kill filing you and encouraging other to do the same. Most others will not know to what you are referring, whereas if you had included my message in quotation it would be immediately apparent. Even I had to recollect what I had said. You must have other reasons why you do not quote me. I am beginning to suspect your motivations! [...] > Re: Liberterianism > > I sort of like the idea but I feel the same way about it that I do about > communisim. They are both interesting ideas that will never work. I do > feel that personal liberty and freedom should be a lot less restricted > than they are now but I don't really think that will ever happen. I also > recognize that there must be incentive and large rewards to innovate and > succeed. I would like to see the lowest of the low taken care of but I > also think that everyone deserves the chance to "play for the big money". > You can't do that unless there is big money to play for. So I recognize my > various utopian dreams are just that, dreams, and I seek to make things > better (by my definiation which is very different from yours) within the > current system. Liberals, socialists and communists hate libertarians the same as we conservatives. > Books, etc. > > You know I didn't respond to that the first time because I thought you > were just trying to provke a response. Ofcourse people read books. They > may not read as much as they did when books were the only entertainment > available but literaure is far from dead. Maybe you don't read novels but > a lot of people do. But Ed you are too st not to know this alerady. So > is this the response you were trying to provoke. I told you it was easy to > do. Novels are hardly even being written any more so few people are reading them. According to Gore Vidal, the novel is now as dead as the Dodo Bird. It died a couple of generations ago. Ed Dolan - Minnesota PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to kill file you. Zenin came right out and said it. He is devious like a fox, but he is truthful too. I cannot give your messages the time and effort they deserve if you do not quote me in your messages.                                                                   Date: 20 Jun 2005 13:52:09 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:PeOdnUehpJzlHyvfRVn-iQ@prairiewave.com... > > PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to > kill file you. Zenin came right out and said it. He is devious like a fox, > but he is truthful too. I cannot give your messages the time and effort > they deserve if you do not quote me in your messages. > Ed, I've already explained my posting style and it really isn't more complicated than that. I don't care who kill files me or why. I'm sure that my saying the same things to you over and over has to be boring to some people and who can blame them. My motives are straightforward and relatively simple. I write what I believe to be the way things are as I understand them. So in a nutshell: 1. I'd like you and others to lay off the insults. It is perfectly fine to disagree but you don't have to be disagreeable. 2. I'll post any damn way I want to. I'll quote if I feel like it or not. If that is a problem for you then don't read my posts. It isn't going to have a profound impact on my life if you choose not to read and respond to something because you don't like the way it is posted. 3. Everyone deserves a voice here. Clearly there are ways to be so obnoxious as to really destroy the experience for everyone. I don't think you've crossed that line. You usually begin your responses to a topic "on topic" and only sometimes do things degrade into a shouting match. But it takes two or more to do that so no individual (such as you) can be held to blame. If people don't want the hostile conversations to continue then they can simply not respond and the topic dies. 4. People read books and write books dispite what Gore Vidal may have said and dispite what you have come to believe. But these days people also watch TV, DVD's, Movies, etc. and the novel is clearly not what it once was. Nothing can replace it, however. All of these things are different and books will always have a place. Ed, you may enjoy playing cute games and getting people to respond to all sorts of things. Fine. That makes me your patsy. I'm the sucker who will fall for it every time. That is fine with me. As for who I am, I think your earlier description of me as an "ernest clod" works well. Since my life's purpose is not seeking your approval I don't mind whatever label you decide to stick me with. As always I sincerely wish you all the best on and off the bike. Jeff                                                                     Date: 21 Jun 2005 01:30:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11be0jkncdg38a@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:PeOdnUehpJzlHyvfRVn-iQ@prairiewave.com... >> >> PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to >> kill file you. Zenin came right out and said it. He is devious like a >> fox, but he is truthful too. I cannot give your messages the time and >> effort they deserve if you do not quote me in your messages. >> > > Ed, I've already explained my posting style and it really isn't more > complicated than that. I don't care who kill files me or why. I'm sure > that my saying the same things to you over and over has to be boring to > some people and who can blame them. Your posting style is unique. That right there ought to give you pause. > My motives are straightforward and relatively simple. I write what I > believe to be the way things are as I understand them. So in a nutshell: > > 1. I'd like you and others to lay off the insults. It is perfectly fine to > disagree but you don't have to be disagreeable. I like to say things forcefully so as to get the attention of the brain dead. I am in good company as all writers strive for a such a style. > 2. I'll post any damn way I want to. I'll quote if I feel like it or not. > If that is a problem for you then don't read my posts. It isn't going to > have a profound impact on my life if you choose not to read and respond to > something because you don't like the way it is posted. I will never rest from my labors as long as you post the way you do. However, I will not expend much time or energy on you either. I can't be bothered overly much with those who do not observe the rules of proper posting. > 3. Everyone deserves a voice here. Clearly there are ways to be so > obnoxious as to really destroy the experience for everyone. I don't think > you've crossed that line. You usually begin your responses to a topic "on > topic" and only sometimes do things degrade into a shouting match. But it > takes two or more to do that so no individual (such as you) can be held to > blame. If people don't want the hostile conversations to continue then > they can simply not respond and the topic dies. Agreed, but you do not know what obnoxious posting is. You are a naif and do not know what a real troll is all about. Where were you when this group was being destroyed a few months ago by a criminal vandal troll. This was not fun and games. A real troll can easily destroy a newsgroup without half trying, especially when everyone on the group is either a coward or worse. > 4. People read books and write books dispite what Gore Vidal may have said > and dispite what you have come to believe. But these days people also > watch TV, DVD's, Movies, etc. and the novel is clearly not what it once > was. Nothing can replace it, however. All of these things are different > and books will always have a place. The place for books will never again be what it was though due to the electronic media. Don't you think that was pretty much what I was saying in the first place? You see how we can find areas of agreement when you listen to the small quiet voice in the back of your mind. > Ed, you may enjoy playing cute games and getting people to respond to all > sorts of things. Fine. That makes me your patsy. I'm the sucker who will > fall for it every time. That is fine with me. As for who I am, I think > your earlier description of me as an "ernest clod" works well. Since my > life's purpose is not seeking your approval I don't mind whatever label > you decide to stick me with. Newsgroups are all about playing games and having some fun. Very strange that a st fellow like you do not realize this. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                       Date: 21 Jun 2005 05:44:34 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:YrydnT8OGcSGKSrfRVn- > Your posting style is unique. That right there ought to give you pause. Well, um, ok. I wasn't going for unique. Just throwing in my hat like everybody else. > I like to say things forcefully so as to get the attention of the brain > dead. I am in good company as all writers strive for a such a style. No! Really! You? I hadn't noticed. But seriously I have found that while it may get you read and responded to it probably don't really get you considered. For example: I am against our so called "War on Terror" but there are people who can make intelligent arguements for it. Those people at least give you pause to consider the issue. I don't think that you have persuaded anyone on that issue, however, and it seems to be important to you. I am very very very pro-gun control. I have a close friend who is anti-gun control. He doesn't yell and scream about it but rather argues his case with verifyable facts. I come away from a talk with him feeling like he's got the fact on his side and not me. He is of a similar temperment to me, however, and he is a great friend dispite the area where we don't agree. I doubt that I've ever heard him yell outside of the dojo. > I will never rest from my labors as long as you post the way you do. So don't rest. I think the statement "I'll post any damn way I please was pretty clear." > Agreed, but you do not know what obnoxious posting is. You are a naif and > do not know what a real troll is all about. Where were you when this > group was being destroyed a few months ago by a criminal vandal troll. > This was not fun and games. A real troll can easily destroy a newsgroup > without half trying, especially when everyone on the group is either a > coward or worse. > I've only seen references to this. Can some one tell me the story. Needless to say I wasn't here then. > > The place for books will never again be what it was though due to the > electronic media. Don't you think that was pretty much what I was saying > in the first place? You see how we can find areas of agreement when you > listen to the small quiet voice in the back of your mind. > No Ed that isn't what you said. It is rather what I said. You said things like "Nobody reads novels anymore. Old people don't read novels. The novel is dead. I stopped reading novels when I was 30. Gore Vidal says Novels are dead. Novels are only for the young who are still romantic..." Basically what you just did in the last paragraph you wrote is re-state what I said not what you have said in the past. Check the file my boy. And don't knock that small quiet voice. Everybody's got one. When you don't listen he/she can sometimes grow bigger and louder. > > Newsgroups are all about playing games and having some fun. Very strange > that a st fellow like you do not realize this. > So play! Have fun! I get it. You are doing what you want to do and enjoying the result. You are not bothered by the fact that there are some who find what you do unpleasant. You know what? As long as you stick to being merely unpleasant, I don't mind either. You are easily ignored if that is my wish. I can play your game if that is my wish. Or, Finally I can play my own game while you are playing your and it keeps things interesting Do tell me more about the evil criminal troll, however, I have no idea what that was about. Thanks, Jeff                                                                         Date: 21 Jun 2005 06:24:07 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bfobgjqu28a1f@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message news:YrydnT8OGcSGKSrfRVn- > >> Your posting style is unique. That right there ought to give you pause. > > Well, um, ok. I wasn't going for unique. Just throwing in my hat like > everybody else. No one else posts like you do. You post like one would write an email. Usenet is not email! >> I like to say things forcefully so as to get the attention of the brain >> dead. I am in good company as all writers strive for a such a style. > > No! Really! You? I hadn't noticed. > > But seriously I have found that while it may get you read and responded to > it probably don't really get you considered. For example: > > I am against our so called "War on Terror" but there are people who can > make intelligent arguements for it. Those people at least give you pause > to consider the issue. I don't think that you have persuaded anyone on > that issue, however, and it seems to be important to you. But I am not interested in persuading anyone that the War On Terrorism is a good idea. I am only interested in belittling the opposite view. I can easily do that without much effort. I am of the view that everyone had already made up their mind about the War from day one based on their ideology and I mean to show what idiots I think they are for thinking like they do. Facts simply don't matter to me. I leave that to others. I am all about opinion and beliefs. That is what I go after. I am an ideologue who attacks other ideologies that I don't agree with. Ideologies have very little if anything to do with facts. > I am very very very pro-gun control. I have a close friend who is anti-gun > control. He doesn't yell and scream about it but rather argues his case > with verifyable facts. I come away from a talk with him feeling like he's > got the fact on his side and not me. He is of a similar temperment to me, > however, and he is a great friend dispite the area where we don't agree. I > doubt that I've ever heard him yell outside of the dojo. Most arguments believe it or not are not about the facts. They are about views that are deeply embedded in a person and hardly even accessible to reason. This is what has to be attacked, not the facts. Facts are mostly irrelevant and unimportant. You go for the surface; I go for the deep. >> I will never rest from my labors as long as you post the way you do. > > So don't rest. I think the statement "I'll post any damn way I please was > pretty clear." You are posting like you should in this present message. See how easy it is. Why not do it this way all the time? >> Agreed, but you do not know what obnoxious posting is. You are a naif and >> do not know what a real troll is all about. Where were you when this >> group was being destroyed a few months ago by a criminal vandal troll. >> This was not fun and games. A real troll can easily destroy a newsgroup >> without half trying, especially when everyone on the group is either a >> coward or worse. >> > > I've only seen references to this. Can some one tell me the story. > Needless to say I wasn't here then. No one will tell you the story, but you can go back and read however much of the crap that you can stand. >> The place for books will never again be what it was though due to the >> electronic media. Don't you think that was pretty much what I was saying >> in the first place? You see how we can find areas of agreement when you >> listen to the small quiet voice in the back of your mind. >> > > No Ed that isn't what you said. It is rather what I said. You said things > like "Nobody reads novels anymore. Old people don't read novels. The novel > is dead. I stopped reading novels when I was 30. Gore Vidal says Novels > are dead. Novels are only for the young who are still romantic..." Everything I said about the novel is true. Everything I say about books in general is also true. Neither are what they used to be because of the electronic media. You admitted as much yourself, even though you started off claiming everything was as before. > Basically what you just did in the last paragraph you wrote is re-state > what I said not what you have said in the past. Check the file my boy. And > don't knock that small quiet voice. Everybody's got one. When you don't > listen he/she can sometimes grow bigger and louder. Now you began to see the importance of including everything that has been said before. No one will go back and see they have previously said. It has to be right in front of you or you can forget about it. >> Newsgroups are all about playing games and having some fun. Very strange >> that a st fellow like you do not realize this. >> > > So play! Have fun! I get it. You are doing what you want to do and > enjoying the result. You are not bothered by the fact that there are some > who find what you do unpleasant. You know what? As long as you stick to > being merely unpleasant, I don't mind either. You are easily ignored if > that is my wish. I can play your game if that is my wish. Or, Finally I > can play my own game while you are playing your and it keeps things > interesting By George, I think he has got it! > Do tell me more about the evil criminal troll, however, I have no idea > what that was about. He may be back one of these days and then you can show the rest of us what you are made of. Everyone else here on ARBR proved themselves to be cowards except for a handful of us. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                   Date: 20 Jun 2005 09:33:55 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >snip< > I can edit anyone perfectly without any bias whatsoever. I will simply > include all of the relevant post and only eliminate that which is > irrelevant to what I am responding to. I did exactly this with your post and you called it biased because I didn't include the full paragraph(s). In that example (as in this one), I was responding to a point made within a paragraph that consisted of many sub-points as well as the over-all point. When such situations occur one is required to split the quote to display correct context for the reply (eg, this reply). Perhaps if your paragraphs were not so long-winded this type of edit would not be so often required. > PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to > kill file you. Or he could simply be respecting the wishes of those who have chosen to avoid your ramblings. Or he could not care about any of it (the most likely case). > Zenin came right out and said it. Said what? I did suggest that your real intent in promoting the complete and unedited quoting of your messages was to circumvent kill files, but I never suggested Jeff had thought at all about kill files. > I cannot give your messages the time and effort they deserve if you do not > quote me in your messages. You've already said your piece; demanding others recite you again is simply being obnoxious. -Zenin                                                                     Date: 20 Jun 2005 06:14:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119259129.810328@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >> I can edit anyone perfectly without any bias whatsoever. I will simply >> include all of the relevant post and only eliminate that which is >> irrelevant to what I am responding to. > > I did exactly this with your post and you called it biased because I > didn't include the full paragraph(s). In that example (as in this > one), > I was responding to a point made within a paragraph that consisted of > many sub-points as well as the over-all point. When such situations > occur one is required to split the quote to display correct context for > the reply (eg, this reply). Perhaps if your paragraphs were not so > long-winded this type of edit would not be so often required. It is not proper to pull a single sentence out of a paragraph. I never write that badly that it can be done. My paragraphs are of a very reasonable length and they hang together. I generally only devote one thought to one paragraph with maybe a trailing comment at the end as a sort of zinger. But the truth is there are very few who know how to edit. It is both a skill and an art. A good writer, such as myself, requires very little editing if any. You will always be on safe ground if you include my every word in a paragraph to which you are responding. Only bad writers need to be edited Note how I have included all of your paragraph because I am responding to all of your paragraph. I could have easily excluded your last sentence because it makes me look bad, but I chose not to because I want the reader to grasp your personality and then my reaction to it. Calling me long-winded tells the reader more about you than it does me. It is the essence of being fair which the reader will appreciate and perhaps enjoy at the same time. >> PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to >> kill file you. > > Or he could simply be respecting the wishes of those who have chosen to > avoid your ramblings. Or he could not care about any of it (the most > likely case). No, Jeff is reading me whole, but he wants to paraphrase what I say in a very minimalist way. I believe I am quite correct in my assessment of why he is doing what he is doing - he does not want others to kill file him. It is sad in a way that he should care about such matters. I outgrew all of that sort of thing by the time I was out of my teens. >> Zenin came right out and said it. > > Said what? Who the hell even knows what you are talking about at this point? Here is the complete thought which is what you should have presented to the reader: "I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to kill file you. Zenin came right out and said it. He is devious like a fox, but he is truthful too." > I did suggest that your real intent in promoting the > complete and unedited quoting of your messages was to circumvent kill > files, but I never suggested Jeff had thought at all about kill files. Right! I said that you said it. And then I added the thought that that may be why Jeff was not quoting me. But you were the one that brought up the evil thought in the first place, not me and not Jeff. Also, look up the word devious in a dictionary if you want to see yourself as others see you. >> I cannot give your messages the time and effort they deserve if you do >> not >> quote me in your messages. > > You've already said your piece; demanding others recite you again is > simply being obnoxious. I told Jeff something that he needs to know if he continues to post in the manner that he does. I had not previously told him that. The question arises at this point of how well do you read? Your editing is just so-so. You have not persuaded me of a single thing so far. You do know one or two things about the Internet and Usenet, but that is of only slight interest to me. Bottom line, you write about what you want to write about and say it how you please and I will do the same. However, as with Jeff, if I think you are being unfair in your editing, I will make short work of you. I can't be bothered wasting time with those who refuse to follow the rules and extend the elementary courtesies of proper posting form. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                       Date: 17 Jun 2005 19:33:26 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg >an era when scholars and gentlemen wer the only ones on line? Aw Eddie ya shoulda been there. Believe me there were some real turkeys. The worst was this "replacement sysop". There was a guy named Wayne that ran a BBS where there was a lively philisophical discussion. Wayne was a pretty high up guy in the Hare Krishna group but he tolerated a large variety of opinion and when it his arguments were backed by his faith he would simply say "This is what I believe". At some point they sent him on the road to open temples or something of the sort. The person who replaced him was a dogmatic bore. He would answer every post with "The vedas say ...." and then quote scripture and leave no room for discussion. That BBS died very quickly after he took over. Now that is unfair posting my friend. Yes I post to you in what looks more like an email. Who says there are rules here? If you want rules that must be obeyed then join some moderated groups where there is a moderator who throws off people that don't play by the rules. You'd better be careful, though. I suspect you'd be one of the first to go. >There is always a germ of truth in my every generalization. Well on this we agree. That is infact the nature of generalizations. They are useful becuase they encapsulate quite a lot. They are also by their nature, lies because at the level of the specific, they fall apart. For the record I can't stand PC either although you seem to insist on it for posting format. >Liberals are fools and idiots... Ofcourse we are. Who else could believe that in a world populated with people like you, that thing can actually get better. >I'm concerned about the readers... Since when are you concerned about anyone that isn't you. Give the readers some credit will you (oh yeah, I remember, you won't). They will be able to sort it out for themselves. If they can't they will surely complain. No complaints yet (except from you but you say you understand me so I don't give your complaint any weight). >I am interested in writing for the group. You are such a nobel fellow. How could I have so grossly misunderestimated you (don't you just love Bushisms)? You are the ultimate humanitarian thinking only of others! How good of you to chastise me for my selfish and vile ways! I must absorb you teachings and recognize you as my true master so that I too may one day put "great" after my name. >Ed Dolan - Minnesota That there line above is quoted from your last posting. Are you no longer great? I revoke my pronouncement that you are my master. You are a false prophet Ed. Your greatness is fleeting or ebbing or doing whatever greatness does when it is going away. I, your most humble servant, who remains a foolish liberal with a song in his heart, bid you good night. Jeff                                                         Date: 17 Jun 2005 19:24:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b6negek1e0852@news.supernews.com... > >an era when scholars and gentlemen were the only ones on line? > > Aw Eddie ya shoulda been there. Believe me there were some real turkeys. > The worst was this "replacement sysop". There was a guy named Wayne that > ran a BBS where there was a lively philisophical discussion. Wayne was a > pretty high up guy in the Hare Krishna group but he tolerated a large > variety of opinion and when it his arguments were backed by his faith he > would simply say "This is what I believe". At some point they sent him on > the road to open temples or something of the sort. The person who replaced > him was a dogmatic bore. He would answer every post with "The vedas say > ...." and then quote scripture and leave no room for discussion. That BBS > died very quickly after he took over. Now that is unfair posting my > friend. That person was not being responsive. If you will note carefully, I am fully responsive to whatever is being said. That is why incidentally I am NOT a troll, even though I pretend to be one. Still, it is my understanding that the web was developed by and for scholars. > Yes I post to you in what looks more like an email. Who says there are > rules here? If you want rules that must be obeyed then join some moderated > groups where there is a moderator who throws off people that don't play by > the rules. You'd better be careful, though. I suspect you'd be one of the > first to go. Newsgroups are priily about a specific subject which is why by and large I am not really interested in newsgroups. I am a generalist, not a specialist. A moderator would not tolerate my being off topic as much as I am. ARBR is a group that will tolerate a certain amount of being off topic which I appreciate. >>There is always a germ of truth in my every generalization. > > Well on this we agree. That is infact the nature of generalizations. They > are useful becuase they encapsulate quite a lot. They are also by their > nature, lies because at the level of the specific, they fall apart. For > the record I can't stand PC either although you seem to insist on it for > posting format. Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do not do that. So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair! To edit well is a fine art and most can't do it with a darn. I am a very good editor because I am a good reader. Trust me on this, most here on ARBR do not know how to edit. That is why I say it is much better to include too much than too little when quoting others. [...] >>I'm concerned about the readers... > > Since when are you concerned about anyone that isn't you. Give the readers > some credit will you (oh yeah, I remember, you won't). They will be able > to sort it out for themselves. If they can't they will surely complain. No > complaints yet (except from you but you say you understand me so I don't > give your complaint any weight). Nope! I know readers and you don't. You have got to make it easy for them or they won't bother. >>I am interested in writing for the group. > > You are such a nobel fellow. How could I have so grossly misunderestimated > you (don't you just love Bushisms)? You are the ultimate humanitarian > thinking only of others! How good of you to chastise me for my selfish and > vile ways! I must absorb you teachings and recognize you as my true master > so that I too may one day put "great" after my name. I would never post a message to a newsgroup if I thought just that one person I was answering was going to read what I had written. I am ONLY interested in writing to a group of people, the more the better. This has to do with ego and has nothing to do with nobility. >>Ed Dolan - Minnesota > > That there line above is quoted from your last posting. Are you no longer > great? I revoke my pronouncement that you are my master. You are a false > prophet Ed. Your greatness is fleeting or ebbing or doing whatever > greatness does when it is going away. When I use the moniker " the Great," I am in my parody mode. When I don't use it, I am being at least half way serious. Guess what I am being when I use Saint Edward? > I, your most humble servant, who remains a foolish liberal with a song in > his heart, bid you good night. False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                           Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:36:19 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >snip< > Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to > quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not > picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you > say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do > not do that. Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full within an article penned by another? The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot... > So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I > think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair! If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course, is then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily debatable). But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your problem. -Zenin                                                             Date: 18 Jun 2005 06:03:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119072091.602820@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >> Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to >> quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not >> picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you >> say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do >> not do that. > > Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the > author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full > within > an article penned by another? > > The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear > you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your > original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot... Here is Zenin being too cute and st for words. Is it possible that Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they made that way by society? Nature or nurture? I would just as soon not have a response from anyone who refuses to quote me for fear of offending a kill filer, a most despicable type of human flotsam. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                               Date: 18 Jun 2005 07:52:40 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:A5CdnbpMHtnvYi7fRVn-uA@prairiewave.com... > Here is Zenin being too cute and st for words. Is it possible that > Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves > with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in > turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they > made that way by society? Nature or nurture? Now you see this is good. You are attacking the people whose ideas and behaviors you don't like. You generalize to others who think and behave as they do, which is fine. It is a rational basis upon which to discriminate. When you say "I don't like the way you think" or "I don't like the way you act" it is a fairly straight forward step to "And I don't like other people who think and act that way either". I say "Bravo Ed", you have finally gotten the content as correct as I got the form (note the properly quoted text above). But when you say all Brits, or All Canadians, or All <insert favorite nationality > and then attibute the very idea or behavior that you don't like to them you have crossed a line and my knee will jerk. Now personally I don't care who kill files me. I also don't mind saying publicly that I like you and I'm glad you're her. This group would be less interesting without you. I don't like some of what you do, however. And in your opinion my attitude is PC? Liberal yes. PC? I don't think so. They aren't the same idologies and they don't go together. My liberal pals and I all hate PC. We blame it on the conservatives (just kidding).                                                                 Date: 19 Jun 2005 02:59:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b82o7jo7d6bb0@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:A5CdnbpMHtnvYi7fRVn-uA@prairiewave.com... >> Here is Zenin being too cute and st for words. Is it possible that >> Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves >> with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in >> turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they >> made that way by society? Nature or nurture? > > Now you see this is good. You are attacking the people whose ideas and > behaviors you don't like. You generalize to others who think and behave as > they do, which is fine. It is a rational basis upon which to discriminate. > > When you say "I don't like the way you think" or "I don't like the way you > act" it is a fairly straight forward step to "And I don't like other > people who think and act that way either". > > I say "Bravo Ed", you have finally gotten the content as correct as I got > the form (note the properly quoted text above). Keep up the good work! > But when you say all Brits, or All Canadians, or All <insert favorite > nationality> and then attibute the very idea or behavior that you don't > like to them you have crossed a line and my knee will jerk. > > Now personally I don't care who kill files me. I also don't mind saying > publicly that I like you and I'm glad you're her. This group would be less > interesting without you. I don't like some of what you do, however. Jeff, there is never any reason to kill file me. If and when I am more annoying than amusing, then just don't bother reading me. There are very many posters to this group that I do not bother with for various reasons. But I don't kill file them; I just don't read them. I once had to take after a character by the name of Cletus Lee from Texas. He had kill filed me which was OK, but then he interloped comments in threads to which I was posting advising others to also kill file me. What do you think of a person who would advise others to kill file someone when he is no longer even reading that person's posts? I think old Cletus is on BROL now and they are sure welcome to him. > And in your opinion my attitude is PC? Liberal yes. PC? I don't think so. > They aren't the same idologies and they don't go together. My liberal pals > and I all hate PC. We blame it on the conservatives (just kidding). Liberalism and PC go together. Don't you read the NY Times and the Washington Post? Ed Dolan - Minnesota PS. Keep up the bottom posting and include quotations from my messages. Those are the two things that will keep me a happy camper.                                                             Date: 18 Jun 2005 04:47:43 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119072091.602820@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >> Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to >> quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not >> picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you >> say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do >> not do that. > > Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the > author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full > within > an article penned by another? > > The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear > you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your > original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot... > >> So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I >> think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair! > > If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and > don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the > person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course, > is > then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily debatable). The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for others to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence. > But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your > problem. My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill file anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you. Otherwise, it is just foolishness and quite childish. Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                               Date: 18 Jun 2005 20:21:15 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >snip< >> If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and >> don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the >> person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course, >> is then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily >> debatable). > > The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for others > to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence. Poppycock. Contextural quoting is a literary crutch to assist the current author in being understood. It has nothing to do with the previous author being "read unfiltered". The previous author got that chance when they posted their own article. Your real motive is not fairness, but rather the exact opposite: Your motive is in circumventing the reader's choice to not be subjected to your blither. >> But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your >> problem. > > My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill > file anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you. > Otherwise, it is just foolishness and quite childish. > > Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are > like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their > asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. It's rather ironic really... The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence by others. Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered left-wing. -Zenin                                                                 Date: 19 Jun 2005 02:42:01 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119125181.994618@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: > >snip< >>> If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and >>> don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the >>> person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course, >>> is then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily >>> debatable). >> >> The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for >> others >> to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence. > > Poppycock. Contextural quoting is a literary crutch to assist the > current author in being understood. It has nothing to do with the > previous author being "read unfiltered". The previous author got that > chance when they posted their own article. I want the current author to be understood, but I want the previous author to be understood also. Providing the necesaasry quotation does the trick every time, provided the editing is not done too selectively. > Your real motive is not fairness, but rather the exact opposite: Your > motive is in circumventing the reader's choice to not be subjected to > your blither. Actually I should be read in full at least 3 or 4 times. Once or twice is not nearly enough to absorb all of my wisdom. >>> But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your >>> problem. >> >> My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill >> file anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you. >> Otherwise, it is just foolishness and quite childish. >> >> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are >> like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their >> asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. > > It's rather ironic really... > > The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the > extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely > about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence by > others. What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required to read anything you do not want to read. By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not allowed to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself. I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill filers are liberals. They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. There are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to disagreements, however impolite. > Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set > of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered > left-wing. The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could have a much better newsgroup. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                   Date: 19 Jun 2005 19:30:46 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >snip< >>> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They >>> are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and >>> their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. >> >> It's rather ironic really... >> >> The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the >> extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely >> about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence >> by others. > > What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is > never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required > to read anything you do not want to read. What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, or topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but the same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if it can also apply in the inverse. > By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are > libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not allowed > to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself. That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. :-) > I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill > filers are liberals.They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that > they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. There > are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and > they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to > disagreements, however impolite. Me thinks you completely misunderstand the way kill files function. >> Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set >> of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered >> left-wing. > > The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could > have a much better newsgroup. Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups and can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path? -Zenin *There are left-wing libertarians, ala libertarian socialists. All around a much more practical and kind hearted bread then their right-wing relatives.                                                                     Date: 20 Jun 2005 03:13:02 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119208545.696499@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >>>> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They >>>> are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and >>>> their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. >>> >>> It's rather ironic really... >>> >>> The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the >>> extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely >>> about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence >>> by others. >> >> What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is >> never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required >> to read anything you do not want to read. > > What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are > nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, > or > topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but the > same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if it > can > also apply in the inverse. I may want to read someone on one subject but not on another subject. If I kill file that person, then I am prevented from reading him on any subject. My objection to kill files remains - they are not necessary. However, the turth of the matter is that no one ever annoys me, at least not in writing. Plenty of people annoy me in the flesh, but words can never hurt me. But of course criminality via Usenet is another matter altogether. >> By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are >> libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not >> allowed >> to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself. > > That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. :-) We conservatives are very pro-society! But we know what works and what doesn't work, which is why we are not much in favor of social experimentation. >> I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill >> filers are liberals.They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that >> they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. >> There >> are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and >> they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to >> disagreements, however impolite. > > Me thinks you completely misunderstand the way kill files function. > >>> Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict >>> set >>> of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered >>> left-wing. >> >> The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could >> have a much better newsgroup. > > Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups and > can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you > please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path? Sigh! I MAY get back to you on this at a later date. I just hate to look up anything. It comes from my being a former college librarian. > *There are left-wing libertarians, ala libertarian socialists. All around > a much more practical and kind hearted bread then their right-wing > relatives. I have only read libertarians briefly as I just can't stand their confounded ideology. In any event, it is all hopelessly utopian. Ed Dolan - Minnesota                                                                       Date: 20 Jun 2005 09:22:08 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >> What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are >> nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, >> or topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but >> the same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if >> it can also apply in the inverse. > > I may want to read someone on one subject but not on another subject. If I > kill file that person, then I am prevented from reading him on any > subject. This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much lower user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might find them to your liking. You can also give things a positive score in such systems. For example I could give "Edward Dolan" a +1000 score, basically guaranteeing that reguardless of any other rules I'd see your posts. So even in a thread that I'd scored -100 ("I don't care about this topic"), if you happened to find the topic worthy of attention it would show up anyway (-100 + 1000 > 0). > My objection to kill files remains - they are not necessary. And the great thing about Usenet is that objection is perfectly fine, for you. Everyone is free to use or not use any filtering systems they personally find useful, without any imposition on anyone else. >>> By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are >>> libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not >>> allowed to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself. >> >> That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. :-) > > We conservatives are very pro-society! But we know what works and what > doesn't work, which is why we are not much in favor of social > experimentation. You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term "conservative" into the topic here where it was not before. Right-wing conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very different beasts. >snip< >> Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups >> and can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you >> please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path? > > Sigh! I MAY get back to you on this at a later date. I just hate to look > up anything. It comes from my being a former college librarian. Well, that might explain your odd distain for the inherent article retention and threading systems of Usenet and subsequent love of extraneous quoting. -Zenin                                                                         Date: 20 Jun 2005 05:04:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119258422.329371@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >>> What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are >>> nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, >>> or topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but >>> the same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if >>> it can also apply in the inverse. >> >> I may want to read someone on one subject but not on another subject. If >> I >> kill file that person, then I am prevented from reading him on any >> subject. > > This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were > created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much lower > user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might find > them to your liking. > > You can also give things a positive score in such systems. For example > I could give "Edward Dolan" a +1000 score, basically guaranteeing that > reguardless of any other rules I'd see your posts. So even in a thread > that I'd scored -100 ("I don't care about this topic"), if you happened > to find the topic worthy of attention it would show up anyway (-100 + > 1000 > 0). All of that is way too much work and I would never even think of doing it. It is just so much simpler to decide at the moment whether I care to read someone or not. I do not believe in creating complication when it is not necessary. The real question however is why anyone would ever want to kill file dear lovable Ed Dolan, the greatest charmer ARBR has ever known. >> My objection to kill files remains - they are not necessary. > > And the great thing about Usenet is that objection is perfectly fine, > for you. Everyone is free to use or not use any filtering systems they > personally find useful, without any imposition on anyone else. I do not care in the slightest if some dumbbell wants to kill file me. Hells Bells! It is his loss, not mine! >>>> By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are >>>> libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not >>>> allowed to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself. >>> >>> That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. >>> :-) >> >> We conservatives are very pro-society! But we know what works and what >> doesn't work, which is why we are not much in favor of social >> experimentation. > > You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing > libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term > "conservative" into the topic here where it was not before. Right-wing > conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very different > beasts. I distinguish conservative entirely from libertarian, of whatever stripe. I have never mixed the term conservative with libertarian. I believe you did that. > >snip< >>> Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups >>> and can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would >>> you >>> please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path? >> >> Sigh! I MAY get back to you on this at a later date. I just hate to look >> up anything. It comes from my being a former college librarian. > > Well, that might explain your odd distain for the inherent article > retention and threading systems of Usenet and subsequent love of > extraneous quoting. Yes, looking things up is for moles, whether scholars or librarians. Such low types may be necessary, but I sure as hell am not suited to be a mole. I leave that to my inferiors. You get the facts for me and I will tell you what to think about them. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                           Date: 20 Jun 2005 18:20:41 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >> This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were >> created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much >> lower user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might >> find them to your liking. >> > All of that is way too much work and I would never even think of doing it. > It is just so much simpler to decide at the moment whether I care to read > someone or not. I do not believe in creating complication when it is not > necessary. Well, you only follow this group one group with any frequency. When one follows many groups, killfiles/scoring drastically reduce the effort required. It means the difference between making ten decisions "at the moment" and hundreds. They really are the only effective way to follow a large number of groups (even if you never kill file individual people). > The real question however is why anyone would ever want to kill file dear > lovable Ed Dolan, the greatest charmer ARBR has ever known. Because you are an ignorant, arrogant, OT loving, noise posting, troll. Hey, you said you valued honesty. I was keeping you around because you amused me, much like the tiny basketball hoop in my office; something I can toy with that doesn't require much brain power, leaving my mind free to do my real work. BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about you? Why are you so paranoid? BTW, I too think I'm done with this thread...it is no longer amusing me. I'm only giving you a -50 however...you still might amuse on another topic. >> You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing >> libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term >> "conservative" into the topic here where it was not before. >> Right-wing conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very >> different beasts. > > I distinguish conservative entirely from libertarian, of whatever stripe. I > have never mixed the term conservative with libertarian. I believe you did > that. Review the thread, Ed. You compared the kill file functionality with liberalism. I countered with the observation that the system was really far more right-wing libertarian in nature. You're the one that then came back and confused the term right-wing libertarian with conservative. -Zenin                                                                             Date: 21 Jun 2005 10:22:15 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Zenin wrote: > BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as > likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real > question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about you? I've got anything Ed posts automatically ked as read, and I usually only show unread posts, so Ed's are effectively killed. No problem, since he rarely posts anything worth reading (though he does occasionally, as I see from quoted replies from others). Since Ed posts into so many threads it doesn't make much sense to kill anything he posts into, or a.r.b.r would effectively disappear. Compare and contrast with Mike Vandeman on other groups, where he only posts on a single "topic" and none of it is worth reading, including considered replies. In his case, any thread he posts to is ked as read and I don't see it. Those are the only two people I've got in a Bozo Bin, across a lot of Usenet traffic. I don't generally favour kill files, but with such actively moronic people to deal with as Ed and Mikey it makes sense to have exceptions for them. Horses for courses. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                                               Date: 21 Jun 2005 12:06:44 From: Tim Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 2005-06-21, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: > Zenin wrote: > >> BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as >> likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real >> question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about you? > > I've got anything Ed posts automatically ked as read, and I usually > only show unread posts, so Ed's are effectively killed. No problem, > since he rarely posts anything worth reading (though he does > occasionally, as I see from quoted replies from others). Since Ed posts > into so many threads it doesn't make much sense to kill anything he > posts into, or a.r.b.r would effectively disappear. > > Compare and contrast with Mike Vandeman on other groups, where he only > posts on a single "topic" and none of it is worth reading, including > considered replies. In his case, any thread he posts to is ked as > read and I don't see it. [trim] I have idly wondered whether Ed Dolan and Mike Vandeman may be the same person. They do seem to have certain traits in common. -- Tim.                                                                               Date: 21 Jun 2005 04:36:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3hq4i3Fi0jeoU1@individual.net... > Zenin wrote: > >> BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as >> likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real >> question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about >> you? > > I've got anything Ed posts automatically ked as read, and I usually > only show unread posts, so Ed's are effectively killed. No problem, since > he rarely posts anything worth reading (though he does occasionally, as I > see from quoted replies from others). Since Ed posts into so many threads > it doesn't make much sense to kill anything he posts into, or a.r.b.r > would effectively disappear. > > Compare and contrast with Mike Vandeman on other groups, where he only > posts on a single "topic" and none of it is worth reading, including > considered replies. In his case, any thread he posts to is ked as read > and I don't see it. > > Those are the only two people I've got in a Bozo Bin, across a lot of > Usenet traffic. I don't generally favour kill files, but with such > actively moronic people to deal with as Ed and Mikey it makes sense to > have exceptions for them. Peetah Clinch is a one note Johnny here on ARBR. All he knows how to do is crow about how he has kill filed certain individuals. There may be some other idiots who find that interesting, but all it really tells us is what an idiot he is - and a coward to boot. He is the biggest cry baby since Cletus Lee. It probably has something to do with him being a Medical Physics IT Officer at the University of Dundee, Scotland. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                             Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:59:59 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119290730.619503@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >>> This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were >>> created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much >>> lower user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might >>> find them to your liking. >>> >> All of that is way too much work and I would never even think of doing >> it. >> It is just so much simpler to decide at the moment whether I care to read >> someone or not. I do not believe in creating complication when it is not >> necessary. > > Well, you only follow this group one group with any frequency. > > When one follows many groups, killfiles/scoring drastically reduce the > effort required. It means the difference between making ten decisions > "at the moment" and hundreds. They really are the only effective way > to > follow a large number of groups (even if you never kill file individual > people). There are more than enough idiots available for me here on ARBR. Why would I ever look elsewhere? >> The real question however is why anyone would ever want to kill file dear >> lovable Ed Dolan, the greatest charmer ARBR has ever known. > > Because you are an ignorant, arrogant, OT loving, noise posting, troll. > > Hey, you said you valued honesty. That is the price that you pay for Greatness like mine. > I was keeping you around because you amused me, much like the tiny > basketball hoop in my office; something I can toy with that doesn't > require much brain power, leaving my mind free to do my real work. Not everyone can be Great like me. But you are a good loser, no small achievement these days when everyone thinks they are winners. > BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as > likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real > question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about you? > Why are you so paranoid? No, Peetah picks up at the mere mention of my name. What other proof do you need of my Greatness? Everyone is always discussing me and what I say. Yes, you too! That is because I have the knack of saying interesting things in interesting ways. I think everyone else is jealous of me, but let them choke on their jealousy. I am above all such petty concerns. In short, I am Ed Dolan the Great! And don't you ever forget it! > BTW, I too think I'm done with this thread...it is no longer amusing > me. > I'm only giving you a -50 however...you still might amuse on another > topic. If I were you I would be done too since you aren't saying much in any event. >>> You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing >>> libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term >>> "conservative" into the topic here where it was not before. >>> Right-wing conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very >>> different beasts. >> >> I distinguish conservative entirely from libertarian, of whatever stripe. >> I >> have never mixed the term conservative with libertarian. I believe you >> did >> that. > > Review the thread, Ed. > > You compared the kill file functionality with liberalism. I countered > with the observation that the system was really far more right-wing > libertarian in nature. You're the one that then came back and confused > the term right-wing libertarian with conservative. No, I never mentioned anything about libertarians being either right or left. You did that. All I ever said about libertarians is that they are nuts. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                               Date: 18 Jun 2005 07:43:02 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:6bydnVvN0OFUcC7fRVn-iQ@prairiewave.com... > Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are > like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their > asses in the air, they make very tempting targets. > Well this liberal idiot (who denies the pc label) will never kill file you. You are way too much fun. I'm not sure where my head and ass are but please be gentle (which has been my admonition to you all along hasn't it).                                                           Date: 18 Jun 2005 00:09:56 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:Y76dnboROKAj9C7fRVn-rw@prairiewave.com... > False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness. Well I've always been a fan of Uriah Heep (and I don't mean the rock band. If I've heard any of their music then I certainly don't know it by name). Please tell me if the reference eludes you. If it does then you are missing one of the world's greatest books. Y'know it might be time to re-read it. I'll bet I've forgotten so much. Ain't age grand? "I'm so very humble Mr. Dolan." Speaking of quotes here's one from the Ed Dolan hit list earlier in this thread. >UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot >brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry >like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse >than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially >the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene >back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if >they are not otherwise acting like criminals. > >Newsgroups are full of idiots and scoundrels. ARBR is no exception, but not >as bad as some others. I attribute this to our being an older age group. >Many on this group are ready for the grave. And thank God we do not have >any stupid women cluttering up this group like some others. We are >fortunate indeed! Ed, you say this kind of thing just a little too often to simply call it being witty. If you are just doing it to get a raise out of me or Buck or Peter or someone else, why bother? You already know that this kind of talk is going to set me off. It can't be that interesting to do it again and again. At some point Pavlov but down his bell and called the experiment done. You know how to push some of my buttons. Good for you! Is it really that interesting to do so? You've played this card a time or ten and we all reacted as you know we would. Move on. I'll publicly confirm what you already know. It is very easy to get me going with comments like these. I don't fnd them funny or witty. I do find them objectionable. You will get a predictable knee jerk response from me when you post them. But you've seen my knee jerk a bunch. How much fun could it be? I think you have some interesting things to say but they get a bit lost in this game you play. I think you have some interesting opinions and some boneheaded ones. But that is probably what you think of me and that would mean that things are as they should be. So I said many message ago that we were done with the Ed Dolan topic. Then I continued the topic (I did call myself a liar, however). So now I say once again that we are done with it. I caution you, however, that it wouldn't take much to keep it going as I am and have always been quite predictable. That has got to lose its appeal once we all know it, however. g'night again Jeff PS really do let me know if you don't understand the Uriah Heep reference. If you don't you are missing one of the greatest books ever written and it would be my pleasure to share it with you. I sense that you are someone who enjoys reading and this book is just about as good as it gets. It is always my answer to "What is your favorite novel?"                                                             Date: 18 Jun 2005 04:33:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b77kk44jp8a77@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:Y76dnboROKAj9C7fRVn-rw@prairiewave.com... > >> False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness. > > Well I've always been a fan of Uriah Heep (and I don't mean the rock band. > If I've heard any of their music then I certainly don't know it by name). > Please tell me if the reference eludes you. If it does then you are > missing one of the world's greatest books. Y'know it might be time to > re-read it. I'll bet I've forgotten so much. Ain't age grand? "I'm so very > humble Mr. Dolan." Nobody but nobody reads Dickens anymore - or any kind of novels. Are novels still even being written I wonder? > Speaking of quotes here's one from the Ed Dolan hit list earlier in this > thread. > >>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot >>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry >>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse >>than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially >>the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene >>back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if >>they are not otherwise acting like criminals. >> >>Newsgroups are full of idiots and scoundrels. ARBR is no exception, but >>not as bad as some others. I attribute this to our being an older age >>group. Many on this group are ready for the grave. And thank God we do not >>have any stupid women cluttering up this group like some others. We are >>fortunate indeed! > > Ed, you say this kind of thing just a little too often to simply call it > being witty. If you are just doing it to get a raise out of me or Buck or > Peter or someone else, why bother? You already know that this kind of talk > is going to set me off. It can't be that interesting to do it again and > again. At some point Pavlov but down his bell and called the experiment > done. Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say something that is NOT politically correct. > You know how to push some of my buttons. Good for you! Is it really that > interesting to do so? You've played this card a time or ten and we all > reacted as you know we would. Move on. I'll publicly confirm what you > already know. It is very easy to get me going with comments like these. I > don't fnd them funny or witty. I do find them objectionable. You will get > a predictable knee jerk response from me when you post them. But you've > seen my knee jerk a bunch. How much fun could it be? I do not think you know how to think outside the box of PC. If you do, prove it here on ARBR! Castigating me will get you nowhere. That has already been done in excelsis. You must remember that I am not writing to you so much as I am to the group. You are merely my instrument at the moment. It is a big mistake to take anything I say to anyone personally. I am always thinking of the masses hanging on my every word. I am a frustrated orator at heart. But I am delighted that you are finally quoting me in full. All I ever ask of my sparing partners is that they be fair. > I think you have some interesting things to say but they get a bit lost in > this game you play. I think you have some interesting opinions and some > boneheaded ones. But that is probably what you think of me and that would > mean that things are as they should be. > > So I said many message ago that we were done with the Ed Dolan topic. Then > I continued the topic (I did call myself a liar, however). So now I say > once again that we are done with it. I caution you, however, that it > wouldn't take much to keep it going as I am and have always been quite > predictable. That has got to lose its appeal once we all know it, however. > > g'night again > > Jeff Jeff, all topics only last so long on ARBR and then they die like they should. Posters come and go too as they should. We all of us wear out our welcome sooner or later and then we should leave. I myself have taken many farewells here on ARBR, some of them stormier than others. But as long as I have interesting persons like you to spare with, I will stay. You are now posting correctly and so I hope the problem I had with you is now over. Remember, no top posting and lots of quotations. Then I shall be one happy camper. Ed Dolan - Minnesota                                                               Date: 18 Jun 2005 07:39:23 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:g_qdnQHI3vLGdy7fRVn-iw@prairiewave.com... > > Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble > at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to > have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say > something that is NOT politically correct. > Since when exactly did speaking out against rudeness and insulting behavior become synonymous with PC, I think your insistence on proper form is far more PC than my insistence on well-mannered content.. Since I used proper form lets look at your content and give you the chance to defend it. We will get numbingly detailed (well I will anyway). Quoth the Dolan (again): >>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot >>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry >>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse >>than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially >>the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene >>back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if >>they are not otherwise acting like criminals. >> Now if you were going to make a defendable statement if would have to be something like... "The UK cyclists that I have met..." I would imagine that you think that is implied but it isn't. You also imagine that the readers are as intelligent as you are, they aren't. Lets assume for a moment that you are not a racist and don't actually think badly about everyone from the UK, Canada, and Australia. You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear to many people at all. If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you. On another subject...I'm going to ignore the Dickens crack although not entirely since I'm going through the ridiculous step of telling you that I'm ignoring it. You knew I couldn't not respond to that one. I don't know what your fascination is with making my knee jerk. You can come over, open up my skull, attach the electrodes, and we'll map out all of Jeff's knee jerk reactions. That could keep us busy for weeks, maybe longer.                                                                 Date: 19 Jun 2005 02:18:42 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11b81vd5n9qbt59@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:g_qdnQHI3vLGdy7fRVn-iw@prairiewave.com... >> >> Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble >> at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to >> have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say >> something that is NOT politically correct. >> > Since when exactly did speaking out against rudeness and insulting > behavior become synonymous with PC, I think your insistence on proper form > is far more PC than my insistence on well-mannered content.. Since I used > proper form lets look at your content and give you the chance to defend > it. We will get numbingly detailed (well I will anyway). What seems insulting and rude to you seems perfectly polite and reasonable to me. > Quoth the Dolan (again): > >>>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot >>>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry >>>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups >>>worse than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is >>>especially the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you >>>are obscene back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry >>>foul, i.e., if they are not otherwise acting like criminals. >>> > > Now if you were going to make a defendable statement if would have to be > something like... > > "The UK cyclists that I have met..." Nope! I mean all of the above literally. I am of course making certain assumptions which I expect others to make along with me - unless of course one was born yesterday. Those Aussie cyclists are the worst bunch of numskulls in the entire world. > I would imagine that you think that is implied but it isn't. It is of course implied, but I keep forgetting that you were apparently born yesterday. You also > imagine that the readers are as intelligent as you are, they aren't. Lets > assume for a moment that you are not a racist and don't actually think > badly about everyone from the UK, Canada, and Australia. But I do think badly of them. They did not and do not support us in our War on Terrorism and our War in Iraq. They are all second rate as far as I am concerned. Only Tony Blair gave us the support we should have had from all the civilized world. But every UK cyclist I have ever heard of is against us. Yea - I do think badly of them indeed! By the way, do not EVER get me going on the French. I will burn your innocent liberal ears right off your head. > You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should > understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear > to many people at all. > > If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe > then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you. Others will just have to learn how to read me as best they can. I have a way of getting though to even the dullest of blockheads eventually. > On another subject...I'm going to ignore the Dickens crack although not > entirely since I'm going through the ridiculous step of telling you that > I'm ignoring it. You knew I couldn't not respond to that one. I don't know > what your fascination is with making my knee jerk. You can come over, open > up my skull, attach the electrodes, and we'll map out all of Jeff's knee > jerk reactions. That could keep us busy for weeks, maybe longer. I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world, especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist. What killed literature was technology, i.e., the electronic media. All books and magazines may soon go the way of the Dodo Bird. We will just end up tethered to our electronic media getting dumber and dumber with every succeeding generation. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                   Date: 19 Jun 2005 22:48:51 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Can't believe I'm responding to a troll, but Ed the Meek has crossed the line. On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > >But I do think badly of them. They did not and do not support us in our War >on Terrorism and our War in Iraq. They are all second rate as far as I am >concerned. Only Tony Blair gave us the support we should have had from all >the civilized world. But every UK cyclist I have ever heard of is against >us. Yea - I do think badly of them indeed! By the way, do not EVER get me >going on the French. I will burn your innocent liberal ears right off your >head. > Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us. >> You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should >> understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear >> to many people at all. >> >> If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe >> then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you. > >Others will just have to learn how to read me as best they can. I have a way >of getting though to even the dullest of blockheads eventually. I usually find some amusement from reading a post or to of yours, altough I can never wade through the repetitive tedium of them all. > >I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading >novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main >characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world, >especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every >character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character >has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist. I guess since you quit reading that *no one* still does? > >What killed literature was technology, i.e., the electronic media. All books >and magazines may soon go the way of the Dodo Bird. We will just end up >tethered to our electronic media getting dumber and dumber with every >succeeding generation. > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > > Is 'the Great' part of your real name, or part of where you are from? Or just an Ass-sumption? Mike                                                                     Date: 20 Jun 2005 12:18:22 From: Ian Smith Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:48:51 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: > Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda > could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible > profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world > reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us. Actually, it's more like 'yet more proof that we were right to distrust you'. HTH. regards, Ian SMith --                                                                       Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:38:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote in message news:slrndbdd0i.dgh.ian@acheron.smithnet... > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:48:51 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net> wrote: > >> Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda >> could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible >> profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world >> reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us. > > Actually, it's more like 'yet more proof that we were right to > distrust you'. HTH. > > regards, Ian SMith The only proof that can be read into the above statement is that the Brits deserved to have their empire wrested away from them. They were no longer fit to rule others. Hells Bells! They can just barely rule themselves these days. Ah, for the good old days of Queen Victoria! However, the Brits did manage to bestir themselves long enough to hang onto their pitiful Falkland Islands under PM Thatcher. Apparently, they are not yet completely feckless. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                     Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:17:05 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:u2tbb119uoclc2439t64j8jf29mksirfsh@4ax.com... > Can't believe I'm responding to a troll, but Ed the Meek has crossed > the line. > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: [...] >>I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading >>novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main >>characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world, >>especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every >>character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character >>has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist. > > I guess since you quit reading that *no one* still does? But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was known as a book worm. But I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 for the reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. But more than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at least not like how I used to. Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of 30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun contemplating your mortality. Here is your epitaph: "Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great.                                                                     Date: 19 Jun 2005 22:03:53 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:u2tbb119uoclc2439t64j8jf29mksirfsh@4ax.com... > Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda > could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible > profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world > reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us. > For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it with beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view. Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a similar opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it had been longer I would have done something like "Re: War on Terror"                                                                       Date: 20 Jun 2005 02:46:03 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bc8uv71t1ak02@news.supernews.com... > > "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message > news:u2tbb119uoclc2439t64j8jf29mksirfsh@4ax.com... > >> Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda >> could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible >> profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world >> reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us. Mike should read Miller's "Death of a Salesman" where some comments are made about war profiteering. It was nuts then and it is nuts now. > For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it > with beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view. > > Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a > similar opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it > had been longer I would have done something like "Re: War on Terror" No, you did it exactly right. Forget about the "Re:" business. It is fine for email, but it does not work for Usenet. The readers want to know specifically to what you are responding. Mike has made a statement about the War on Terrorism and you have responded to it as have I. Now others can chip in too if they want without writing an essay on the subject. They can either add or subtract from what has already been said without slighting anyone. It is the only way for Usenet, of that I am convinced. Your "Re: War on Terror" would only be appropriate for a new subject thread of which you would be the author. Even though I do not like what Mike has to say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him have his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I know, no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can give, so I let others have their full say in my replies. Ed Dolan - Minnesota                                                                         Date: 24 Jun 2005 03:35:21 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:46:03 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: (Snip) > >But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was >known as a book worm. But I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 for the >reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. But more >than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at least >not like how I used to. For someone who likes to tell others their posting preferences are 'wrong', and who also lays claim to being a wonderful writer you certainly can mangle the language. I am suitably impressed being mooned three times in one paragraph. But I guess you mispelled butt every other sentence in the race to flash the few readers this thread still holds. See how clumsy it felt to read a sentence begining with 'But' just once. Ed, Ed, Ed. I am *tempted* to say this usage is wrong. But I won't. >...at least not like how I used to.' seems a little confusing as well. This is beginning to bother me. ;-) In another message that sxame day you wrote: > > > Even though I do not like what Mike has to >say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him have >his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I know, >no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can >give, so I let others have their full say in my replies. > >Ed Dolan - Minnesota > I guess it's not unfair to insult folks based on their nationality, nor to call those with other viewpoints 'idiots', so I have to agree. (Back to your previous message) > >Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have >to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an >old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of >30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun contemplating >your mortality. Here is your epitaph: > >"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." Good one. > >Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota > >PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great. 'Ed the Fair' I can accept. 'Ed the Great'? I'm not so sure. Indiana Mike                                                                           Date: 23 Jun 2005 23:44:51 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:2mumb1hnfupivqpa5reufcgs8m5jkcd0ik@4ax.com... [...] Damn! I hit "Send" instead of "Spell Check." To continue: > > In another message that same day you wrote: > >> >> >> Even though I do not like what Mike has to >>say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him >>have >>his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I >>know, >>no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can >>give, so I let others have their full say in my replies. >> >>Ed Dolan - Minnesota >> > > I guess it's not unfair to insult folks based on their nationality, > nor to call those with other viewpoints 'idiots', so I have to agree. Not all nationalities are equal any more than all persons are intelligent. Some nationalities are despicable and some persons are idiots. > (Back to your previous message) > >> >>Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have >>to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an >>old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of >>30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun >>contemplating >>your mortality. Here is your epitaph: >> >>"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." > > Good one. > >> >>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> >>PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great. > > 'Ed the Fair' I can accept. 'Ed the Great'? I'm not so sure. > > Indiana Mike "Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." Isn't that the greatest epitaph ever? It says it all in just ten little words. I spend a lot of time ruminating in cemeteries these days. It seems I know more there among the dead than I do in town among the living. Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota                                                                           Date: 23 Jun 2005 23:26:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:2mumb1hnfupivqpa5reufcgs8m5jkcd0ik@4ax.com... > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:46:03 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > > (Snip) >> >>But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was >>known as a book worm. But I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 for >>the >>reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. But more >>than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at >>least >>not like how I used to. > > For someone who likes to tell others their posting preferences are > 'wrong', and who also lays claim to being a wonderful writer you > certainly can mangle the language. I am suitably impressed being > mooned three times in one paragraph. But I guess you mispelled butt > every other sentence in the race to flash the few readers this thread > still holds. See how clumsy it felt to read a sentence begining with > 'But' just once. Yes, Mike is right. I used "but" way too much. Here is how I should have written the above paragraph: >>But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was >>known as a book worm. However, I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 >>for the >>reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. More >>than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at >>least >>not like how I used to. The first "but" is used to tie the paragraph above to the preceding paragraph which you have snipped. > Ed, Ed, Ed. I am *tempted* to say this usage is wrong. > > But I won't. > >>...at least not like how I used to.' The above is a kind of local expression and it has the flavor I wanted to convey. > seems a little confusing as well. > > This is beginning to bother me. I love a careful reader like Mike. He was born to read me. > ;-) > > In another message that sxame day you wrote: > >> >> >> Even though I do not like what Mike has to >>say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him >>have >>his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I >>know, >>no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can >>give, so I let others have their full say in my replies. >> >>Ed Dolan - Minnesota >> > > I guess it's not unfair to insult folks based on their nationality, > nor to call those with other viewpoints 'idiots', so I have to agree. > > (Back to your previous message) > >> >>Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have >>to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an >>old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of >>30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun >>contemplating >>your mortality. Here is your epitaph: >> >>"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again." > > Good one. > >> >>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota >> >>PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great. > > 'Ed the Fair' I can accept. 'Ed the Great'? I'm not so sure. > > Indiana Mike > >                                                     Date: 17 Jun 2005 11:15:32 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > Ed, if you really find the format of my posts so objectionable then feel > free to put me on your bozo list. I promise not to cry. He *likes* objecting, so he'll hardly take steps to avoid doing so. > (much). But when you actually play a race card I'm going to call you on it. And history suggests that it won't make any difference. As long as you see pointing out to Ed salient features in his posts as nothing more than typing practice then you can justify them as doing some good, but most people give up "debate" with Ed because he has an unparalleled track record at being unable or unwilling to participate in it intelligently. The track record is available on Google Groups' archive if you want to check for yourself. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                       Date: 17 Jun 2005 17:08:24 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3hfm63Fgrkj3U1@individual.net... > Jeff Grippe wrote: > >> Ed, if you really find the format of my posts so objectionable then feel >> free to put me on your bozo list. I promise not to cry. > > He *likes* objecting, so he'll hardly take steps to avoid doing so. > >> (much). But when you actually play a race card I'm going to call you on >> it. > > And history suggests that it won't make any difference. > > As long as you see pointing out to Ed salient features in his posts as > nothing more than typing practice then you can justify them as doing some > good, but most people give up "debate" with Ed because he has an > unparalleled track record at being unable or unwilling to participate in > it intelligently. The track record is available on Google Groups' archive > if you want to check for yourself. The only track record Peter Clinch has is being a world class bore. Other than that, he likes to advise others to kill file anyone with whom he disagrees. The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his idiotic signature). Maybe Jeff could take a clue from that since he seems to think highly of the UK nuts and screwballs and would never dream of saying anything against them. That would be racist, at which point Jeff would melt into the ground from the shame of it all. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                         Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:13:03 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >snip< > The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his > idiotic signature). Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 char width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n"). Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing so before you go around preaching to others about it. *The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and long recognized (by both human and machine) convention. -Zenin                                                           Date: 18 Jun 2005 05:24:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119070696.722732@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: > >snip< >> The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his >> idiotic signature). > > Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 char > width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n"). > > Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing > so > before you go around preaching to others about it. > > *The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard > which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and > long recognized (by both human and machine) convention. > > -Zenin I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter is an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. The fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut from Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                             Date: 18 Jun 2005 20:04:44 From: Zenin Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net > wrote: > "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> >snip< >>> The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his >>> idiotic signature). >> Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 >> char width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n"). >> >> Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing >> so before you go around preaching to others about it. >> >> *The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard >> which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and >> long recognized (by both human and machine) convention. >> >> -Zenin > > I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter > is an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. > The fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut > from Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons! Weren't you just preaching that everyone should follow the rules of Usenet? Now you're saying, "Fuck the rules when Edward doesn't agree with them!". Your signature (and yes, mine) are the ones in violation. Peter's .sig is, again, textbook perfect. Now I know you only follow one or two newsgroups and so I can understand why you might feel Peter's signature is out of place in this group. A great many other people however, follow quite a few groups and use a single unique signature across the board. It is, after all, a "signature" and thus should be consistent. Besides, it's attached by their news reader client software automatically and few* (any?) feature the ability to customize signature files on a group by group basis (although some allow for rotating through a few). -Zenin *I've hacked my client to do so, but I'm currently between signatures simply because I'm out of witty comments and I'm sick of the default /usr/bin/fortune quotes.                                                               Date: 19 Jun 2005 03:57:13 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119124192.404434@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: [...] >> I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter >> is an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. >> The fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut >> from Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons! > > Weren't you just preaching that everyone should follow the rules of > Usenet? Now you're saying, "Fuck the rules when Edward doesn't agree > with them!". > > Your signature (and yes, mine) are the ones in violation. Peter's .sig > is, again, textbook perfect. Now I know you only follow one or two > newsgroups and so I can understand why you might feel Peter's signature > is out of place in this group. A great many other people however, > follow quite a few groups and use a single unique signature across the > board. It is, after all, a "signature" and thus should be consistent. > Besides, it's attached by their news reader client software > automatically and few* (any?) feature the ability to customize > signature > files on a group by group basis (although some allow for rotating > through a few). > > -Zenin > > *I've hacked my client to do so, but I'm currently between signatures > simply > because I'm out of witty comments and I'm sick of the default > /usr/bin/fortune quotes. While we are on the subject of signatures, let me say that I do respect Peter Clinch of Scotland for using his real name and for telling us where he is from. Those are the only two things that we need to know about anyone, no more and no less. I suspect Zenin is not your real name, but a user name. I am not much in favor of user names. It creates a certain anonymity which encourages people to behave badly. I want others on Usenet to know who I am and where I am from. I do not want to be anonymous. If I wanted that, I would stay at home and forget about being in a public forum like ARBR. User names are most likely used because the world is such a rotten place, full of criminal types and other human scum. You would think a group like ARBR would be free of these types, but it is not so. We have our rotten apples just like any other newsgroup. Maybe I should get a user name too like Zenin? Then I could use words like "fuck." Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                               Date: 19 Jun 2005 01:49:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org > wrote in message news:1119124192.404434@news.rhps.org... > Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >> "Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote: >>> Edward Dolan <edolan@iw.net> wrote: >>> >snip< >>>> The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his >>>> idiotic signature). >>> Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 >>> char width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n"). >>> >>> Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing >>> so before you go around preaching to others about it. >>> >>> *The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard >>> which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and >>> long recognized (by both human and machine) convention. >>> >>> -Zenin >> >> I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter >> is an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. >> The fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut >> from Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons! > > Weren't you just preaching that everyone should follow the rules of > Usenet? Now you're saying, "Fuck the rules when Edward doesn't agree > with them!". > > Your signature (and yes, mine) are the ones in violation. Peter's .sig > is, again, textbook perfect. Now I know you only follow one or two > newsgroups and so I can understand why you might feel Peter's signature > is out of place in this group. A great many other people however, > follow quite a few groups and use a single unique signature across the > board. It is, after all, a "signature" and thus should be consistent. > Besides, it's attached by their news reader client software > automatically and few* (any?) feature the ability to customize > signature > files on a group by group basis (although some allow for rotating > through a few). > > -Zenin The most sensible signature is your real name and the place where you are from. That is all I ever want to know about anybody and I figure that is all anybody should ever want to know about me. Anything else is childish and foolish. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                       Date: 17 Jun 2005 09:17:22 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3hfm63Fgrkj3U1@individual.net... > Jeff Grippe wrote: > > And history suggests that it won't make any difference. > Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have a zero tolerance policy. It isn't enough to just say "Oh that's Ed again." I'm not saying that I'll respond to every single racist post of his but I will respond. The interesting thing is that in his view (I think) he doesn't see himself as racist but rather as colorful and witty. Maybe its like advertising. You have to hear / see it 18-20 time (more in his case) before it finally dawns on you that you are racist. Jeff                                                         Date: 20 Jun 2005 09:17:03 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I > realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have a > zero tolerance policy. That's fair, though I've come around to the feeling that the only reason Ed hasn't been hanged is he's still feverishly paying out rope for himself. He's so clearly an intolerant numpty that there's little point in me saying so, he's saying it himself, and he's showing what a vacuous way to be it is by providing an ongoing example. Anyone but Ed want to be like Ed? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                           Date: 20 Jun 2005 04:31:32 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3hncbsFhtk7pU1@individual.net... > Jeff Grippe wrote: > >> Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I >> realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have >> a zero tolerance policy. > > That's fair, though I've come around to the feeling that the only reason > Ed hasn't been hanged is he's still feverishly paying out rope for > himself. He's so clearly an intolerant numpty that there's little point > in me saying so, he's saying it himself, and he's showing what a vacuous > way to be it is by providing an ongoing example. Anyone but Ed want to be > like Ed? Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). Regular knee jerks - all of them! > Pete. > -- > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ I am trying to figure out if this Medical Physics IT Officer by the name of Peter Clinch of the University of Dundee, Scotland has kill filed me or not. It would seem not as he continues to see fit to comment on my posts (or is it just little old me regardless of my posts). Well, he has always been a scoundrel and a coward who refuses to confront anyone directly. He only knows how to weasel indirectly via another's post. He is the Cletus Lee of the UK. Anyone here really want to be like Peetah! Clinch took a big time powder when the criminal vandal troll was here wrecking ARBR a few months ago. But it is always good to know who you can depend upon to be a scoundrel and a coward when the going gets rough. Clinch is no good in a clinch despite his name. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                             Date: 20 Jun 2005 13:31:49 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:tpCdnRc0OphlESvfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... > Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the > way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). > Regular knee jerks - all of them! > If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes without saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. That is not an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. It is hugely different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your pick of groups that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is nuts." Now I know that making these petty distinctions smacks of PC which is probably why you have stuck me with the label. But the harsh words escalate and the entire discussion becomes: "You're an idiot" "No you're an idiot" "You and everyone like you is an idiot" "No you and everyone like you is an idiot" And burried in this back and forth I eventually find something having to do with recumbents or cycling. You must be tired of saying things that just lead to predictable reactions from others (including me). Then again maybe you aren't. But you've got to admit you are properly quoted this time... Jeff                                                               Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:21:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bdvdfn6e8dp70@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:tpCdnRc0OphlESvfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... > >> Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the >> way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). >> Regular knee jerks - all of them! >> > > If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name > calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes without > saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. That is not > an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. It is hugely > different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your pick of groups > that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is nuts." > > Now I know that making these petty distinctions smacks of PC which is > probably why you have stuck me with the label. [...] > But you've got to admit you are properly quoted this time... > > Jeff Yes, you quoted me right but you left out your message and Peter's message which provided the context for my message. Here is how you should have done it: "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message news:3hncbsFhtk7pU1@individual.net... > > Jeff Grippe wrote: > >> Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I >> realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have >> a zero tolerance policy. > > That's fair, though I've come around to the feeling that the only reason > Ed hasn't been hanged is he's still feverishly paying out rope for > himself. He's so clearly an intolerant numpty that there's little point > in me saying so, he's saying it himself, and he's showing what a vacuous > way to be it is by providing an ongoing example. Anyone but Ed want to be > like Ed? Edward Dolan wrote: Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). Regular knee jerks - all of them! The above could then be followed by your message to which I am now responding. What did you save by truncating the previous message? You only provided a bit of confusion and muddle headedness to no purpose. You must provide the FULL CONTEXT in every message so as to leave no doubt as to what has been previously said. What I said above makes no sense if what led up to it is not included. Very few folks know how to edit for clarity. Most folks only know how to edit to make themselves look good. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                 Date: 21 Jun 2005 05:20:03 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Ed, Re:Quoting Techniquie Asked and answered. Sorry if you don't like it (but not sorry enough to do it the way you think is right.) Jeff                                                                   Date: 21 Jun 2005 05:22:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bfmtlderif1cc@news.supernews.com... > Ed, > > Re:Quoting Techniquie > > Asked and answered. Sorry if you don't like it (but not sorry enough to do > it the way you think is right.) > > Jeff Congratulations! You have finally made no sense at all. I wonder who you think you are writing for - or to? Whatever you do, do not ever send me an email. My reserves of sanity are limited. Zenin is the only one here who will understand what Jeff is blathering about. He will research the thread in order to find out who said what when. Only a mole will do this sort of thing however. The rest of us will leave the two of them to themselves. I am hoping that Zenin and Jeff will kill file me. It will be just another honor for me and one that I deserve for having to put up with all this nonsense about how they think it is proper to post anyway they want. Following rules on how to post are for jerks according to them. All that matters is CONTENT (what you say), not FORM (how you say it). Like it is possible to separate one from the other! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                     Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:22:04 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Regarding your previous message, easily accessible by simply reading it or remembering it: Well Ed if you don't understand what I'm talking about then why did you even respond? I don't kill file anyone. I don't even know how to do it in OE and I have no intention of finding out. Please don't anyone reply with instructions. If I need to know I'm sure it is trivial. I did not say that "Following rules on how to post are for jerks" but rather that I was free to follow them or not. I have never heald myself up as the example to follow nor have I told you that you must do it a certain way. I don't work that way as you should know by this point. Re: FORM and CONTENT (Ed's capitalizations) Ed, for someone who at times appears fairly sophisticated about language you do equivocate when it suits your purposes. When we were talking about generalizations you correctly identified the aspect of them which makes them most useful, which is the encapsulation of many traits into a single concept. I pointed out (and you didn't bother to disagree) that they fall apart at the level of the invidual. As to form and content, you said "Like it is possible to separate one from the other!". Obviously they can be separated. They are different and distinct concepts. The same content can be put into many different forms. The same form can be used to express a variety of content. You are trying to invalidate my entire arguement by simply saying that it isn't possible to separate them. Its pretty clear that language has separated them for me. The concepts exist clear and distinct. Re: Who understands what I am blathering about Anyone who doesn't understand me is free to ask for clarification or complain about my writing style. So far the complaints have been limited to you and I've already told you that it isn't a complaint I plan to act on. So you must either stop reading my posts or at least stop responding. Should you choose to respond, however, you should do it knowing that there is at least a 50/50 chance of getting a response back whose form you will not like.                                                                       Date: 22 Jun 2005 17:58:25 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bg55759en7182@news.supernews.com... > Regarding your previous message, easily accessible by simply reading it or > remembering it: > > Well Ed if you don't understand what I'm talking about then why did you > even respond? I want others to be able to follow what is being said, not just you and me. > I don't kill file anyone. I don't even know how to do it in OE and I have > no intention of finding out. Please don't anyone reply with instructions. > If I need to know I'm sure it is trivial. > > I did not say that "Following rules on how to post are for jerks" but > rather that I was free to follow them or not. A distinction without a difference. I have never heald myself up as the > example to follow nor have I told you that you must do it a certain way. I > don't work that way as you should know by this point. I am doing it right and you are doing it wrong. > Re: FORM and CONTENT (Ed's capitalizations) > > Ed, for someone who at times appears fairly sophisticated about language > you do equivocate when it suits your purposes. When we were talking about > generalizations you correctly identified the aspect of them which makes > them most useful, which is the encapsulation of many traits into a single > concept. I pointed out (and you didn't bother to disagree) that they fall > apart at the level of the invidual. That is always understood and is so obvious that it does not need to be said. > As to form and content, you said "Like it is possible to separate one from > the other!". Obviously they can be separated. They are different and > distinct concepts. The same content can be put into many different forms. > The same form can be used to express a variety of content. You are trying > to invalidate my entire arguement by simply saying that it isn't possible > to separate them. Its pretty clear that language has separated them for > me. The concepts exist clear and distinct. I am unable to deal with your content when the form is not according to the rules, at least as it applies to Usenet. I can deal just fine with whatever you say however you say it via email, but Usenet is not email. I have no interest in email and I do not wish to confound the two mediums as you do. For purposes of Usenet, the form is as important as the content. They go together. That is what makes Usenet Usenet. > Re: Who understands what I am blathering about > > Anyone who doesn't understand me is free to ask for clarification or > complain about my writing style. So far the complaints have been limited > to you and I've already told you that it isn't a complaint I plan to act > on. So you must either stop reading my posts or at least stop responding. > Should you choose to respond, however, you should do it knowing that there > is at least a 50/50 chance of getting a response back whose form you will > not like. ARBR is now as dead as a door nail. There would have been any number of former members of this group who would have taken you to task for your manner of posting. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                         Date: 22 Jun 2005 21:21:45 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:TKudnapIBtWFcCTfRVn-3g@prairiewave.com... > There would have been any number of former members of this group who would > have taken you to task for your manner of posting. > Well so you say but nobody other than you has complained dispite our staying on this topic for a long long time. I'm a pretty flexible guy who doesn't enjoy pissing off large numbers of people. If I really got the sense that my posting style was causing many people distress then I would alter it. Just as I don't believe your rules were handed down from god, I don't believe mine were either. You seem to enjoy our conversations dispite your many protestations about how you can't follow my thoughts. You keep posting, I keep posting, and even when both of us have said "enough already", we both post again. So once again and with genuine sincerity, I wish you many happy miles on your pedal-powered vehicle of choice. Jeff                                                                           Date: 22 Jun 2005 23:01:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bk3jftsri09e@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:TKudnapIBtWFcCTfRVn-3g@prairiewave.com... > >> There would have been any number of former members of this group who >> would have taken you to task for your manner of posting. >> > > Well so you say but nobody other than you has complained dispite our > staying on this topic for a long long time. Others most likely find it difficult to get in on this conversation because of the manner of your posting. They only know for sure what I am saying in response because I quote you in full whereas they do not know what you are saying in response because you are not quoting me hardly at all. Now you began to see the importance of following the rules and not being a scofflaw. > I'm a pretty flexible guy who doesn't enjoy pissing off large numbers of > people. If I really got the sense that my posting style was causing many > people distress then I would alter it. It is causing me great distress. There are right ways of doing things and wrong ways of doing things. You are doing things the wrong way. > Just as I don't believe your rules were handed down from god, I don't > believe mine were either. > > You seem to enjoy our conversations dispite your many protestations about > how you can't follow my thoughts. You keep posting, I keep posting, and > even when both of us have said "enough already", we both post again. I am remonstrating with you as I would with a stubborn child because I can see that once you are saved from your folly that you will be a valuable member of ARBR. As always, I have only the best interests of the group at heart. That is my saintly aspect. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota                                                                             Date: 23 Jun 2005 09:35:58 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:gbWdnfV_7bOAqSffRVn-iQ@prairiewave.com... > > It is causing me great distress. There are right ways of doing things and > wrong ways of doing things. You are doing things the wrong way. > Re: Your Great Distress Learn to live with it my friend. I see no compelling reason to do things differently Re: Right and Wrong ways of doing this No, Ed, there are not right and wrong ways in this case. There is a way you prefer and a way you do not prefer. If this message is any example, the ways can even be combined. I would imagine that you would put that into what you call "the wrong way" I think this gets to the core of our discussion. What you label as right and wrong, I label as preference. I would say that in order for a method to be wrong there has to be a negative consequence or outcome of using that method. You would say that it makes it hard for the reader to make sense of the message (you have said that in the past). So far (as I've said before) we've had only one person complain about the format of my posts and that one person has been you. I seem to recall that I've also had at least one person support my position. The only other opinion that we've seen is the opinion that this discussion has gone on way too long. Maybe so but I am of the opinion that anyone who feels that way doesn't have to read this thread. It isn't like we have been leaping into other threads to carry on this conversation. You and I have very different opinions about right and wrong. Unless I become convinced that my posting style is really distressing many people and they just can't figure out what I'm saying then I shall not be changing anytime soon. Your friend on wheels, Jeff                                                                               Date: 23 Jun 2005 22:56:35 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11blen9ckhp2a99@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:gbWdnfV_7bOAqSffRVn-iQ@prairiewave.com... >> >> It is causing me great distress. There are right ways of doing things and >> wrong ways of doing things. You are doing things the wrong way. >> > > Re: Your Great Distress > > Learn to live with it my friend. I see no compelling reason to do things > differently > > > Re: Right and Wrong ways of doing this > > No, Ed, there are not right and wrong ways in this case. There is a way > you prefer and a way you do not prefer. If this message is any example, > the ways can even be combined. I would imagine that you would put that > into what you call "the wrong way" > > I think this gets to the core of our discussion. What you label as right > and wrong, I label as preference. > > I would say that in order for a method to be wrong there has to be a > negative consequence or outcome of using that method. > > You would say that it makes it hard for the reader to make sense of the > message (you have said that in the past). > > So far (as I've said before) we've had only one person complain about the > format of my posts and that one person has been you. I seem to recall that > I've also had at least one person support my position. Many will visit a newsgroup and read what has been posted with nary a thought of posting themselves. I want to make it easy for the reader to follow what is being said. You make it hard for the reader to follow what is being said. Most readers will never comment either way of course, but the difference is that I know what I am talking about and you don't. The reason I know is because I am going with the tried and the true Google rules on posting. Sometimes it is called netiquette. You are doing things your own way and consequently you are out in left field by yourself. > The only other opinion that we've seen is the opinion that this discussion > has gone on way too long. Maybe so but I am of the opinion that anyone who > feels that way doesn't have to read this thread. It isn't like we have > been leaping into other threads to carry on this conversation. Yes, you are certainly right about that. You and I own this thread and the original subject topic died and went to hell long ago. Still, I want others to read what we have to say to one another as I believe it is fairly important. We are priily discussing a housekeeping chore as it relates to Usenet. Everyone can learn from our discussion. By the way, the above is the main reason why I have never considered myself a troll. I stay on certain threads almost to the excusion of all other threads. Real trolls insert themselves on many threads and ruin the group for everyone. I am no more a troll than is Jeff Grippe. > You and I have very different opinions about right and wrong. Unless I > become convinced that my posting style is really distressing many people > and they just can't figure out what I'm saying then I shall not be > changing anytime soon. I remain convinced that you do not quote me because you fear that others will kill file you. Nothing else makes any sense to me. It is easier to post the right way then it is to post the wrong way. Therefore, you must have the alternative motive that I ascribe to you. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                 Date: 24 Jun 2005 04:53:20 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Re: Quoting Style and other readers Ed, I think anyone reading this thread certainly knows that they are free to jump in either for or against your rigid quoting style. I think most people found this topic boring a long time ago. It could be down to you and me, I don't know. You say you want to make it easy by liberally quoting but that doesn't make it easy at all. Each message has some reference to what came before. If they really want a true feeling for the conversation then they should start at the beginning. If they don't, then my encapsulation should be enough. Re: Troll Generally I would not consider you a troll. I'm not completely sure when the distinction does and does not apply. You do tend to get a little nasty at times in expressing your disagreement but as I've said before you usually begin your part in a thread completely "on topic". Re: Motives Ed. you may have all sorts of hidden agendas and wacky reasons why you do things but not everybody does. I don't care who kill files me and my motives for what I do are no more complex than I have already explained. Not everybody thinks like you do. Certainly I don't. Jeff                                                                                   Date: 24 Jun 2005 05:19:41 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bniek6d5m9i24@news.supernews.com... > Re: Quoting Style and other readers > > Ed, I think anyone reading this thread certainly knows that they are free > to jump in either for or against your rigid quoting style. I think most > people found this topic boring a long time ago. It could be down to you > and me, I don't know. Most people found this topic confusing because of your manner of posting. Not only confusing, but uninteresting. You are an ego maniac to think that only your words are of interest in a response. Your correspondent's words are equally as interesting and must be quoted to keep the reader focused and interested. You have failed on both counts. > You say you want to make it easy by liberally quoting but that doesn't > make it easy at all. Each message has some reference to what came before. > If they really want a true feeling for the conversation then they should > start at the beginning. If they don't, then my encapsulation should be > enough. No one will do what you suggest because it is simply not worth the time and effort to look up anything on a newsgroup board as there is too much chaff along with the grain. It would never even occur to me to look up anything, not even my own messages to see what I had previously said. You are being disingenuous - and all to avoid the nut cases kill filing you for quoting me. > Re: Troll > > Generally I would not consider you a troll. I'm not completely sure when > the distinction does and does not apply. You do tend to get a little nasty > at times in expressing your disagreement but as I've said before you > usually begin your part in a thread completely "on topic". Nastiness is in the eye of the beholder and has nothing to do with being a troll. In order to get off topic, it takes two. Getting off topic also has nothing to do with being a troll unless it is intentional and persistent. All conversation tends to wander and it is unnatural not to let the conversation wander where it will. > Re: Motives > > Ed. you may have all sorts of hidden agendas and wacky reasons why you do > things but not everybody does. I don't care who kill files me and my > motives for what I do are no more complex than I have already explained. > Not everybody thinks like you do. Certainly I don't. You fear being kill filed by the nut cases on this group. That is the only possible reason why you do not quote me. If I did the same to you, no one on this group would have the slightest notion what we were talking about. You consistently confuse email with Usenet. You can go to your grave confused for all I care. I am right and you are wrong. That is all I know and all I need to know. I shall henceforth spend more time on those who post the right way and less time on those who post the wrong way. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                     Date: 24 Jun 2005 09:10:09 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Re: Motives: Ed, I've gone as far in previous posts as saying that I like you and that I'm glad you're here. If anyone were of a mind to KF me that should be enough reason. As to my motives, I believe that I get the final say on that. You may say whatever you want to but as I have not been declared insane (yet), I get to say what my motives are. You are free to believe me or not. Re: Being Inconsiderate to other members of the group. I don't recommend puting this one up to a vote. You're not likely to do well. Re: Whether or not you respond to "incorrectly" formatted messages. That is entirely up to you. If you don't respond and this conversation ends, my life will still go on. If you do respond then our banter can continue. Either way it is not an issue of great importance. It is, however, quite amusing to me. I wish you many happy miles on the pedal powered craft of your choice. Jeff                                                                                       Date: 24 Jun 2005 19:59:13 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bo1it5m1pk554@news.supernews.com... [...] > Re: Being Inconsiderate to other members of the group. > > I don't recommend puting this one up to a vote. You're not likely to do > well. I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave "considerateness" to others who have only that to offer. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                         Date: 24 Jun 2005 23:41:59 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:LKidnWtGE_PxMSHfRVn-vw@prairiewave.com... > > I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave > "considerateness" to others who have only that to offer. > Well then there are those who will continue to call you a troll (I realize that you don't care or perhaps even embrace the title). Your stated reason for me to follow the holy quoting guidelines has been that it would be considerate to other readers. I don't see how you can now say that you don't care about it. If you don't care about being considerate then stop telling me how to post. Interesting and stimulating without respect for others ultimately is neither (or is only interesting and stimulating to you). Who cares if you can stimulate anger among your fellow useneters? That isn't so hard to do. As I've said before its like pushing a button. You already know that if you say certain things you will provoke a response. You're not actually making a point, however. By being rude and generally inconsiderate of others you are not getting them to consider the merits of whatever argument you want to make. So once again you have "provoked" a "properly formatted" entirely predictable response out of me. But if you don't actually make the attempt to be where I am and give me something of substance so that I can get to where you are then you have done nothing interesting and the stimulation has been wasted. At this point, I really don't care when you insult me. I don't give it any weight. It doesn't mean that I won't keep trying to bring you back from the dark side of the force. It just means that I don't take it personally. When you actually make a coherent argument (which you sometimes do) you can be quite interesting to talk to. It is probably the reason that I continue to talk to you. It isn't like I expect to win you over to my way of thinking. Happy trails Ed. Jeff                                                                                           Date: 25 Jun 2005 04:58:38 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bpkifb0di8o71@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:LKidnWtGE_PxMSHfRVn-vw@prairiewave.com... >> >> I am only interested in being interesting and stimulating. I leave >> "considerateness" to others who have only that to offer. >> > > Well then there are those who will continue to call you a troll (I realize > that you don't care or perhaps even embrace the title). > > Your stated reason for me to follow the holy quoting guidelines has been > that it would be considerate to other readers. I don't see how you can now > say that you don't care about it. If you don't care about being > considerate then stop telling me how to post. I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a technical sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say, then that is their problem, not mine. > Interesting and stimulating without respect for others ultimately is > neither (or is only interesting and stimulating to you). Who cares if you > can stimulate anger among your fellow useneters? That isn't so hard to do. > As I've said before its like pushing a button. You already know that if > you say certain things you will provoke a response. You're not actually > making a point, however. By being rude and generally inconsiderate of > others you are not getting them to consider the merits of whatever > argument you want to make. I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war always a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good war? Should we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or is it an abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not defend our country against those who would do us harm. I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most especially do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I leave that aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up and cause some unease. When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of liberal rants and snide reks about Bush and the Republicans. That is no longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their liberal nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue. That is the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR. > So once again you have "provoked" a "properly formatted" entirely > predictable response out of me. But if you don't actually make the attempt > to be where I am and give me something of substance so that I can get to > where you are then you have done nothing interesting and the stimulation > has been wasted. > > At this point, I really don't care when you insult me. I don't give it any > weight. It doesn't mean that I won't keep trying to bring you back from > the dark side of the force. It just means that I don't take it personally. > > When you actually make a coherent argument (which you sometimes do) you > can be quite interesting to talk to. It is probably the reason that I > continue to talk to you. It isn't like I expect to win you over to my way > of thinking. My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was all that simulating! Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                             Date: 25 Jun 2005 09:49:00 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:yvmdneL4xZ5FtyDfRVn-gw@prairiewave.com... > > > I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a > technical sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say, > then that is their problem, not mine. > > I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their > intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war > always a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good > war? Should we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or > is it an abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and > will not defend our country against those who would do us harm. > > I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most especially > do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I leave that > aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up and cause > some unease. > Some of what you say is great. Your middle paragraph above shows the kind of thinking that it is good to engage in. Some of your wording is "loaded" and already leading in one direction but it encourages thinking nevertheless. Your wording suggests that you have your mind made up, however. It is fine if you do but then don't present your questions as questions but rather as your opinion. Certainly don't confuse your opinion with fact. Your last sentence of the middle paragraph is particularly loaded. When you say "What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not defend our country against those who would do us harm?" You have in essense answered all of your other questions but rather than present your opinion as an opinion you are pretending it is another question. Let me give you this liberals take on things (warning...far left opinion...not fact...ahead) I believe in people over ideology. Religion is an ideology. Nations are ideology. I detest the Arab militants who would kill in the name of god. I equally detest those who would kill in the name of America. Is there such a thing as a good war? No. Are there wars that must be fought? Yes. Was this last war an example? No. > When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of > liberal rants and snide reks about Bush and the Republicans. That is no > longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their liberal > nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue. That is > the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR. > I don't mind encountering you and your opinion. I respect it. I also demand respect for mine and others. That is where real understanding can take place. If you can not be moved then you have nothing to contribute to a discussion. That is true for me as well. Notice above that I did not dismiss your opinions. I engaged them. I asked myself the questions you asked. I also took them apart a little becuase I sensed more there than simple questions. I didn't write you off as a "right wing nutjob". I gave you respect. I insist on the same respect from you. Then we have a basis upon which to really tear into issues. I'm not demanding that you see things my way. Don't demand of me that I become like you. That is real fairness my friend. When we can each have our opinion and respect for each other, that is real fairness. My problem with you has never been your opinions but rather that you don't like to play fair. Rather then present your idea respectfully you prefer to attack. When you attack the reflex for the person who is being attacked is to defend. Then you end up with neither side listening to the other. I've seen you behave this way about trikes, politics, and posting style. On the subject of posting style I'm often able to keep you on topic and away from being insulting but not always. If you care about your ideas and opinions then say them in a way that people will listen. Part of that means that you expect some knee jerk responses regardless of how respectfully you present yourself. Don't let that stop you. Notice that no matter how personal your attacks against me have sometimes been, I didn't write you off or resort to name calling. If I did (and I may have) then I apologize. It was a momentary weekness. I certainly don't do it as a rule. > My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your > message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was > all that simulating! > Yes because it gets to one of the important disagreements between us. Alright Ed, I have quoted you in full. Lets the KF'ers do with me what they will. In sumy Ed, give me and others on this group some respect. Also demand it for yourself. But don't do one without the other. Jeff                                                                                               Date: 26 Jun 2005 00:50:43 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bqo4h1mibcad@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:yvmdneL4xZ5FtyDfRVn-gw@prairiewave.com... >> >> >> I am only concerned about being considerate to other readers in a >> technical sense. If they have problems with the content of what I say, >> then that is their problem, not mine. >> >> I want to make others think ... in other words, to stimulate their >> intellects. I want to make folks question certain assumptions. Is war >> always a bad thing, or are there good wars? Is the present war a good >> war? Should we hate Arab militants or not? Is Islam a benign religion or >> is it an abomination? What are we to think of liberals who hate war and >> will not defend our country against those who would do us harm. >> >> I don't care if I come across as rude and inconsiderate. I most >> especially do not care about coming across as friendly and neighborly. I >> leave that aspect of human behavior to others. I want to rile things up >> and cause some unease. Good Grief! Jeff has finally provided a quotation of mine on which to bounce his thoughts. Maybe we are starting to make some progress after all! > Some of what you say is great. Your middle paragraph above shows the kind > of thinking that it is good to engage in. Some of your wording is "loaded" > and already leading in one direction but it encourages thinking > nevertheless. > > Your wording suggests that you have your mind made up, however. It is fine > if you do but then don't present your questions as questions but rather as > your opinion. Certainly don't confuse your opinion with fact. > > Your last sentence of the middle paragraph is particularly loaded. When > you say > > "What are we to think of liberals who hate war and will not defend our > country against those who would do us harm?" I was thinking of Senator Durbin of Illinois at that point, a senator no doubt that the estimable and redoubtable Mr. Tom Sherman of the Quad Cities (Illinois Side) voted for. Ugh! Excuse me for a moment while I go to the smallest room in my house and throw up at the thought of it. > You have in essense answered all of your other questions but rather than > present your opinion as an opinion you are pretending it is another > question. The above questions were illustrative examples. I just present my opinions, the one and only thing that counts. I do not bother much with liberal opinions since that is the dominant thinking anyway among ARBR members and does not ever need repeating by me. > Let me give you this liberals take on things (warning...far left > opinion...not fact...ahead) > > I believe in people over ideology. Religion is an ideology. Nations are > ideology. I detest the Arab militants who would kill in the name of god. I > equally detest those who would kill in the name of America. > > Is there such a thing as a good war? > > No. > > Are there wars that must be fought? > > Yes. > > Was this last war an example? > > No. Wrong on most counts above. Ed Dolan = 100; Jeff Grippe = 0. >> When I first came on this group several years ago, it was a cesspool of >> liberal rants and snide reks about Bush and the Republicans. That is >> no longer the case thanks to me. Now if anyone wants to post their >> liberal nonsense, they will encounter me and a happy time will not ensue. >> That is the price we pay to have some fairness here on ARBR. >> > > I don't mind encountering you and your opinion. I respect it. I also > demand respect for mine and others. That is where real understanding can > take place. If you can not be moved then you have nothing to contribute to > a discussion. That is true for me as well. Notice above that I did not > dismiss your opinions. I engaged them. I asked myself the questions you > asked. I also took them apart a little becuase I sensed more there than > simple questions. I didn't write you off as a "right wing nutjob". I gave > you respect. I insist on the same respect from you. Then we have a basis > upon which to really tear into issues. I'm not demanding that you see > things my way. Don't demand of me that I become like you. That is real > fairness my friend. When we can each have our opinion and respect for each > other, that is real fairness. I do not initiate discussions here on ARBR on any subjects whatever except rarely. I am strictly a responder. And I will respond to liberal rants with venom. My only aim in the first place was to get rid of all the obnoxious liberal posting that was taking place here on ARBR. Thankfully, it is mostly gone now and I have no wish to resurrect it. ARBR is actually a much nicer place now that others are no longer engaged in liberal political messages and snide reks about Bush and the Republicans. ARBR however was not destroyed by political liberals (I prevented that). It was destroyed by a criminal vandal troll who was brainless and gutless. It is an easy thing to do and you and I could do it too if we wanted to. But I want ARBR to prosper as I know you do too. I do not interfere with legitimate posts and I occasionally even contribute something myself. But I am here priily as a watchdog to keep the liberals at bay. > My problem with you has never been your opinions but rather that you don't > like to play fair. Rather then present your idea respectfully you prefer > to attack. When you attack the reflex for the person who is being attacked > is to defend. Then you end up with neither side listening to the other. > I've seen you behave this way about trikes, politics, and posting style. Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and pigheaded to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a right to those opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity. Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect others are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right back. You do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting! However, from long experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who and can often beat them to the punch. The best defense is a good offense. Everything with me is tit for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a long memory and I like to keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry. > On the subject of posting style I'm often able to keep you on topic and > away from being insulting but not always. > > If you care about your ideas and opinions then say them in a way that > people will listen. Part of that means that you expect some knee jerk > responses regardless of how respectfully you present yourself. Don't let > that stop you. Notice that no matter how personal your attacks against me > have sometimes been, I didn't write you off or resort to name calling. If > I did (and I may have) then I apologize. It was a momentary weekness. I > certainly don't do it as a rule. > >> My simple statement of fact which you quoted at the beginning of your >> message brought on your last three paragraphs above? I had no idea I was >> all that simulating! >> > > Yes because it gets to one of the important disagreements between us. > > Alright Ed, I have quoted you in full. Lets the KF'ers do with me what > they will. > > In sumy Ed, give me and others on this group some respect. Also demand > it for yourself. But don't do one without the other. You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven. Ed Dolan the Compassionate - Minnesota PS. Are you sure you looked up the expressions "pulling your leg" and "tongue in cheek" like I recommended you do some time ago?                                                                                                 Date: 26 Jun 2005 06:42:15 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:9KqdnVFATYWp3yPfRVn-jw@prairiewave.com... > > Wrong on most counts above. Ed Dolan = 100; Jeff Grippe = 0. > No Ed not wrong. My opinion. For me completely correct. Actual score Ed Dolan = 100, Jeff Grippe = 100. So far all we have both done is present our opinion so you can not at this point deduct point. I have not engaged your opinion beyond saying I disagree nor have you engaged mine. We haven't had more than the opening of a discussion. You have said nothing to counter my argeument and I have said nothing to counter yours. Saying "Wrong..." is not argueing (have I just walked out of a Monty Python sketch?). > I do not initiate discussions here on ARBR on any subjects whatever except > rarely. I am strictly a responder. And I will respond to liberal rants > with venom. My only aim in the first place was to get rid of all the > obnoxious liberal posting that was taking place here on ARBR. Thankfully, > it is mostly gone now and I have no wish to resurrect it. ARBR is actually > a much nicer place now that others are no longer engaged in liberal > political messages and snide reks about Bush and the Republicans. > Well I didn't start the political discussion either but rather responded to your conservative rant. I don't like ranting from either side. As I've said before both sides have their fair share of sheep. When I hear a rant, I know that thinking is not taking place. That is how I feel when I read some of your posts. I am a liberal. I am quite far to the left I would say but you have yet to see me rant. I like to think of myself as someone who thinks. Being someone who thinks I know that rants (no matter which side they come from) can not capture the complexities of the issues that face us today. Unfortunately all our politicians (from both sides) do these days is rant and engage in largely self-interested behavior. The left is no better than the right in this regard. I hate being this cynical but that is the way I see it. > Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and > pigheaded to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a > right to those opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity. > I don't like pigheaded either but you don't get to decide whose opinions are grounded in some semblance of sanity and who's aren't. I the same reason that I prefer no to edit. I know I can't escape my own bias. My opinions are not right just because they are mine. Yours are not right just because they are yours. Ed Dolan does not get to define right and wrong. If both side were to do that then there would be no discussion of any substance. It would devolve down to "Me", "No Me", "No Me", "No Me"...etc. > Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect others > are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right back. > You do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting! However, from > long experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who and can often > beat them to the punch. The best defense is a good offense. Everything > with me is tit for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a long memory > and I like to keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry. > Ed you are the king of rude and dismissive which is why I started going at it with you in the first place. You can keep expecting it from me but you won't get it. If anything my posts have been against rude and dismissive. Most of the metaphors you used in the second half of your paragraph above were fighting metaphors. My answer is that if you looking for a fight you are bound to find one. It is instinctive for humans to fight. We are easily provoked and quick to repond. But I'm a liberal remember. I don't want to fight with you Ed. I prefer to throw all the idea onto the mat and fight with them to see which ones might be able to stand up. > You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven. I am sticking to your way of posting for the time being because otherwise the discussion is only about how I post and that is boring. Like it or not I make no promises to continue to do this, however. I do not want to lull you into believing that I am a changed person. > PS. Are you sure you looked up the expressions "pulling your leg" and > "tongue in cheek" like I recommended you do some time ago? I answered this before. You do not come off as witty and colorful which is why we are having this whole discussion.                                                                                                   Date: 26 Jun 2005 22:21:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bt1jsfn32pl23@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:9KqdnVFATYWp3yPfRVn-jw@prairiewave.com... [...] >> Yes, I do attack when I know I am right and others are wrong - and >> pigheaded to boot. I am respectful of other's opinions when they have a >> right to those opinions grounded in some semblance of sanity. >> > > I don't like pigheaded either but you don't get to decide whose opinions > are grounded in some semblance of sanity and who's aren't. I the same > reason that I prefer no to edit. I know I can't escape my own bias. My > opinions are not right just because they are mine. Yours are not right > just because they are yours. Ed Dolan does not get to define right and > wrong. If both side were to do that then there would be no discussion of > any substance. It would devolve down to "Me", "No Me", "No Me", "No > Me"...etc. You need to have been here about two years ago when this group was a pig sty of liberal posting. That is no longer the case thanks to me. I fought fire with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is for symposiums in Heaven, not for the realities of this earth. >> Also, another thing that kicks in big time with me is when I detect >> others are being rude and dismissive. Then I am rude and dismissive right >> back. You do not yet fall into that category, but I am expecting! >> However, from long experience with many here on ARBR, I know who is who >> and can often beat them to the punch. The best defense is a good offense. >> Everything with me is tit for tat and I was not born yesterday. I have a >> long memory and I like to keep my knife sharp and my gunpowder dry. >> > > Ed you are the king of rude and dismissive which is why I started going at > it with you in the first place. You can keep expecting it from me but you > won't get it. If anything my posts have been against rude and dismissive. > Most of the metaphors you used in the second half of your paragraph above > were fighting metaphors. My answer is that if you looking for a fight you > are bound to find one. It is instinctive for humans to fight. We are > easily provoked and quick to repond. But I'm a liberal remember. I don't > want to fight with you Ed. I prefer to throw all the idea onto the mat and > fight with them to see which ones might be able to stand up. I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself in my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no rules. I go for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate them, especially with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try to reason with a liberal is an exercise in futility. >> You only need to post the right way and all will be forgiven. > > I am sticking to your way of posting for the time being because otherwise > the discussion is only about how I post and that is boring. Like it or not > I make no promises to continue to do this, however. I do not want to lull > you into believing that I am a changed person. Post the RIGHT way and forget all that other nonsense of yours. Newsgroups are difficult enough without everyone posting idiosyncratically. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                                     Date: 27 Jun 2005 06:30:42 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:kIydnXhby5Mh7SLfRVn-tQ@prairiewave.com... > > I fought fire with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is > for symposiums in Heaven, not for the realities of this earth. > No Ed it is not the only way to do it. That is my entire point. I have not fought fire with fire once. It is a silly metaphor if you actually think about it. I prefer to fight ignorance although I prefer not to use the fighting metaphor at all. Its not that I'm being PC but rather I have found that confrontational posturing does not lead to understanding by both sides. > I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself > in my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no rules. > I go for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate them, > especially with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try to > reason with a liberal is an exercise in futility. > Ed, believe me when I say that I probably embrace every position that you hate. I do not, however, fight dirty and go for the jugular. The problem with your approach, as I said earlier, is that most people's response to being attacked is to defend. It all ends up getting personal very quickly. Liberal form opinions about Conservatives and Conservatives form opinions about Liberals. Then after a while they start to embrace those opinions and repeat them as if they were facts. Things get said like the paragraphs above which I quoted. Reality is more complex then that. There are people out there who would agree 100% with your opinions that you would find detestable and there are people out there that would agree 100% with my liberal opinions that you would be happy to have as friends. As I have said before and as your posting and the posting of others sometimes reflects, there is not enough serious thinking going on. In trying to understand what are essentially complex issues, people are grasping for quick "sound byte" style answers. You can say you hate liberals but I think you are a st enough person to know that statement for the lie that it is. There are certain behaviors that you may hate but I don't really believe that you hate someone for holding an opinion that you disagree with. BTW I know that there are exceptions to what I've said so please don't tell me about some radical fringe on either the left or right, whose ideas you hate, and whose ideas I would hate too. We both know those counter-examples exist. I'm talking about the average poster you are likely to meet here, or the average liberal like me. If I have you pegged wrong and you really do hate me and people like me for my ideas then my earlier designation of you as intolerant would be fitting. I've come to think that that is not the case, however. Regards, Jeff                                                                                                       Date: 27 Jun 2005 18:23:28 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bvl9i8aecimaa@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:kIydnXhby5Mh7SLfRVn-tQ@prairiewave.com... >> >> I fought fire with fire which is the only way to do it. Sweet reason is >> for symposiums in Heaven, not for the realities of this earth. >> > > No Ed it is not the only way to do it. That is my entire point. I have not > fought fire with fire once. It is a silly metaphor if you actually think > about it. I prefer to fight ignorance although I prefer not to use the > fighting metaphor at all. Its not that I'm being PC but rather I have > found that confrontational posturing does not lead to understanding by > both sides. I am strictly in a confrontational mood when confronted with liberals. I have had it up to high heaven with their confounded views. All the major media and institutions of higer education are full of their nonsense. And when one of them is spouting off on a newsgroup devoted to recumbent cycling, I go into orbit. >> I know liberals like I know the back of my hand because I was one myself >> in my misspent youth. I fight the way they fight, dirty and with no >> rules. I go for the jugular just like they do. I mostly just plain hate >> them, especially with regard to their position on the War in Iraq. To try >> to reason with a liberal is an exercise in futility. >> > > Ed, believe me when I say that I probably embrace every position that you > hate. I do not, however, fight dirty and go for the jugular. The problem > with your approach, as I said earlier, is that most people's response to > being attacked is to defend. It all ends up getting personal very quickly. > Liberal form opinions about Conservatives and Conservatives form opinions > about Liberals. Then after a while they start to embrace those opinions > and repeat them as if they were facts. Things get said like the paragraphs > above which I quoted. > > Reality is more complex then that. There are people out there who would > agree 100% with your opinions that you would find detestable and there are > people out there that would agree 100% with my liberal opinions that you > would be happy to have as friends. It goes without saying that I hate their views, not they themselves (some exceptions of course). However, if truth be told, I do not like anybody much. We humans are just not very likable. We are essentially killer apes and we go about the world with murder in our dark hearts. > As I have said before and as your posting and the posting of others > sometimes reflects, there is not enough serious thinking going on. In > trying to understand what are essentially complex issues, people are > grasping for quick "sound byte" style answers. Newsgroups are not the place for serious thinking. Newsgroups are the place for spouting off. When liberals spout off, then I spout off too. Nobody here except us geysers going off. Kind of like Old Faithful at Yellowstone, inevitable and predictable. > You can say you hate liberals but I think you are a st enough person to > know that statement for the lie that it is. There are certain behaviors > that you may hate but I don't really believe that you hate someone for > holding an opinion that you disagree with. BTW I know that there are > exceptions to what I've said so please don't tell me about some radical > fringe on either the left or right, whose ideas you hate, and whose ideas > I would hate too. We both know those counter-examples exist. I'm talking > about the average poster you are likely to meet here, or the average > liberal like me. There are no average posters either here or anywhere else. Every individual is a special case. And I do hate some for their views, especially where the defense and security of the US is concerned. Do I hate Michael Moore? You bet I do! I think he is a treasonous pig of a white man who has no brain. May the Devil take him! > If I have you pegged wrong and you really do hate me and people like me > for my ideas then my earlier designation of you as intolerant would be > fitting. I've come to think that that is not the case, however. I am not in favor of tolerance as being good in and of itself. In fact, I am quite in favor of intolerance when it comes to any number of things. Only liberals use a word like tolerance and think it is universally good and use a word like bigot and think it is universally bad. I am not tolerant of Islam and I dislike the Arabs - at least for the present. This could change if and when they start behaving like civilized creatures and reform their abominable religion. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                                         Date: 27 Jun 2005 23:48:15 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg In Conclusion: (back to my style of posting) Well it appears we have some very fundamental disagreements (I know. I can hear some of you telling me that it must have been a blinding flash of the obvious.) This ernest liberal clod chooses to take your words at face value (sorry about the third person but it was the best way to work in the descriptive language). I am sorry for you yet elated that I do not live in the same world as you do. I prefer my delusions to yours any day (they are both delusions, however). So for me there is nothing left to say after your last post. But I'll try to end on topic. I wish you many happy miles on the pedal powered vehicle of your choice. Don't hit gravel or brake a leg! Jeff                                                                                                           Date: 28 Jun 2005 04:43:47 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11c1i295ramgnd9@news.supernews.com... > In Conclusion: (back to my style of posting) [...] "Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow." -- From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 185) Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                               Date: 20 Jun 2005 17:57:12 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/20/2005 18:31:49 "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:tpCdnRc0OphlESvfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... >> Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the >> way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). >> Regular knee jerks - all of them! > If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name > calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes > without saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. > That is not an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. > It is hugely different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your > pick of groups that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is > nuts." It's ok Jeff, Ed is not Irish. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk                                                                 Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:29:12 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@ATtrikesandstuffDOT.coDOT.uk > wrote in message news:6201857.HOYDLJLP@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/20/2005 18:31:49 "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com> wrote: > >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:tpCdnRc0OphlESvfRVn-qQ@prairiewave.com... > >>> Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By >>> the >>> way, all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). >>> Regular knee jerks - all of them! > >> If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name >> calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes >> without saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. >> That is not an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. >> It is hugely different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your >> pick of groups that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is >> nuts." > > It's ok Jeff, Ed is not Irish. Anyone with the name Dolan is of Irish ancestry. That is all I have ever said about myself. I am as American as it is possible to get. Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound Polish to you? Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                   Date: 21 Jun 2005 05:18:14 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:W_6dnZy_T5UxOCrfRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... > > Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound > Polish to you? > Well this is where your various built in bias fail you Ed. Grippe is my step-father's name acquired by me when I was ten. I only use the word "step-father" to describe the relationship technically. He is my Dad. He is the best Dad I could ever hope for and I wear his name proudly and with love and fondness give it to my son as well. He does not, however, have a drop of Polish blood in him. My Mother's family, with whom I am very close, is from Poland. So regardless of what I call myself, I am Polish. You probably don't know about the Jewish Ferguson's do you? Jeff                                                                     Date: 21 Jun 2005 11:31:27 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/21/2005 10:18:14 "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote: > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:W_6dnZy_T5UxOCrfRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >> Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound >> Polish to you? > Well this is where your various built in bias fail you Ed. > Grippe is my step-father's name acquired by me when I was ten. I only use > the word "step-father" to describe the relationship technically. He is my > Dad. He is the best Dad I could ever hope for and I wear his name proudly > and with love and fondness give it to my son as well. He does not, > however, have a drop of Polish blood in him. > My Mother's family, with whom I am very close, is from Poland. So > regardless of what I call myself, I am Polish. > You probably don't know about the Jewish Ferguson's do you? I work on the principle that you are the nationality of the country in which you are born. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk                                                                       Date: 22 Jun 2005 17:39:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Buck" <ian@ATtrikesandstuffDOT.coDOT.uk > wrote in message news:6211231.VDQXVAVV@news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > > On 06/21/2005 10:18:14 "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote: > >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message >> news:W_6dnZy_T5UxOCrfRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... > >>> Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound >>> Polish to you? > >> Well this is where your various built in bias fail you Ed. > >> Grippe is my step-father's name acquired by me when I was ten. I only >> use >> the word "step-father" to describe the relationship technically. He is >> my >> Dad. He is the best Dad I could ever hope for and I wear his name >> proudly >> and with love and fondness give it to my son as well. He does not, >> however, have a drop of Polish blood in him. > >> My Mother's family, with whom I am very close, is from Poland. So >> regardless of what I call myself, I am Polish. > >> You probably don't know about the Jewish Ferguson's do you? > > I work on the principle that you are the nationality of the country in > which you are born. It is not quite as straight forward as that and no one should know this better than the Europeans. Some names belong more to a people or nation than others. The Jews were almost never accepted as belonging to the nations in which they resided, at least not fully. Ethnicity is never forgotten no matter what. A nation is actually a delicate construction. They were forged over the centuries with armed might and can still fall apart because most nations are composed of several different peoples. Canada is a case in point. French Canada may yet decide to leave English Canada even after a couple of hundred years of being one nation. Europe is full of such examples as are most other regions of the world. America is quite unique in it's ability to forge a single nationality out of disparate peoples. But the true origins never disappear entirely, not even in America. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                       Date: 21 Jun 2005 13:11:21 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Buck wrote: > I work on the principle that you are the nationality of the country in > which you are born. That makes Dr. Larrington Libyan. Mr. Clarke! -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > Dead journalists make excellent objets d'art.                                                                         Date: 21 Jun 2005 12:31:42 From: Buck Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg On 06/21/2005 13:11:21 "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote: > Buck wrote: >> I work on the principle that you are the nationality of the country in >> which you are born. > That makes Dr. Larrington Libyan. Mr. Clarke! And me Syrian, like my Father, but he adopted a British surname, to make life easier for us kids, he served in the British airforce. -- Buck I would rather be out on my Catrike http://www.catrike.co.uk                                                                     Date: 21 Jun 2005 04:53:18 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bfmq57f6u2u4b@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:W_6dnZy_T5UxOCrfRVn-sQ@prairiewave.com... >> >> Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound >> Polish to you? >> > > Well this is where your various built in bias fail you Ed. > > Grippe is my step-father's name acquired by me when I was ten. I only use > the word "step-father" to describe the relationship technically. He is my > Dad. He is the best Dad I could ever hope for and I wear his name proudly > and with love and fondness give it to my son as well. He does not, > however, have a drop of Polish blood in him. > > My Mother's family, with whom I am very close, is from Poland. So > regardless of what I call myself, I am Polish. That is all very good, but we still don't know your Polish name. How can you be Polish if you do not have a Polish name? > You probably don't know about the Jewish Ferguson's do you? If your REAL last name is Ferguson, then you are Jewish and not Polish at all. Maybe that is why you find Polish jokes amusing? I have known lots of Washington's, Jefferson's and Jackson's and they certainly were not related to our early presidents and where they came from - unless Africa can be considered part of merry old England. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                       Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:05:09 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:rI-dnQPV0vgOfirfRVn-1w@prairiewave.com... > > > That is all very good, but we still don't know your Polish name. How can > you be Polish if you do not have a Polish name? > Eddie you do say some silly things. I said my Mother's family was Polish. I don't have a "Polish" name. I have one name, Jeff Grippe. I don't use any other names or aliases. I don't have a Polish or any other type of name for that matter. Even the name I was born with (Russian) sounds French and not Eastern European. You can thank the good people of Ellis Island for that. In short Ed, you can tell nothing about me from my name other than the fact that it is my name. I only called you Irish because you said you were in an earlier post. If you really knew books as well as you say you do you'd understand the book/cover distinction a bit differently. As to Ferguson, it is not a Jewish name at all but rather an Irish one. However, there is a word in Yiddish that sounds a like Ferguson. The word in Yiddish means "I Forget" or "I Forgot". There were many Jews who came over at the turn of the last century that were taught how to write their names before leaving but couldn't remember once they got here. When asked to write their names at Ellis Island many of them responded in Yiddish saying "I Forgot". The clerks wrote down Ferguson as there were also many Irish coming over at that time and it was not an uncommonly heard name. The result is that in New York there is a large Eastern European Jewish Ferguson clan and a large Irish Catholic Ferguson clan. I am fortunate to have friends in both. So once again, the bottom line here is that you can tell little by someones name unless they provide you with additional information. This being the internet, "Jeff Grippe" could be a 10 year old girl (I'm not but it is possible). Jeff                                                                         Date: 22 Jun 2005 17:19:14 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bg45gc2ccfqfa@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:rI-dnQPV0vgOfirfRVn-1w@prairiewave.com... >> >> >> That is all very good, but we still don't know your Polish name. How can >> you be Polish if you do not have a Polish name? >> > Eddie you do say some silly things. I said my Mother's family was Polish. > I don't have a "Polish" name. I have one name, Jeff Grippe. I don't use > any other names or aliases. I don't have a Polish or any other type of > name for that matter. Even the name I was born with (Russian) sounds > French and not Eastern European. You can thank the good people of Ellis > Island for that. [...] > So once again, the bottom line here is that you can tell little by > someones name unless they provide you with additional information. This > being the internet, "Jeff Grippe" could be a 10 year old girl (I'm not but > it is possible). Well, if you do not have a Polish name, then you are not Polish. It may be that your mother has a Polish name and so she is Polish, but you aren't. You are only at best half Polish. Are you Roman Catholic like most Poles or did you misplace that too? Do names matter? You bet they do! If you had a Polish name during the Nazi conquest, that was one thing. If you had a Jewish name during the Nazi conquest, that was another thing. It was the difference between life and death. Names mattered in Old Europe and they still do today. Names matter everywhere in the world and the minute you don't think so is the minute that you will be regarded as a fool. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                           Date: 22 Jun 2005 21:04:35 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:KtmdnS05WI10fiTfRVn-jQ@prairiewave.com... > Well, if you do not have a Polish name, then you are not Polish.... > > Do names matter? You bet they do! If you had a Polish name during the Nazi > conquest, that was one thing.... And I suppose if my name were Philip Charles Smith that would preclude me from being black or African American? Eddie baby, you don't know what you are talking about. Are labels important? Yes. Does the label create the reality? No. Are you trying to tell me that if my Dad's name had been O'Leary, and if I had taken his name as I did the name Grippe, then I would be Irish despite that fact that I have no Irish ancestors that I know of? Ed, I know you like to win arguments and that you will stick with something said long past the point of reason but you are just saying nonsense. By the way we are not living during the Nazi era all evidence to the contrary. Give this one a rest Ed. You are just making yourself look silly. Jeff                                                                             Date: 22 Jun 2005 22:41:10 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bk2j9ov75fh05@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:KtmdnS05WI10fiTfRVn-jQ@prairiewave.com... > >> Well, if you do not have a Polish name, then you are not Polish.... >> >> Do names matter? You bet they do! If you had a Polish name during the >> Nazi conquest, that was one thing.... > > And I suppose if my name were Philip Charles Smith that would preclude me > from being black or African American? Hells Bells! If you had a name like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson I would think you were an American Black. In other words, history counts too. But prior to the advent of slavery, I would know that anyone with a name like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would be of English ancestry. The funniest thing ever was when Cassius Clay took the name Mohammed Ali. Cassius Clay was probably a good old White Man slave master name from the Old South, whereas Mohammed Ali was a good old Arab slave trader name. If Clay had wanted to take an authentic name, he should have taken an African name from the area from which his ancestors derived. But he confused religion with ethnicity. They are two entirely different things although there are often times associations which are quite strong. For instance, Polish and Roman Catholic and Irish and Roman Catholic. But you have no doubt lost that association too along with your Polish-ness, such as it is. > Eddie baby, you don't know what you are talking about. Are labels > important? Yes. Does the label create the reality? No. > > Are you trying to tell me that if my Dad's name had been O'Leary, and if I > had taken his name as I did the name Grippe, then I would be Irish despite > that fact that I have no Irish ancestors that I know of? I am assuming your father was not Polish; therefore you are not 100% Polish either. Since you are not 100% Polish, you have no right to enjoy Polish ethnic jokes. In order to enjoy a Polish ethnic joke with a good conscience, you should be 100% Polish. I am telling you this so that you will know how to be politically correct, the most important thing in life for a liberal. > Ed, I know you like to win arguments and that you will stick with > something said long past the point of reason but you are just saying > nonsense. > > By the way we are not living during the Nazi era all evidence to the > contrary. We are all capable of Nazism. It is lying there just under our skin waiting for the appropriate circumstances. Genocide is as alive and well today as it ever was. The reason this is so is because of our human nature. We are killer apes with murder in our hearts - or didn't you know that? Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota PS. It is too bad Jeff refuses to post properly as then the rest of the group could get in on the conversation. But he confuses Usenet with email, unable to distinguish the differences between them.                                                                               Date: 23 Jun 2005 08:50:24 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:Iq2dnQNDScbAsiffRVn-qg@prairiewave.com... > I am assuming your father was not Polish; therefore you are not 100% > Polish either. Since you are not 100% Polish, you have no right to enjoy > Polish ethnic jokes. In order to enjoy a Polish ethnic joke with a good > conscience, you should be 100% Polish. I am telling you this so that you > will know how to be politically correct, the most important thing in life > for a liberal. I believe that I have already expressed my contempt for PC. You are correct, however, that I am not 100% any nationality other than American. However, given the way our language and conventions work, since I have some Polish ancestors, I am permitted to call myself Polish. Once again you do not get to make the rules about this. They are already made. They predate even you precious Google usenet rules. As to what jokes I have a right to tell, once again I am unmoved by your opinion. I will tell any joke as long as it is funny. Too bad for you if you are offended. Please enjoy the "Dolan preferred" posting method as it was convenient to do it that way this time. Jeff                                                                                 Date: 23 Jun 2005 22:29:26 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11blc1rkmmlm0e3@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:Iq2dnQNDScbAsiffRVn-qg@prairiewave.com... > >> I am assuming your father was not Polish; therefore you are not 100% >> Polish either. Since you are not 100% Polish, you have no right to enjoy >> Polish ethnic jokes. In order to enjoy a Polish ethnic joke with a good >> conscience, you should be 100% Polish. I am telling you this so that you >> will know how to be politically correct, the most important thing in life >> for a liberal. > > I believe that I have already expressed my contempt for PC. > > You are correct, however, that I am not 100% any nationality other than > American. However, given the way our language and conventions work, since > I have some Polish ancestors, I am permitted to call myself Polish. Once > again you do not get to make the rules about this. They are already made. > They predate even you precious Google usenet rules. > > As to what jokes I have a right to tell, once again I am unmoved by your > opinion. I will tell any joke as long as it is funny. Too bad for you if > you are offended. Don't make me laugh! There are any number of jokes that can no longer be told, not because they are not funny, but because they are politically incorrect. We all of us observe certain norms so that we don't end up killing one another. Political correctness is something that the major media and the academic elite have established. Both of those groups are nothing if not bastions of liberalism. Please, do not try to tell me that being politically correct is not preeminently a liberal thing. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                   Date: 24 Jun 2005 09:02:04 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:P5SdndiiDpOD4ybfRVn-3g@prairiewave.com... > > Please, do not try to tell me that being politically correct is not > preeminently a liberal thing. > In my experience (which is clearly very different from yours) PC crosses boundries. I have liberal friend who hate PC and liberal friends who swear by it. I have conservative friends who hate PC and conservative friends who swear by it. Maybe its different where you are but in NY, PC and liberal are not ried. Jeff                                                                                     Date: 24 Jun 2005 19:25:36 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bo13rbfi0ml59@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:P5SdndiiDpOD4ybfRVn-3g@prairiewave.com... > >> >> Please, do not try to tell me that being politically correct is not >> preeminently a liberal thing. >> > > In my experience (which is clearly very different from yours) PC crosses > boundries. I have liberal friend who hate PC and liberal friends who swear > by it. I have conservative friends who hate PC and conservative friends > who swear by it. Maybe its different where you are but in NY, PC and > liberal are not ried. > > Jeff Liberals are notorious for being PC. God help any Republican or conservative who lets slip something that is not PC. I attribute this to the influence of the major media (think NY Times) and most especially the liberal academic elite that infest almost all of our institutions of higher education. If you think free speech is alive and well in our institutions of higher education, just say or write something that is not PC and you will find yourself looking for a new job, tenure or no tenure. The professors brain wash their students and so the vicious cycle gets continued for generations. Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent thinkers. Furthermore, the only media that conservatives control is talk radio which is not big enough to set the agenda. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                       Date: 24 Jun 2005 21:09:20 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message news:PbWdnQpbpogXOSHfRVn-hg@prairiewave.com... > Liberals are notorious for being PC. > > Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent > thinkers. Ed, the unfortunate truth is that PC belongs to both liberal and conservative. There is a tendency to associate PC with liberals because liberals often have a more progressive social agenda (read that as "believe in bigger government that should be more involved in social policy"). In my experience you find plenty of PC on both sides. The other unfortunate truth is that both sides, once again, are doing precious little independent thinking. Most liberals are sheep. Most conservatives are sheep. Different flocks but still sheep. To really think means that you have to look at more than just "sound bites" and "catch phrases". To really think means that you have to put down your bias, do some investigation (because both liberal and conservative media are biased no matter what they say), and not accept simple pat answers. During the presidential debates, they had a format that practically assured that no useful information would be transmitted. The time format did not allow for real discussion of the issues. It only allowed the candidates to restate the positions that were already well known. The issues are not simple. If we have spent a few hundred messages batting around politeness and posting style, imagine how complex the issues that the candidates were discussing are. Two minutes followed by one minute followed by 30 seconds, etc. isn't going to cut it. Boy are we on another topic now. Regardless of which side of the political fence you are on it is important to think. It is one of the reasons I am glad you are here and that I would never kill file you (or anyone for that matter). I don't only want to hear opinions that agree with mine. I want my assumptions challenged. If they are valid assumptions then they will stand up to being challenged. Enjoy your weekend. Jeff                                                                                         Date: 25 Jun 2005 04:24:15 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7 > wrote in message news:11bpbkclqme7j26@news.supernews.com... > > "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message > news:PbWdnQpbpogXOSHfRVn-hg@prairiewave.com... > >> Liberals are notorious for being PC. >> >> Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent >> thinkers. There are two ways to do the above right, both of which escaped you. Here would have been the preferred way: "Liberals are notorious for being PC. God help any Republican or conservative who lets slip something that is not PC. I attribute this to the influence of the major media (think NY Times) and most especially the liberal academic elite that infest almost all of our institutions of higher education. If you think free speech is alive and well in our institutions of higher education, just say or write something that is not PC and you will find yourself looking for a new job, tenure or no tenure. The professors brain wash their students and so the vicious cycle gets continued for generations. Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent thinkers. Furthermore, the only media that conservatives control is talk radio which is not big enough to set the agenda." Here is the second way: "Liberals are notorious for being PC. [...] Conservatives are not into PC because conservatives are independent thinkers. [...]" Now your message can began having properly indicated where you have snipped. But I am going to delete (snip) your message that follows since there is nothing I want to say in reply. Hence, note the following: [...] Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                                                     Date: 24 Jun 2005 16:11:48 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > In my experience (which is clearly very different from yours) PC crosses > boundries. I have liberal friend who hate PC and liberal friends who swear > by it. I have conservative friends who hate PC and conservative friends who > swear by it. The worst excesses of PC are, IME, committed by people who basically don't understand it, would like to *think* they're liberals, but are actually illiberal reactionary idiots. The basis of PC was that colour should not be used as an arbitrary denigration, so something like "put a black k against his name!" might suggest that being black is bad. Whether you think that's ridiculous or not I'll leave up to individual readers, but at least there is some visible point in there. However, some numpties jumped onto the back end of it and "thought" that the problem was using the word "black" at all. So you had people referring to black blackboards as chalkboards, and black coffee as "coffee without cream". These people just missed the point utterly, and are typically the sort of people who would be most ardent in lambasting anyone who used the word "black" when something else could be used instead, even if the term was purely descriptive of something that was, well, *black*. PC doesn't mean you can't call spades spades, it only says you shouldn't do it if being a spade is bad and the person you're calling one isn't. I don't have much opinion one way or the other on PC in its original, and much misunderstood, sense. The misinterpreted version, where you're not allowed to call something what it is, I find ridiculous and could well do without. So as well as PC crossing boundaries one must remember that there's more than one thing meant by it in the first place. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                                                       Date: 24 Jun 2005 12:36:30 From: Jeff Grippe Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Re: What is PC and who uses it (Peter I hope you don't find this quoting style objectionable): On this side of the pond PC often refers to using new language that is supposed to emphasize positive qualities or at least not emphasize negative ones therefore: "Mentally Retarded" becomes "Developmentally Disabled" "Disabled" becomes "Differently Abled" "Blind" becomes "Visually Challanged" "Crippled" becomes "Physically Challanged" Racial terms change as well. "Black" becomes "African American" (Do you have the term "African English" or "African British"?) "Chicano" becomes "Latin American" or "Mexican American" If you are really into PC then you take great offense at the use of the old label. You label anyone who uses the old label as racist or "Intolerant American" (that's a joke). What are things like on your side of the world? I would imagine that you don't have many expressions that end in American (and I probably wouldn't like the ones you do have although I suspect I'd agree with them). Cheers, Jeff                                                                                         Date: 27 Jun 2005 09:32:16 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg Jeff Grippe wrote: > Re: What is PC and who uses it (Peter I hope you don't find this quoting > style objectionable): Oh, I can live with it without making a song and dance, even if that is "correct form"... > On this side of the pond PC often refers to using new language that is > supposed to emphasize positive qualities or at least not emphasize negative > ones therefore: > > "Mentally Retarded" becomes "Developmentally Disabled" > "Disabled" becomes "Differently Abled" This one is one that is really daft, and we sometimes, but not often see it here. It is daft for 2 reasons. First, there is no real stigma (AFAICT) to the term "disabled". It is simply a descriptive statement. Second, Lance Armstrong is "differently abled" to most people, but I don't think he needs any mobility concessions as a result! > "Black" becomes "African American" (Do you have the term "African English" > or "African British"?) No. Many of the black population in the UK refer to themselves as Afro-Carribean, which is the main point of entry in the wake of WW2 when anyone was welcome to the UK from the Empire to get work done. It's (again AFAICT) descriptive and they're not worried about the term "black". > If you are really into PC then you take great offense at the use of the old > label. You label anyone who uses the old label as racist or "Intolerant > American" (that's a joke). Though it is ironic that the intolerance exhibited by these people is the intolerance that made the original terms problematical. It's intolerance that's the basic problem, not calling things by descriptive names. > What are things like on your side of the world? As suggested, varies quite a lot with, on one hand right-on dickheads who *think* they're paid-up liberals and socialists saying you can't have black coffee, only coffee without milk, and OTOH most people just saying what they've always said, thinking that PC is all about idiots being intolerant. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                                                                                         Date: 24 Jun 2005 19:53:30 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11bodlufkemhj80@news.supernews.com... > Re: What is PC and who uses it (Peter I hope you don't find this quoting > style objectionable): It would be far better if you were quoting Peter in full. After all, he said some very interesting things. > On this side of the pond PC often refers to using new language that is > supposed to emphasize positive qualities or at least not emphasize > negative ones therefore: > > "Mentally Retarded" becomes "Developmentally Disabled" > "Disabled" becomes "Differently Abled" > "Blind" becomes "Visually Challanged" > "Crippled" becomes "Physically Challanged" > > Racial terms change as well. > > "Black" becomes "African American" (Do you have the term "African English" > or "African British"?) > "Chicano" becomes "Latin American" or "Mexican American" > > If you are really into PC then you take great offense at the use of the > old label. You label anyone who uses the old label as racist or > "Intolerant American" (that's a joke). PC is not just about the use of certain terms however. It is mostly about an attitude based on liberalism (progressive ideas) about the human condition which has come into play over the past 40 years or so. If you examine other periods of human history you will be amazed at how previous generations thought very differently about most things. Unlike many others, I do not denigrate past thinking. It was solidly based at the time and if we had been alive then that is exactly what we would have thought too. It is easy to think with the crowd - it is not so easy to think against the crowd. What do you think of the phrase ... a good Indian is a dead Indian? If you had been a pioneer back then, that is exactly what you would have thought. Do you think that you are now enlightened because you don't think that? That is an example of PC applied to times past, the worst application of it that there is. PC based on progressive thought (liberalism) is more than just words. It is based on an attitude about how life ought to be. It is fundamentally utopian at heart. The rest of the world, especially the third world, thinks we are crazy for thinking the way we do about most things. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota                                                         Date: 17 Jun 2005 17:22:34 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Hit gravel, broke leg "Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote in message news:11b5jccfer13e95@news.supernews.com... > > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:3hfm63Fgrkj3U1@individual.net... >> Jeff Grippe wrote: >> >> And history suggests that it won't make any difference. >> > Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I > realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have a > zero tolerance policy. It isn't enough to just say "Oh that's Ed again." > I'm not saying that I'll respond to every single racist post of his but I > will respond. It will be fun for me keeping this nerd hopping. Of course, with Jeff, racism is a very broad category. It basically amounts to whatever he wants it to be. Well, I will just play with him and see how riled up I can get him on this racism obsession of his. > The interesting thing is that in his view (I think) he doesn't see himself > as racist but rather as colorful and witty. Maybe its like advertising. > You have to hear / see it 18-20 time (more in his case) before it finally > dawns on you that you are racist. It has finally dawned on me that Jeff is truly an earnest clod. I would advise him to look up the following expressions: "pulling your leg" and "tongue in cheek." By the way, I have never known or even heard of anyone in my life who was NOT a racist. Everyone should look in the mirror and try to determine for yourself who and what you are - besides being a primate that looks like a baboon of course. Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota