BROL Down?

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

And you seemingly try to justify it on some sort of political
grounds, some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing. It's not. It's not
even a freedom of speech issue - everyone knows that, on an unmoderated
newsgroup, you can say just about anything you want. But does that
"freedom" mean you should engage in such juvenile behavior? No. Much
more is expected from an adult.

Mr. Ball has stated previously on this forum that he did not see anything
wrong with all the liberal hate mongering and Bush bashing that went on here
before I showed up.

In actuality, this is untrue. Mr. Ball stated no such thing.

Quoted message said:

You say it is not a freedom of speech issue. It most certainly is!

No, it is not. It is a matter of civility. It is one thing to
disagree, it is another to be disagreeable.

Why

Quoted message said:

should I tip-toe around issues with polite language when others were calling
Bush a [censored] and a [censored]? Screw that! If you call Bush a [censored], then I
am going to call you a [censored] too and I will leave poor Senator Kerry out
of it.

So someone thinks Bush is a [censored] - so what? Why do you feel the
need to then claim that *they* are [censored] as well? And how does this
justify your penchant for the phrase, "[censored] you"? This is not a matter
of "polite language", so much as an excuse to be uncivilized and vulgar.

Quoted message said:

ARBR is a much better place than it was a year ago largely because I do not
let these liberals rule here like they used to.

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Quoted message said:

But no man is a profit in his own country. I will only be missed
when I am no longer here and the group has reverted to the pig sty from
which I rescued it.

You may be right on both counts. I suspect that the group will revert
to the "pig sty" of relative civility when you are gone.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

It is notes like this that make me wish news groups rules could be made to
delete notes based on body word content. I have already killed notes
originating from Ed, but can not seem to get rid of notes containing his
original posts. Well, maybe in the future they will come up with something
like it.
..
Arne, USA (being in cash in a down market is my third favorite thing)
..
..
"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

And you seemingly try to justify it on some sort of political
grounds, some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing. It's not. It's not
even a freedom of speech issue - everyone knows that, on an unmoderated
newsgroup, you can say just about anything you want. But does that
"freedom" mean you should engage in such juvenile behavior? No. Much
more is expected from an adult.

Mr. Ball has stated previously on this forum that he did not see

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong with all the liberal hate mongering and Bush bashing that went on

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before I showed up.

In actuality, this is untrue. Mr. Ball stated no such thing.

Quoted message said:

You say it is not a freedom of speech issue. It most certainly is!

No, it is not. It is a matter of civility. It is one thing to
disagree, it is another to be disagreeable.

Why

Quoted message said:

should I tip-toe around issues with polite language when others were

calling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bush a [censored] and a [censored]? Screw that! If you call Bush a [censored],

then I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am going to call you a [censored] too and I will leave poor Senator Kerry

out

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of it.

So someone thinks Bush is a [censored] - so what? Why do you feel the
need to then claim that *they* are [censored] as well? And how does this
justify your penchant for the phrase, "[censored] you"? This is not a matter
of "polite language", so much as an excuse to be uncivilized and vulgar.

Quoted message said:

ARBR is a much better place than it was a year ago largely because I do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

let these liberals rule here like they used to.

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Quoted message said:

But no man is a profit in his own country. I will only be missed
when I am no longer here and the group has reverted to the pig sty from
which I rescued it.

You may be right on both counts. I suspect that the group will revert
to the "pig sty" of relative civility when you are gone.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

And you seemingly try to justify it on some sort of political
grounds, some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing. It's not. It's not
even a freedom of speech issue - everyone knows that, on an unmoderated
newsgroup, you can say just about anything you want. But does that
"freedom" mean you should engage in such juvenile behavior? No. Much
more is expected from an adult.

Mr. Ball has stated previously on this forum that he did not see

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong with all the liberal hate mongering and Bush bashing that went on

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before I showed up.

In actuality, this is untrue. Mr. Ball stated no such thing.

Damned if I am going to look up a post of his when I remember perfectly well
what he said. But you lie and say things that aren't true all the time. As
long as you stay in character I will know how to deal with you, i.e., with
utter contempt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You say it is not a freedom of speech issue. It most certainly is!

No, it is not. It is a matter of civility. It is one thing to
disagree, it is another to be disagreeable.

You wouldn't know civility of it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. Also,
some things need to be disagreed about disagreeably. Only an idiot like you
would claim otherwise. I have yet to see or hear of any liberal who knows
how to disagree with anyone agreeable. And that certainly does include you!

Quoted message said:

Why

Quoted message said:

should I tip-toe around issues with polite language when others were

calling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bush a [censored] and a [censored]? Screw that! If you call Bush a [censored],

then I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am going to call you a [censored] too and I will leave poor Senator Kerry

out

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of it.

So someone thinks Bush is a [censored] - so what? Why do you feel the
need to then claim that *they* are [censored] as well? And how does this
justify your penchant for the phrase, "[censored] you"? This is not a matter
of "polite language", so much as an excuse to be uncivilized and vulgar.

If you call Bush a [censored] - then I will call you a [censored]. That's why -
you [censored] idiot!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ARBR is a much better place than it was a year ago largely because I do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

let these liberals rule here like they used to.

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Quoted message said:

But no man is a profit in his own country. I will only be missed
when I am no longer here and the group has reverted to the pig sty from
which I rescued it.

You may be right on both counts. I suspect that the group will revert
to the "pig sty" of relative civility when you are gone.

It would be a far better newsgroup if you weren't here to pollute and
derange it with your odious posts. Are you not a columnist for BROL? Why the
hell don't you stay over there where maybe some others will appreciate your
scribbling and rambling insanity.

Note that this Varney character did not include my entire post to which he
felt a need to respond That is ever the way with these idiotic liberals.
They pick and choose what they want to respond to leaving critical content
to the imagination of the reader. And this nut is suppose to be a writer
(for BROL I believe). Liberals would not know fairness if their lives
depended on it. I am tired of pulling my punches with this nut and
screwball. From now I will treat him exactly the way he treats everyone
else.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Dolan, I quote the portions of a post that I am responding to. Why
quote dozens of lines, when only three are applicable? And of course I
pick and choose what I want to respond to - do you believe that to be
somehow unique with me? Do you, for instance, not pick and choose what
*you* want to respond to? Or do you respond to each and every post on
this newsgroup?
No, of course you don't. And as for the rest of your pathetic
posturing, you're no longer the amusing caricature of the "ugly
American" that you seem to want to portray - you've become the real
thing. You're not just an embarrassment to the recumbent community, but
to the United States as well - if not the entire world.

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

> And you seemingly try to justify it on some sort of political
>grounds, some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing. It's not. It's not
>even a freedom of speech issue - everyone knows that, on an unmoderated
>newsgroup, you can say just about anything you want. But does that
>"freedom" mean you should engage in such juvenile behavior? No. Much
>more is expected from an adult.

Mr. Ball has stated previously on this forum that he did not see

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong with all the liberal hate mongering and Bush bashing that went on

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

before I showed up.

In actuality, this is untrue. Mr. Ball stated no such thing.

Damned if I am going to look up a post of his when I remember perfectly well
what he said. But you lie and say things that aren't true all the time. As
long as you stay in character I will know how to deal with you, i.e., with
utter contempt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You say it is not a freedom of speech issue. It most certainly is!

No, it is not. It is a matter of civility. It is one thing to
disagree, it is another to be disagreeable.

You wouldn't know civility of it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. Also,
some things need to be disagreed about disagreeably. Only an idiot like you
would claim otherwise. I have yet to see or hear of any liberal who knows
how to disagree with anyone agreeable. And that certainly does include you!

Quoted message said:

Why

Quoted message said:

should I tip-toe around issues with polite language when others were

calling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bush a [censored] and a [censored]? Screw that! If you call Bush a [censored],

then I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am going to call you a [censored] too and I will leave poor Senator Kerry

out

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of it.

So someone thinks Bush is a [censored] - so what? Why do you feel the
need to then claim that *they* are [censored] as well? And how does this
justify your penchant for the phrase, "[censored] you"? This is not a matter
of "polite language", so much as an excuse to be uncivilized and vulgar.

If you call Bush a [censored] - then I will call you a [censored]. That's why -
you [censored] idiot!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ARBR is a much better place than it was a year ago largely because I do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

let these liberals rule here like they used to.

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Quoted message said:

But no man is a profit in his own country. I will only be missed
when I am no longer here and the group has reverted to the pig sty from
which I rescued it.

You may be right on both counts. I suspect that the group will revert
to the "pig sty" of relative civility when you are gone.

It would be a far better newsgroup if you weren't here to pollute and
derange it with your odious posts. Are you not a columnist for BROL? Why the
hell don't you stay over there where maybe some others will appreciate your
scribbling and rambling insanity.

Note that this Varney character did not include my entire post to which he
felt a need to respond That is ever the way with these idiotic liberals.
They pick and choose what they want to respond to leaving critical content
to the imagination of the reader. And this nut is suppose to be a writer
(for BROL I believe). Liberals would not know fairness if their lives
depended on it. I am tired of pulling my punches with this nut and
screwball. From now I will treat him exactly the way he treats everyone
else.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dolan, I quote the portions of a post that I am responding to. Why
quote dozens of lines, when only three are applicable? And of course I
pick and choose what I want to respond to - do you believe that to be
somehow unique with me? Do you, for instance, not pick and choose what
*you* want to respond to? Or do you respond to each and every post on
this newsgroup?

Why do all the idiots top post?

There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain works. I do not
pull single sentences out of a paragraph and make a big issue out it. I will
always respond to the entire paragraph, and most often I will include the
entire message if it is coherent and hangs together. If it rambles and is
not coherent, then of course I will per force have to edit it. After all, I
do not want to look like an idiot just because I am responding to an idiotic
message.

Also, I commit to a only a few threads and do not ramble all over the
newsgroup. Of course I do not respond to 99% of the messages on the
newsgroup. You have confounded two separate subjects that are unrelated.

Quoted message said:

No, of course you don't. And as for the rest of your pathetic
posturing, you're no longer the amusing caricature of the "ugly
American" that you seem to want to portray - you've become the real
thing. You're not just an embarrassment to the recumbent community, but
to the United States as well - if not the entire world.

Well thanks! Now we are really getting somewhere. As long as I am not boring
you I am happy as a lark. I will try to keep up the good work!

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

As a friend of mine once said, keep up the good work - you're doing
more than most to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.
And I do not "pull single sentences out of a paragraph and make a big
issue out of it". What I do is to reference the portion that I am
responding to. There is little sense in including the portions that are
irrelevant, coherent or not. To include entire posts, including all of
the previous responses, only to comment upon one small portion, is, as
you put it, "idiotic".
And if it really does offend your sensibilities when a reponse is at
the top of the post, you have my permission to cut-and-paste my response
to wherever you like. The truth is, most people have already read the
responded-to portion, and are just interested (if at all) in the latest
response. So why place it at the bottom? And if someone has not read the
previous portions, why, there is nothing stopping them from reading it
now, is there?
Of course, if the response was formatted so that the new portion was
hard to spot - if, for instance, there were not tacked-on characters to
indicate just what was being quoted, what had come before - then you may
have a point. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to place the new
portion at the top, so that readers will not have to scroll past old
stuff just to see what has most recently been added.

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dolan, I quote the portions of a post that I am responding to. Why
quote dozens of lines, when only three are applicable? And of course I
pick and choose what I want to respond to - do you believe that to be
somehow unique with me? Do you, for instance, not pick and choose what
*you* want to respond to? Or do you respond to each and every post on
this newsgroup?

Why do all the idiots top post?

There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain works. I do not
pull single sentences out of a paragraph and make a big issue out it. I will
always respond to the entire paragraph, and most often I will include the
entire message if it is coherent and hangs together. If it rambles and is
not coherent, then of course I will per force have to edit it. After all, I
do not want to look like an idiot just because I am responding to an idiotic
message.

Also, I commit to a only a few threads and do not ramble all over the
newsgroup. Of course I do not respond to 99% of the messages on the
newsgroup. You have confounded two separate subjects that are unrelated.

Quoted message said:

No, of course you don't. And as for the rest of your pathetic
posturing, you're no longer the amusing caricature of the "ugly
American" that you seem to want to portray - you've become the real
thing. You're not just an embarrassment to the recumbent community, but
to the United States as well - if not the entire world.

Well thanks! Now we are really getting somewhere. As long as I am not boring
you I am happy as a lark. I will try to keep up the good work!

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Mr. Varney, please note that I have picked a single paragraph out of your
message because it constitutes a single thought. It is quite correct to do
this, but it is not correct to pull a single sentence out of a paragraph
and then make a big deal out of it. When you do that you have destroyed the
context in which the sentence is only a strand of the single thought of the
paragraph. But you are the one that is suppose to be the writer here, so why
is it necessary for me to be instructing you in how to write.

Now as to the substance, it is not the hallmark of a conservative to attack
someone's race, religion or ethnic background. Rather it is the hallmark of
someone with a brain in his head to do so when members of those groups are
trying to kill (murder) him and/or his nation. All these jihadist terrorists
are Arabs, they are Muslims and they have brown skins (Semites).
Furthermore, their despicable Muslim religion is what is motivating them and
is at the heart and core of the problem. Any one who does not take note of
these characteristics is a total moron. I want to know my enemy and I want
to be able to tell it like it is so I can better defeat and kill him.

Also, note that all the other similar races (Semites - except for the Jews
of course), religions (Muslims) and ethnic groups (Arabs) are thunderously
quiet about what is going on in the world with respect to the war. Only dyed
in the wool liberals like yourself are stupid enough not to take any note of
this. That is why liberals and other politically correct types think it is
just fine to search little old white Christian grandmothers before allowing
them to board an airplane at one of our airports and they do not want any
profiling done when of course anyone with a brain in his head knows that the
most likely terrorists are going to belong to a certain race, religion and
ethnicity.

Just for the record, I do not like Arabs and most especially I do not like
their Muslim religion. Before we are done with this war it may be that even
someone so dense as Mr. Varney may also come to the same conclusion.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Actually, you are wrong. That paragraph of mine that you quoted
constitutes more than a single thought. Perhaps you need to re-read the
paragraph.
It's interesting that you voice this concern over "context". Indeed,
if I were to misinterpret what you've written by leaving something out,
you might have a point. But I haven't.
As for the rest of your intolerant rant, it bothers me to think that
someone might mistake your despicable prejudices as common among
Americans - they're not, thankfully. But what you do is give ammunition
to those who do hate Americans. You are the best thing an anti-American
terrorist could hope for - proof of what's been said against us.
I am tempted to say that your attitudes place you beneath contempt,
but they don't.

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

No one is buying this "liberal" vs. "conservative" excuse. Unless, of
course, you believe it is a hallmark of conservatism to attack someone's
race, religion or ethnic background.

Mr. Varney, please note that I have picked a single paragraph out of your
message because it constitutes a single thought. It is quite correct to do
this, but it is not correct to pull a single sentence out of a paragraph
and then make a big deal out of it. When you do that you have destroyed the
context in which the sentence is only a strand of the single thought of the
paragraph. But you are the one that is suppose to be the writer here, so why
is it necessary for me to be instructing you in how to write.

Now as to the substance, it is not the hallmark of a conservative to attack
someone's race, religion or ethnic background. Rather it is the hallmark of
someone with a brain in his head to do so when members of those groups are
trying to kill (murder) him and/or his nation. All these jihadist terrorists
are Arabs, they are Muslims and they have brown skins (Semites).
Furthermore, their despicable Muslim religion is what is motivating them and
is at the heart and core of the problem. Any one who does not take note of
these characteristics is a total moron. I want to know my enemy and I want
to be able to tell it like it is so I can better defeat and kill him.

Also, note that all the other similar races (Semites - except for the Jews
of course), religions (Muslims) and ethnic groups (Arabs) are thunderously
quiet about what is going on in the world with respect to the war. Only dyed
in the wool liberals like yourself are stupid enough not to take any note of
this. That is why liberals and other politically correct types think it is
just fine to search little old white Christian grandmothers before allowing
them to board an airplane at one of our airports and they do not want any
profiling done when of course anyone with a brain in his head knows that the
most likely terrorists are going to belong to a certain race, religion and
ethnicity.

Just for the record, I do not like Arabs and most especially I do not like
their Muslim religion. Before we are done with this war it may be that even
someone so dense as Mr. Varney may also come to the same conclusion.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a friend of mine once said, keep up the good work - you're doing
more than most to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

We shall see what we shall see. Many political anaylists are now predicting
that the election will not be close at all and that Bush will win easily.

Quoted message said:

And I do not "pull single sentences out of a paragraph and make a big
issue out of it". What I do is to reference the portion that I am
responding to. There is little sense in including the portions that are
irrelevant, coherent or not. To include entire posts, including all of
the previous responses, only to comment upon one small portion, is, as
you put it, "idiotic".

My posts are always coherent as I work to make them that way. Also there is
never any portion of a paragraph of mine that is irrelevant and that can be
pulled out of context with destroying the overall thought being expressed.
Unlike some others here, I take some pride in what I write. It is amazing to
me that you can not recognize that.

Quoted message said:

And if it really does offend your sensibilities when a reponse is at
the top of the post, you have my permission to cut-and-paste my response
to wherever you like.

No, I will never do that . It is the resposnsiblity of the writer to post
correctly.

The truth is, most people have already read the

Quoted message said:

responded-to portion, and are just interested (if at all) in the latest
response. So why place it at the bottom? And if someone has not read the
previous portions, why, there is nothing stopping them from reading it
now, is there?

It is a matter of form and convenience to the reader to do it the correct
way. Most of us are way too lazy to read down to the bottom of the message
to get the sense of what the post is about. Do it the correct way or do not
do it at all. I do make allowances for some because they do not know any
better. But I know that you do. Therefore, I will not make any allowances
for you. Also, you can never assume that anyone on a newsgroup has read the
previous message let alone the entire thread. We are not writing just for
ourselves. We are writing for a universe of unknown readers.

Quoted message said:

Of course, if the response was formatted so that the new portion was
hard to spot - if, for instance, there were not tacked-on characters to
indicate just what was being quoted, what had come before - then you may
have a point. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to place the new
portion at the top, so that readers will not have to scroll past old
stuff just to see what has most recently been added.

See my comment just above.

I will now delete your bottom post (my previous message) because I know no
one will read it, not even me. You have got everything ass backwards. Why be
such a stubborn old jackass about everything?

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Sigh! A top poster who does not have a clue. And he is a writer for BROL. Go
figure.

Quoted message said:

Actually, you are wrong. That paragraph of mine that you quoted
constitutes more than a single thought. Perhaps you need to re-read the
paragraph.

Then you do not know how to write! A paragraph is for just one single
thought. You get another thought, then you do another paragraph. However, I
do see it as just one single thought composed of two sentences. Now if you
had posted correctly the mystified reader could also see what we are talking
about and make his own decision.

Quoted message said:

It's interesting that you voice this concern over "context". Indeed,
if I were to misinterpret what you've written by leaving something out,
you might have a point. But I haven't.

But that is for the reader to determine, not you.

Quoted message said:

As for the rest of your intolerant rant, it bothers me to think that
someone might mistake your despicable prejudices as common among
Americans - they're not, thankfully. But what you do is give ammunition
to those who do hate Americans. You are the best thing an anti-American
terrorist could hope for - proof of what's been said against us.

You are tiresome in the extreme because you are not posting correctly.

I explained exactly how and why I think as I do (which the reader is now
bereft of because you are not posting correctly) and you are just
regurgitating the same old liberal rot. I don't give a damn what the rest of
the world thinks of America. Rather, the rest of the world ought to care
what America thinks of them. You are a fool and an idiot if you think these
Islamic terrorists can be placated.

Quoted message said:

I am tempted to say that your attitudes place you beneath contempt,
but they don't.

You are like a man with blinders on. You see and hear nothing of what is
going on in the world. You are made deaf and dumb by your contemptible
liberal ideology. There is nothing dumber in this world than a liberal. You
prove it every time you post.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Top-posting does not prohibit anyone from reading what is being
responded to. It is more convenient to put the "new" stuff at the top,
rather than force the reader to page down through all of the old stuff.
And you are wrong: there are things in everyone's posts that are
irrelevant, if the person responding is not referring to those portions
at all. For example, if I chose not to comment upon your contention
about "many political anaylists", then that portion is irrelevant to
what I am responding to. Do you understand? Or do you believe that your
comments about some future election predictions has anything to do with
your other comments about top-posting? They don't.

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a friend of mine once said, keep up the good work - you're doing
more than most to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

We shall see what we shall see. Many political anaylists are now predicting
that the election will not be close at all and that Bush will win easily.

Quoted message said:

And I do not "pull single sentences out of a paragraph and make a big
issue out of it". What I do is to reference the portion that I am
responding to. There is little sense in including the portions that are
irrelevant, coherent or not. To include entire posts, including all of
the previous responses, only to comment upon one small portion, is, as
you put it, "idiotic".

My posts are always coherent as I work to make them that way. Also there is
never any portion of a paragraph of mine that is irrelevant and that can be
pulled out of context with destroying the overall thought being expressed.
Unlike some others here, I take some pride in what I write. It is amazing to
me that you can not recognize that.

Quoted message said:

And if it really does offend your sensibilities when a reponse is at
the top of the post, you have my permission to cut-and-paste my response
to wherever you like.

No, I will never do that . It is the resposnsiblity of the writer to post
correctly.

The truth is, most people have already read the

Quoted message said:

responded-to portion, and are just interested (if at all) in the latest
response. So why place it at the bottom? And if someone has not read the
previous portions, why, there is nothing stopping them from reading it
now, is there?

It is a matter of form and convenience to the reader to do it the correct
way. Most of us are way too lazy to read down to the bottom of the message
to get the sense of what the post is about. Do it the correct way or do not
do it at all. I do make allowances for some because they do not know any
better. But I know that you do. Therefore, I will not make any allowances
for you. Also, you can never assume that anyone on a newsgroup has read the
previous message let alone the entire thread. We are not writing just for
ourselves. We are writing for a universe of unknown readers.

Quoted message said:

Of course, if the response was formatted so that the new portion was
hard to spot - if, for instance, there were not tacked-on characters to
indicate just what was being quoted, what had come before - then you may
have a point. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to place the new
portion at the top, so that readers will not have to scroll past old
stuff just to see what has most recently been added.

See my comment just above.

I will now delete your bottom post (my previous message) because I know no
one will read it, not even me. You have got everything ass backwards. Why be
such a stubborn old jackass about everything?

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Sigh! A top poster who does not have a clue. And he is a writer for BROL. Go
figure.

Quoted message said:

Actually, you are wrong. That paragraph of mine that you quoted
constitutes more than a single thought. Perhaps you need to re-read the
paragraph.

Then you do not know how to write! A paragraph is for just one single
thought. You get another thought, then you do another paragraph. However, I
do see it as just one single thought composed of two sentences. Now if you
had posted correctly the mystified reader could also see what we are talking
about and make his own decision.

There are more than one thought in the paragraph of mine that you
quoted. If you are unable to decipher those thoughts, if you cannot
determine that there are indeed two thoughts, then perhaps this explains
quite a bit. The two thoughts were related, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting that you voice this concern over "context". Indeed,
if I were to misinterpret what you've written by leaving something out,
you might have a point. But I haven't.

But that is for the reader to determine, not you.

And that's the point: when I read your posts, guess what - I *am* the
reader - and I have determined what I wish to respond to, whether what I
excise or not ruins the context, and so on. If, on the other hand, you
determine that I have misconstrued your position, then feel free to
correct me, to supply the missing text that refutes what I have said.
If, for example, you have made statements that I have left out, which
show that you are not guilty of hating people because of their race,
religion, national origin or ethnic background, please let us know.
I would be glad to find out that my original estimation of you is
wrong, and that you are not a racist, xenophobic bigot at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for the rest of your intolerant rant, it bothers me to think that
someone might mistake your despicable prejudices as common among
Americans - they're not, thankfully. But what you do is give ammunition
to those who do hate Americans. You are the best thing an anti-American
terrorist could hope for - proof of what's been said against us.

You are tiresome in the extreme because you are not posting correctly.

I explained exactly how and why I think as I do (which the reader is now
bereft of because you are not posting correctly) and you are just
regurgitating the same old liberal rot. I don't give a damn what the rest of
the world thinks of America. Rather, the rest of the world ought to care
what America thinks of them. You are a fool and an idiot if you think these
Islamic terrorists can be placated.

Quoted message said:

I am tempted to say that your attitudes place you beneath contempt,
but they don't.

You are like a man with blinders on. You see and hear nothing of what is
going on in the world. You are made deaf and dumb by your contemptible
liberal ideology. There is nothing dumber in this world than a liberal. You
prove it every time you post.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Top-posting does not prohibit anyone from reading what is being
responded to. It is more convenient to put the "new" stuff at the top,
rather than force the reader to page down through all of the old stuff.

Nope, you have got that all wrong. It is not convenient for the reader to
have to refer to what is at the bottom of a post. It is highly inconvenient.
The natural progression of reading anything is from the top down, and never
in the opposite direction. That is why footnotes, which are always found at
the bottom of the page, are seldom read because everyone knows that they
will not naturally be read there because of their location. That is why they
are located there in the first place. It is an option whether or not to read
them. Most will never read them.

Quoted message said:

And you are wrong: there are things in everyone's posts that are
irrelevant, if the person responding is not referring to those portions
at all. For example, if I chose not to comment upon your contention
about "many political analysts", then that portion is irrelevant to
what I am responding to. Do you understand? Or do you believe that your
comments about some future election predictions has anything to do with
your other comments about top-posting? They don't.

That was a separate thought which resided in its own separate paragraph. But
again, the reader does not know at this point what you and I are even
talking about because you have posted incorrectly. Of course the reader
could look down and see my previous message which you have included, but
will he? No, I do not think he will. He is not going to be that interested.
You have created an inconvenience for the reader. It is the responsibility
of the writer to make the reader's job easy, not to make it more difficult
like you have. Anytime you are referencing something it should be right in
front of the reader. If it isn't he won't read it and won't know what you
are talking about.

Did you ever go to college I wonder and/or ever take any courses in English
composition?

I will now delete all of my previous message which you have placed at the
bottom of your post because I know no one will bother to read it. It is
passé because of where you have located it. Also, I do not want to do
anything that would enable let alone encourage anyone to ever top post.
Really bad ideas should be shot down right away with as little discussion as
possible.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

For once I agree with you. I think we're getting to something that
will finally benefit this newsgroup.

Edward Dolan said:

I will now delete all of my previous message which you have placed at the
bottom of your post because I know no one will bother to read it. It is
passé because of where you have located it. Also, I do not want to do
anything that would enable let alone encourage anyone to ever top post.
Really bad ideas should be shot down right away with as little discussion as
possible.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Sigh! A top poster who does not have a clue. And he is a writer for

BROL. Go

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

figure.

Quoted message said:

Actually, you are wrong. That paragraph of mine that you quoted
constitutes more than a single thought. Perhaps you need to re-read the
paragraph.

Then you do not know how to write! A paragraph is for just one single
thought. You get another thought, then you do another paragraph.

However, I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do see it as just one single thought composed of two sentences. Now if

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had posted correctly the mystified reader could also see what we are

talking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about and make his own decision.

There are more than one thought in the paragraph of mine that you
quoted. If you are unable to decipher those thoughts, if you cannot
determine that there are indeed two thoughts, then perhaps this explains
quite a bit. The two thoughts were related, though.

Here we go again for the second time around and you still have not included
the passage in question where I and other interested readers can examine it
conveniently. Now you began to see the point of posting properly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's interesting that you voice this concern over "context". Indeed,
if I were to misinterpret what you've written by leaving something out,
you might have a point. But I haven't.

But that is for the reader to determine, not you.

And that's the point: when I read your posts, guess what - I *am* the
reader - and I have determined what I wish to respond to, whether what I
excise or not ruins the context, and so on. If, on the other hand, you
determine that I have misconstrued your position, then feel free to
correct me, to supply the missing text that refutes what I have said.\

I will not correct the mistakes of others when it comes to how to do the
most elementary kind of posting, most especially when I do not have the
relevant passages right in front of me for reference. I do not back track
for anyone. But in any event, you need to respond to the issue as it was
originally put and not be selectively pulling out bits and pieces for
misconstruing, twisting and turning to partisan advantage. Again, all this
could be avoided if you would simply post the entire paragraph to which you
are responding and placing it right above your answer. As a matter of fact,
if you do not began doing this the correct and proper way I am going to give
you very short shrift in the future. I can't be bothered with top posters.
It is too time consuming and nothing ever gets resolved because we are not
on the same page half the time. I don't write just for you. I write for the
ARBR readership. And here you are screwing everything up for everybody with
your nutty top posting. Bottom post or be gone.

Quoted message said:

If, for example, you have made statements that I have left out, which
show that you are not guilty of hating people because of their race,
religion, national origin or ethnic background, please let us know.
I would be glad to find out that my original estimation of you is
wrong, and that you are not a racist, xenophobic bigot at all.

I explained myself fully in my message to which I think you are referring,
but again, it is not in front of us is it? Therefore no one knows what the
hell you are talking about at this point, including me. By the way, I do not
give a damn about what your estimate of me might be. I know what I think of
myself and that is all that counts. But I like the way you indirectly call
me names. Typical liberal that way! And always holier than thou too. God, I
can read these wacko liberals like the back of my hand.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For once I agree with you. I think we're getting to something that
will finally benefit this newsgroup.

A top poster to the bitter end because of an ingrained stupidity, most
likely due to inbreeding in them thar Kentucky hills.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Bg said:

Just tried to hit the BROL site and got the messahe below. bill g "This
domain name has been suspended for exceeding the monthly bandwidth
quota. The site will be automatically turned on again on the first day
of next month.
If you are the owner of this website, you can order more bandwidth here.
As the owner of a successful Website, it may be time to upgrade to one
of Globat's dedicated server solutions. Please call 1-877-2GLOBAT for
more information."

I just came over from BROL and what I saw there , people using bad
language ,insulting one another, it's a real happening place.In times
past I would have sent the younger kids there to learn about recumbents
after what I saw this morning I will reconsider that option.Maybe I'll
just stay here and watch the Ed and Larry show?Are you guys going to
start talking dirty to each other?

--

"Arne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:nArrc.41795$Lm3.18511@lakeread04...

Quoted message said:

It is notes like this that make me wish news groups rules could be made to
delete notes based on body word content. I have already killed notes
originating from Ed, but can not seem to get rid of notes containing his
original posts. Well, maybe in the future they will come up with something
like it.
.
Arne, USA (being in cash in a down market is my third favorite thing)

The solution is to get rid of Varney. Hell, he is never saying anything
worth reading anyway. However, if you want to read this poor slob, who does
not even know how to post properly, go on over to BROL where all the idiots
now reside. That is the place for you bottom posters. You can all drive one
another nuts (although not far to drive in most instances) over there trying
to figure out who is saying what and what is who saying. Top posting is for
idiots and morons only. It is one thing not to know any better, but to know
better and then still do it marks you for an extreme ignoramus.Varney more
than qualifies.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"nget" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bg said:

Just tried to hit the BROL site and got the messahe below. bill g

"This

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

domain name has been suspended for exceeding the monthly bandwidth
quota. The site will be automatically turned on again on the first day
of next month.
If you are the owner of this website, you can order more bandwidth

here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As the owner of a successful Website, it may be time to upgrade to one
of Globat's dedicated server solutions. Please call 1-877-2GLOBAT for
more information."

I just came over from BROL and what I saw there , people using bad
language ,insulting one another, it's a real happening place.In times
past I would have sent the younger kids there to learn about recumbents
after what I saw this morning I will reconsider that option.Maybe I'll
just stay here and watch the Ed and Larry show?Are you guys going to
start talking dirty to each other?

nget, thanks for bottom posting. Varney is driving me stark raving mad with
his top posting.

I find it hard to believe that anything could be going on at BROL other than
liberal platitudes as I know that is what Mr. Ball lives on. Does he not
moderate the site? Well, I will stay here as there is always something that
seems to need my attention.

Unless and until Mr. Varney posts properly (bottom posting only) I will not
accord him the normal courtesies in the future. He will not even have the
honor of being called names by me. Instead, I will give him extremely short
shrift and I will never cease to complain about his top posting because I
know that he knows better.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Mr.Ed Dolan said:

...That is why liberals and other politically correct types think it is
just fine to search little old white Christian grandmothers before allowing
them to board an airplane at one of our airports and they do not want any
profiling done when of course anyone with a brain in his head knows that the
most likely terrorists are going to belong to a certain race, religion and
ethnicity....

McVeigh - US resident adult male, white, Irish name, terrorist.
Dolan - US resident adult male, (presumably) white, Irish name, terrorist?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area