BROL Down?

"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

Quoted message said:

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 -

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 -

Quoted message said:

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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"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

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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Bg
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?

"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

"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

.

Quoted message 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>even a freedom of speech issue - everyone knows that,
>on an

unmoderated

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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
home.fuse.netlarryvarneyOpen ↗

"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

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.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota [/B][/QUOTE] Bryan of brol is only 28 years old,as to that I give him a little slack if he be to the left in his politics.If in another 28 years he is still a liberal than I would feel he had learned nothing in life.Bryan hates to moderate and has said so many times.That is why he doesn't like to discuss politics as it would take way too much of his time.But when the cat is away the mice do play.