Goodbye

DI said:

Backoff, you're not the hot [censored] you think you are, nor as informed you
would like to us to think you are.

I don't think I'm hot [censored]. Who do you think you are?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay said:

Au contraire, IMHO unmoderated Usenet is not dying. It has always appealed
to a select audience. Some people just love the thought of their opinion
being broadcast to Usenet users around the world, WITHOUT a moderator. It is
text-based, no frills, no fancy graphics. Just a free exchange of ideas,
with no one telling them what they can or cannot say. Classic - J.

I agree with your disagreement! USEnet actually seems to be having a
bit of a comeback lately. There was a lull a couple years ago, but
things seem to have rebounded. As for moderators, there are few that
are good. Many turn into censors, which kills groups. Not to mention,
a lot of posters take the USEnet way too personally and seriously.

Bill Sornson said:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is
an obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays, and by
his bowing out it's playing right into their pocket-picking hands.

Quoted message said:

One suggestion I wish he'd try: plonk those abusive, personal
attackers and see what happens. If they don't provoke responses,
maybe (MAYBE) they'll stop the baiting. (And he won't see it,
anyway.)

Quoted message said:

Worth a shot, Mark?!?

A little self control does as well. Just don't respond to such posts.
I believe it is better to see what they contain and not respond, than
to not see them at all. I often choose to not respond when I believe
no response is appropriate, at least from me.

Jobst Brandt

Bill Sornson said:

David L. Johnson said:

Bill Sornson said:

> I hope you'll reconsider at some point. I don't agree with your
> politics, but I think you've been a voice of reason on matters of
> bicycle technology, which this list is purportedly about. The reign
> of the yippy dogs seems once step closer with your departure.

Please watch your attributions; I did not write the above.

Nor did I indicate such. Notice the layers of quotes.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

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

Quoted message said:

Jay said:

Au contraire, IMHO unmoderated Usenet is not dying. It has always appealed
to a select audience. Some people just love the thought of their opinion
being broadcast to Usenet users around the world, WITHOUT a moderator. It
is
text-based, no frills, no fancy graphics. Just a free exchange of ideas,
with no one telling them what they can or cannot say. Classic - J.

I agree with your disagreement! USEnet actually seems to be having a
bit of a comeback lately. There was a lull a couple years ago, but
things seem to have rebounded. As for moderators, there are few that
are good. Many turn into censors, which kills groups. Not to mention,
a lot of posters take the USEnet way too personally and seriously.

Usenet requires a thick skin. It is like walking through an alley; do you
focus on the graffiti painted on the walls? The essence of being out in
public, is that some stuff you see will not appeal to you. Get over it, or
ignore it.

Within moderated Usenet groups, there are endless debates on what should and
should not be allowed. And whatever is objectionable is not seen in that
newsgroup, since it is deleted by the moderator. I don't want someone else
deciding what I should read or write - J.

Bill Sornson said:

What is the Left so afraid of? Why does it want to SILENCE opposing
opinions? ...Instead of debating issues,
the left goes personal almost immediately; then it has a conniption
fit if someone calls it.

Because you are generally on the "right", you see this happening from the
"left".
Because I am generally on the "left", I see this happening from the "right".

I think the level of political discussion is generally at a low level.

Maybe you agree ... if not you are a stupid nazi [censored] [that's a joke,
Bill]

--
Mike Kruger
An opinion should be the result of a thought, not a substitute for it.
[Jef Mallet]

Bill Sornson said:

Antti Salonen said:

The Usenet is dying simply because it isn't moderated.

I'm confused about something. Rec.Bicycles.Offroad completely DIED
because it was moderated -- I thought to keep Vandedrivel {tm} out?
Weirdly enough, spam got thru fairly regularly, but on-topic posts
took forever to show up...

How is it he (MV) doesn't post in these two rec groups? Is their some
"master filter" that blocks his stuff?

Maybe I'll go look for an ALT cycling group besides AM-B...

Well, there's alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/topics?hl=en

At this moment, the link above shows the newest thread as "Dear Diary: I
didn't poo in my pants today."

The fourth thread on the list begins with "I joined this group a couple of
weeks ago because I am interested in
recumbent bicycles. All I have seen so far is tons of drivel from an idiot
named" [E.D. -- not going to name him]

David L. Johnson said:

Bill Sornson said:

David L. Johnson said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I hope you'll reconsider at some point. I don't agree with your
>> politics, but I think you've been a voice of reason on matters of
>> bicycle technology, which this list is purportedly about. The
>> reign of the yippy dogs seems once step closer with your
>> departure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please watch your attributions; I did not write the above.

Quoted message said:

Nor did I indicate such. Notice the layers of quotes.

You deleted Gary Young's attribution line, leaving your post to read: "Bill
Sornson wrote" followed by text not authored by me. (You can go look at it
if you like.)

Please be more careful. Sorry if this makes you defensive.

BS

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is
an obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays, and by
his bowing out it's playing right into their pocket-picking hands.

Quoted message said:

One suggestion I wish he'd try: plonk those abusive, personal
attackers and see what happens. If they don't provoke responses,
maybe (MAYBE) they'll stop the baiting. (And he won't see it,
anyway.)

Quoted message said:

Worth a shot, Mark?!?

A little self control does as well. Just don't respond to such posts.
I believe it is better to see what they contain and not respond, than
to not see them at all. I often choose to not respond when I believe
no response is appropriate, at least from me.

I suppose you're right, but I got so upset at dishonest tactics like
snipping things to remove relevant context (completely changing or hiding
meaning) and blatant hypocrisy that I had to speak up.

Then it dawned on me that it just wasn't worth it. Life's too freaking
short.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Antti Salonen said:

In rec.bicycles.misc David L. Johnson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hell, we all know that usenet is dead anyway, and we are just
sifting through the ashes. Between the "forums" diverting a lot of
more specialized discussions and energy, and "angry young men"
determined to turn any topic into their particular soapbox, the
signal/noise level is not looking good.

Indeed. The Usenet is dying simply because it isn't moderated. I
guess it worked better 10 to 15 years ago when the standard of
Internet users was higher, but now most newsgroups are playgrounds of
small number of anti-social idiots who successfully drive everybody
else to moderated web forums and mailing lists.

I don't want to wear rose colored glasses- Usenet has always had this.
It's always been unpleasant. It does seem that the s/n ratio has
dropped in many newsgroups- r.b.racing for example having imploded years
ago under the weight of idiocy. But that said, there is much gold among
the dross and it's worth sifting for.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:58:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I suppose you're right, but I got so upset at dishonest tactics like
snipping things to remove relevant context (completely changing or hiding
meaning) and blatant hypocrisy that I had to speak up.

You're a hypocrite.

This very day you tried to explain that Mark Hickey was just minding
his own business talking about drugs in sport and was attacked for
being politically conservative. You left out that you brought politics
into the discussion, and that Mark Hickey attacked the guy who went
back at him (me) first. So what you said was true, but left out two
key facts.

If that's not "removing relevant context" I don't know what is.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Mike Kruger said:

Bill Sornson said:

What is the Left so afraid of? Why does it want to SILENCE opposing
opinions? ...Instead of debating issues,
the left goes personal almost immediately; then it has a conniption
fit if someone calls it.

Because you are generally on the "right", you see this happening from
the "left".
Because I am generally on the "left", I see this happening from the
"right".
I think the level of political discussion is generally at a low level.

Maybe you agree ... if not you are a stupid nazi [censored] [that's a
joke, Bill]

I get the differing viewpoints, Mike, but just look at issues like Global
Warming or Illegal Immigration. Try going to a college campus like Columbia
with a "conservative presentation" and see what happens. Instead of
respectful or even heated debate, the /right/ side (more ways than one 🙂 )
is shouted down, disrupted, prevented from speaking.

It really isn't rare or isolated, either.

If Chris Horner (author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global
Warming and Environmentalism"😉 appeared to give a talk, he'd be heckled and
/threatened/ so much he'd have to leave. (And, of course, Al Gore
absolutely REFUSES to debate him or any accredited scientist with differing
views.)

I honestly don't see right wing groups stopping Cindy Sheehan or George
Soros or whomever from appearing/talking anywhere. Ever.

YMMV.

Mike Kruger said:

Bill Sornson said:

Antti Salonen said:

The Usenet is dying simply because it isn't moderated.

I'm confused about something. Rec.Bicycles.Offroad completely DIED
because it was moderated -- I thought to keep Vandedrivel {tm} out?
Weirdly enough, spam got thru fairly regularly, but on-topic posts
took forever to show up...

How is it he (MV) doesn't post in these two rec groups? Is their
some "master filter" that blocks his stuff?

Maybe I'll go look for an ALT cycling group besides AM-B...

Well, there's alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/topics?hl=en

Good one!

Quoted message said:

At this moment, the link above shows the newest thread as "Dear
Diary: I didn't poo in my pants today."

LOL (literally)

Quoted message said:

The fourth thread on the list begins with "I joined this group a
couple of weeks ago because I am interested in
recumbent bicycles. All I have seen so far is tons of drivel from an
idiot named" [E.D. -- not going to name him]

Guess I'll pass on that one.

Seriously, what keeps Vandespammer out of here? He cross-posts to a whole
bunch of newsgroups; why not these?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:08:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I honestly don't see right wing groups stopping Cindy Sheehan or George
Soros or whomever from appearing/talking anywhere. Ever.

Baloney.

It's called "swiftboating" and it's about discrediting anyone who
attacks the current government. It's one thing to try to discredit
someone like me, who has always been liberal and never voted
republican. But it's quite another to attack people who may not have
been particularly political or partisan in the past as partisans
simply because of conclusions they have recently reached about
politics or reality.

Look at the current attacks on Pat Tillman's brother and on Jessica
Lynch. These are former soldiers who, when they *begin* talking in
ways critical of the US government, are made out to be partisans.

The same is true of attacks on the scientists who have demonstrated
the dangers of global warming. In fact, there are conscious efforts
within the US government to shut up *scientists.* These are not
ncessarily liberals, but they are people whose conclusions are aligned
with liberals, and they are being stifled by our own government for
what they want to say.

Moreover, the right wing has more systemic control of mass media about
politics in the US than people of any other political persuasion.
This is evident in coverage of the Iraq war, with most major news
organizations being very uncritical of the US government. It is still
the case on coverage of the war's impact on American and Iraqi
families. It is true too in business reporting -- with busines
reporting systemically biased in favor of major corporations and
investors. Unlike the swiftboating, this is not a conscious effort but
rather a systemic problem.

Finally, right wing pundits love avowed liberals like George Soros.
They dont' want to shut him up. Rather they want to distort his
messages and use those distortions to sow fear and angst among the
public, and most especially to energize their base. It's the very
definition of reactionary.

I'm sure you've seen Bill O'Reilly go off on Soros.

Which reminds me: where do you get your news, Sorni? Where *do* you
get your news?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

DI said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 06:33:12 -0700, Mark Hickey
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> JT's pernicious accusations are just the latest in a long series,
>> but they're the ones that opened my eyes to the reality that this
>> is no longer any fun, and there are many better ways I can spend
>> my time. I have a very full life, a wonderful family (including
>> four new granddaughters). I can ride my bike more.
>
> You're a coward. All you have to do is not talk about politics
> and I wont bring up your more disgusting political views. Or even
> killfile me.
>
> Actually you've been a coward and a bully (threatening to sue me
> for libel!).

Well, you just made Mark's point.

It's not just Mark's point -- it's mine as well. I'm harsh.That pales
in significance to promoting torture and supporting the current
attacks on the rule of the law in the US.

I can't have a "civil"discussion about these things. So if Mark
can't deal, he shouldn't start. He shouldn't have started with me.

--
JT

Careful, you may break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back.
Backoff, you're not the hot [censored] you think you are, nor as informed
you would like to us to think you are.

"Promoting Torture". I'd like to know when Mark /promoted/ torture. It's
exactly like the helm*t threads, where the AHZs accuse pro-lidders of being
for MHLs even though they've expressly stated opposition to them.

I guess since Floglinson hasn't condemned that 12-year-old Taliban /child/
beheading a helpless hostage on camera, that means he's PRO CHOPPING OFF
HEADS. It's just ridiculous.

AndyMorris said:

Have fun, get some miles in.

I was always fascinated how someone who talked such sense about
bikes, could seem so wacko about politics. Which was kind of fun and
thought provoking.

Is everyone who disagrees with you or has a different viewpoint from yours
"wacko"?

Just wondering.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:08:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I honestly don't see right wing groups stopping Cindy Sheehan or George
Soros or whomever from appearing/talking anywhere. Ever.

Baloney.

It's called "swiftboating" and it's about discrediting anyone who
attacks the current government. It's one thing to try to discredit
someone like me, who has always been liberal and never voted
republican. But it's quite another to attack people who may not have
been particularly political or partisan in the past as partisans
simply because of conclusions they have recently reached about
politics or reality.

Look at the current attacks on Pat Tillman's brother and on Jessica
Lynch. These are former soldiers who, when they *begin* talking in
ways critical of the US government, are made out to be partisans.

The same is true of attacks on the scientists who have demonstrated
the dangers of global warming. In fact, there are conscious efforts
within the US government to shut up *scientists.* These are not
ncessarily liberals, but they are people whose conclusions are aligned
with liberals, and they are being stifled by our own government for
what they want to say.

Moreover, the right wing has more systemic control of mass media about
politics in the US than people of any other political persuasion.
This is evident in coverage of the Iraq war, with most major news
organizations being very uncritical of the US government. It is still
the case on coverage of the war's impact on American and Iraqi
families. It is true too in business reporting -- with busines
reporting systemically biased in favor of major corporations and
investors. Unlike the swiftboating, this is not a conscious effort but
rather a systemic problem.

Finally, right wing pundits love avowed liberals like George Soros.
They dont' want to shut him up. Rather they want to distort his
messages and use those distortions to sow fear and angst among the
public, and most especially to energize their base. It's the very
definition of reactionary.

I'm sure you've seen Bill O'Reilly go off on Soros.

Which reminds me: where do you get your news, Sorni? Where *do* you
get your news?
--
JT

I bet he doesn't get his news from the New York Times, CBS, or CNN, if he
does he's a fool.

"Moreover, the right wing has more systemic control of mass media about
politics in the US than people of any other political persuasion." there
goes all your credibility.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:40:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Careful, you may break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back.
Backoff, you're not the hot [censored] you think you are, nor as informed
you would like to us to think you are.

"Promoting Torture". I'd like to know when Mark /promoted/ torture. It's
exactly like the helm*t threads, where the AHZs accuse pro-lidders of being
for MHLs even though they've expressly stated opposition to them.

I guess since Floglinson hasn't condemned that 12-year-old Taliban /child/
beheading a helpless hostage on camera, that means he's PRO CHOPPING OFF
HEADS. It's just ridiculous.

I hope this is an intentional comedy act just for this thread.
Otherwise you two guys are demonstrating exactly what the OP
complained about.

If its for real, I suggest you take the advice of those here with cool
heads and "let it go". Left and right will never meet, neither of you
will ever "win" the argument, you will never agree on anything - even
the time of day.

DI said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:08:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I honestly don't see right wing groups stopping Cindy Sheehan or
George Soros or whomever from appearing/talking anywhere. Ever.

Baloney.

It's called "swiftboating" and it's about discrediting anyone who
attacks the current government. It's one thing to try to discredit
someone like me, who has always been liberal and never voted
republican. But it's quite another to attack people who may not have
been particularly political or partisan in the past as partisans
simply because of conclusions they have recently reached about
politics or reality.

Look at the current attacks on Pat Tillman's brother and on Jessica
Lynch. These are former soldiers who, when they *begin* talking in
ways critical of the US government, are made out to be partisans.

The same is true of attacks on the scientists who have demonstrated
the dangers of global warming. In fact, there are conscious efforts
within the US government to shut up *scientists.* These are not
ncessarily liberals, but they are people whose conclusions are
aligned with liberals, and they are being stifled by our own
government for what they want to say.

Moreover, the right wing has more systemic control of mass media
about politics in the US than people of any other political
persuasion. This is evident in coverage of the Iraq war, with most
major news organizations being very uncritical of the US government.
It is still the case on coverage of the war's impact on American and
Iraqi families. It is true too in business reporting -- with busines
reporting systemically biased in favor of major corporations and
investors. Unlike the swiftboating, this is not a conscious effort
but rather a systemic problem.

Finally, right wing pundits love avowed liberals like George Soros.
They dont' want to shut him up. Rather they want to distort his
messages and use those distortions to sow fear and angst among the
public, and most especially to energize their base. It's the very
definition of reactionary.

I'm sure you've seen Bill O'Reilly go off on Soros.

Which reminds me: where do you get your news, Sorni? Where *do* you
get your news?
--
JT

I bet he doesn't get his news from the New York Times, CBS, or CNN,
if he does he's a fool.

"Moreover, the right wing has more systemic control of mass media
about politics in the US than people of any other political
persuasion." there goes all your credibility.

Floglinson apparently doesn't glean the distinction between /denouncing/
someone (fair game) and /denying/ them the right to speak (as un-American as
it gets). Minutemen get physically thrown off stage. Code Pinkettes have
the run of the ballroom.

It's like Harry Reid. Cheney criticizes his /positions/ without a single
personal attack, and Reid says he won't engage in name-calling with an
"attack dog" with a 9% approval rating (all ad hominem and zero issue).

It's just too classic.

still me said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:40:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Careful, you may break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back.
Backoff, you're not the hot [censored] you think you are, nor as informed
you would like to us to think you are.

"Promoting Torture". I'd like to know when Mark /promoted/ torture.
It's exactly like the helm*t threads, where the AHZs accuse
pro-lidders of being for MHLs even though they've expressly stated
opposition to them.

I guess since Floglinson hasn't condemned that 12-year-old Taliban
/child/ beheading a helpless hostage on camera, that means he's PRO
CHOPPING OFF HEADS. It's just ridiculous.

I hope this is an intentional comedy act just for this thread.
Otherwise you two guys are demonstrating exactly what the OP
complained about.

If its for real, I suggest you take the advice of those here with cool
heads and "let it go". Left and right will never meet, neither of you
will ever "win" the argument, you will never agree on anything - even
the time of day.

Who let THIS guy in here?!? :-P

Bill "too dark to see my keyboard now (yes, there's a light switch nearby)"
S.