Hit gravel, broke leg

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness.
>
> Well I've always been a fan of Uriah Heep (and I don't mean the rock band.
> If I've heard any of their music then I certainly don't know it by name).
> Please tell me if the reference eludes you. If it does then you are
> missing one of the world's greatest books. Y'know it might be time to
> re-read it. I'll bet I've forgotten so much. Ain't age grand? "I'm so very
> humble Mr. Dolan."

Nobody but nobody reads Dickens anymore - or any kind of novels. Are novels
still even being written I wonder?

> Speaking of quotes here's one from the Ed Dolan hit list earlier in this
> thread.
>
>>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
>>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
>>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse
>>than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially
>>the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene
>>back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if
>>they are not otherwise acting like criminals.
>>
>>Newsgroups are full of idiots and scoundrels. ARBR is no exception, but
>>not as bad as some others. I attribute this to our being an older age
>>group. Many on this group are ready for the grave. And thank God we do not
>>have any stupid women cluttering up this group like some others. We are
>>fortunate indeed!
>
> Ed, you say this kind of thing just a little too often to simply call it
> being witty. If you are just doing it to get a raise out of me or Buck or
> Peter or someone else, why bother? You already know that this kind of talk
> is going to set me off. It can't be that interesting to do it again and
> again. At some point Pavlov but down his bell and called the experiment
> done.

Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble at
all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to have
every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say
something that is NOT politically correct.

> You know how to push some of my buttons. Good for you! Is it really that
> interesting to do so? You've played this card a time or ten and we all
> reacted as you know we would. Move on. I'll publicly confirm what you
> already know. It is very easy to get me going with comments like these. I
> don't fnd them funny or witty. I do find them objectionable. You will get
> a predictable knee jerk response from me when you post them. But you've
> seen my knee jerk a bunch. How much fun could it be?

I do not think you know how to think outside the box of PC. If you do, prove
it here on ARBR! Castigating me will get you nowhere. That has already been
done in excelsis.

You must remember that I am not writing to you so much as I am to the group.
You are merely my instrument at the moment. It is a big mistake to take
anything I say to anyone personally. I am always thinking of the masses
hanging on my every word. I am a frustrated orator at heart.

But I am delighted that you are finally quoting me in full. All I ever ask
of my sparing partners is that they be fair.

> I think you have some interesting things to say but they get a bit lost in
> this game you play. I think you have some interesting opinions and some
> boneheaded ones. But that is probably what you think of me and that would
> mean that things are as they should be.
>
> So I said many message ago that we were done with the Ed Dolan topic. Then
> I continued the topic (I did call myself a liar, however). So now I say
> once again that we are done with it. I caution you, however, that it
> wouldn't take much to keep it going as I am and have always been quite
> predictable. That has got to lose its appeal once we all know it, however.
>
> g'night again
>
> Jeff

Jeff, all topics only last so long on ARBR and then they die like they
should. Posters come and go too as they should. We all of us wear out our
welcome sooner or later and then we should leave. I myself have taken many
farewells here on ARBR, some of them stormier than others.

But as long as I have interesting persons like you to spare with, I will
stay. You are now posting correctly and so I hope the problem I had with you
is now over. Remember, no top posting and lots of quotations. Then I shall
be one happy camper.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >snip<
>> Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to
>> quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not
>> picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you
>> say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do
>> not do that.
>
> Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the
> author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full
> within
> an article penned by another?
>
> The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear
> you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your
> original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot...
>
>> So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I
>> think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair!
>
> If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and
> don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the
> person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course,
> is
> then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily debatable).

The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for others
to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence.

> But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your
> problem.

My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill file
anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you. Otherwise, it
is just foolishness and quite childish.

Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >snip<
>> I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers.
>
> Readers have been taking care of themselves long before you got here in
> '03 and will be just fine long after you've turned to dust. If readers
> can't grasp Jeff's posts that's Jeff's problem, not yours. If a reader
> is sick of Jeff's posts the Usenet Way(tm) is for the reader to simply
> killfile him.
>
>> You do not have an inkling about Usenet.
>
> And you are projecting.
>
>> Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about.
>
> Funny how those that know the least preach the most.

The above quotes are examples of very selective editing - single sentences
taken out of context. But that is ever the way of a Usenet scoundrel. Having
been around the Internet and Usenet for a long time does not mean that you
have any morality.

>>> The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make
>>> my
>>> content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a
>>> scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going
>>> to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style.
>>
>> Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You
>> are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the
>> rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about
>> it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go
>> away either.
>
> Getting you to go away is trivial, a single keystroke away. If you
> knew
> much about Usenet you'd know that.

I have never kill filed anyone and I never will, unless I determine that
such a person is a crazy criminal type. I read and respond to those that I
so choose and I do not read or respond to those that I so choose. What could
be simpler?

> On the first day god created the Internet, and it was good.
>
> On the second day god created Usenet, and it was good.
>
> On the third day god created kill files, and Usenet was oh, so much
> better.
>
> Ed, the only reason I haven't kill filed you yet is because you amuse
> me. The moment you are no longer an amusement, ******, you will vanish
> from the Usenet earth.

I can make you vanish without kill filing you. I will simply stop reading
you. What could be simpler?

Read what I had to say about kill filers in a previous message in this
thread. You sure do fit the mold!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >snip<
>> The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his
>> idiotic signature).
>
> Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 char
> width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n").
>
> Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing
> so
> before you go around preaching to others about it.
>
> *The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard
> which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and
> long recognized (by both human and machine) convention.
>
> -Zenin

I am not the least bit interested in any technical specifications. Peter is
an idiot to have his signature the way it is to a cycling newsgroup. The
fact is no one else has such a stupid signature except for this nut from
Scotland. Talk about wasting electrons!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >snip<
>> Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to
>> quote me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not
>> picking up on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you
>> say to me because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do
>> not do that.
>
> Why are you so afraid readers will skip articles of which you are the
> author? So afraid that you feel a deep need to be quoted in full
> within
> an article penned by another?
>
> The only logical reason you might have such worry would be if you fear
> you've been kill filed by most readers and thus they'd never see your
> original articles... Hmm, that would explain a lot...

Here is Zenin being too cute and smart for words. Is it possible that Zenin
and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves with the
kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in turn be kill
filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they made that way
by society? Nature or nurture?

I would just as soon not have a response from anyone who refuses to quote me
for fear of offending a kill filer, a most despicable type of human flotsam.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble
> at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to
> have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say
> something that is NOT politically correct.
>
Since when exactly did speaking out against rudeness and insulting behavior
become synonymous with PC, I think your insistence on proper form is far
more PC than my insistence on well-mannered content.. Since I used proper
form lets look at your content and give you the chance to defend it. We will
get numbingly detailed (well I will anyway).

Quoth the Dolan (again):

>>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
>>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
>>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse
>>than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially
>>the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene
>>back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if
>>they are not otherwise acting like criminals.
>>

Now if you were going to make a defendable statement if would have to be
something like...

"The UK cyclists that I have met..."

I would imagine that you think that is implied but it isn't. You also
imagine that the readers are as intelligent as you are, they aren't. Lets
assume for a moment that you are not a racist and don't actually think badly
about everyone from the UK, Canada, and Australia.

You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should
understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear to
many people at all.

If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe
then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you.


On another subject...I'm going to ignore the Dickens crack although not
entirely since I'm going through the ridiculous step of telling you that I'm
ignoring it. You knew I couldn't not respond to that one. I don't know what
your fascination is with making my knee jerk. You can come over, open up my
skull, attach the electrodes, and we'll map out all of Jeff's knee jerk
reactions. That could keep us busy for weeks, maybe longer.

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
> like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
> asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.
>

Well this liberal idiot (who denies the pc label) will never kill file you.
You are way too much fun. I'm not sure where my head and ass are but please
be gentle (which has been my admonition to you all along hasn't it).

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is Zenin being too cute and smart for words. Is it possible that
> Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves
> with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in
> turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they
> made that way by society? Nature or nurture?

Now you see this is good. You are attacking the people whose ideas and
behaviors you don't like. You generalize to others who think and behave as
they do, which is fine. It is a rational basis upon which to discriminate.

When you say "I don't like the way you think" or "I don't like the way you
act" it is a fairly straight forward step to "And I don't like other people
who think and act that way either".

I say "Bravo Ed", you have finally gotten the content as correct as I got
the form (note the properly quoted text above).

But when you say all Brits, or All Canadians, or All <insert favorite
nationality> and then attibute the very idea or behavior that you don't like
to them you have crossed a line and my knee will jerk.

Now personally I don't care who kill files me. I also don't mind saying
publicly that I like you and I'm glad you're her. This group would be less
interesting without you. I don't like some of what you do, however.

And in your opinion my attitude is PC? Liberal yes. PC? I don't think so.
They aren't the same idologies and they don't go together. My liberal pals
and I all hate PC. We blame it on the conservatives (just kidding).

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The above quotes are examples of very selective editing....

Y'know Ed, in a nutshell, this is why I sometimes don't quote. I don't want
to include five long paragraphs when they are there to be found earlier in
the thread and I don't want to edit because my editing will have a bias.

So in those cases, instead of quoting like I did above it is easier to say

Re: Editing and Quoting:

followed by the same paragraph I wrote above. It is in some ways more
considerate to the reader. For the reader who is folloing the thread they
don't have go looking for where the >'s end to find the new stuff.

For the reader who jumped into the thread in the middle, why did you do
that?

Back in the BBS days I would often have to read through 40 or 50 messages in
a discussion in which I wanted to get involved. I would never depend on the
last message to encapsulate what has come before.

I don't know what your rules say and I still insist I can manage with common
sense but I would say (and this is not a rule)

If it is a short and complete idea, quote it. If it is long or a long
discussion, refer to it. The only time I ever failed to do one of those
things is when I was explicitly trying to push one of your buttons. Although
there are some messages where the content is clear enough that anyone who
has followed the thread understands how the new follows the old.

 

[Zenin]

Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>snip<
> But that is the essence of communication when the public is reading what
> has been written. Admittedly, it would not be necessary if only the
> participants were involved, such as two people communicating with one
> another via email for instance. But the minute you bring the public into
> it, everything changes.

Very little changes. If anything quoted context in email is vastly more
important where people delete old mail quickly, as opposed to Usenet
where old articles are retained for weeks, or months, or indefinitely.

>snip<
> I think you may have grown accustomed to taking shortcuts. However, you
> are posting properly if these present series of posts of yours are any
> example. It is Jeff Grippe that I am having a problem with, not you. Let
> me ask you a question. Do you think Jeff is being fair to me or to the
> group when he never provides any of my content by quotation in his
> replies?

He is being quite fair to you and the group, the only possible person he
is being unfair to is himself.

Contextual quoting is there to serve the *current* author (eg, Jeff),
not the previous author (eg, you). If the current author's remarks are
reasonably clear without the literary crutch of contextual quoting, such
quoting is simply a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. So far all
that have commented on Jeff's remarks have not found any difficulty
gasping his points. Since that is the real goal it would appear that
Jeff has found the sweet spot.

Usenet is inherently fair.

BTW, quoted text is rarely read. The typical reader won't bother even
skimming it unless they the current remarks unclear. Which, of course,
is the entire point of the exercise. So if you're hoping to be read by
people who have killed filed you, you'll have to find a better method
then piggy backing on other people's articles.

>> You discovered Usenet in 2003 it looks like, yes?
>
> I am a newbie of the first rank. What I know about computers you could put
> in a thimble. But I have read the rules that are on the Google website and
> they make sense to me. I have noted that those who do not follow these
> rules turn out invariably to be scoundrels.

1) Google doens't make the "rules". Google is not Usenet. Rules vary
group by group, typically embodied in the group's charter and/or FAQ.

2) Google provides helpful suggestions for new users (similar to those
found in the FAQs posted to news.answers.newusers...You have read all
the FAQs in news.answers.newusers, yes?), but even among those
suggestions I do not find any mention to the particular "rules" you
claim to be promoting?

-Zenin

 

[Zenin]

Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>snip<
>> If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and
>> don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the
>> person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course,
>> is then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily
>> debatable).
>
> The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for others
> to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence.

Poppycock. Contextural quoting is a literary crutch to assist the
current author in being understood. It has nothing to do with the
previous author being "read unfiltered". The previous author got that
chance when they posted their own article.

Your real motive is not fairness, but rather the exact opposite: Your
motive is in circumventing the reader's choice to not be subjected to
your blither.

>> But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your
>> problem.
>
> My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill
> file anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you.
> Otherwise, it is just foolishness and quite childish.
>
> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
> like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
> asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.

It's rather ironic really...

The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the
extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely
about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence by
others.

Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set
of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered
left-wing.

-Zenin

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Nonethelss, I can defend such statements as the above without any trouble
>> at all. You say you are not into political correctness, but you seem to
>> have every prejudice that goes along with PC. I am waiting for you to say
>> something that is NOT politically correct.
>>
> Since when exactly did speaking out against rudeness and insulting
> behavior become synonymous with PC, I think your insistence on proper form
> is far more PC than my insistence on well-mannered content.. Since I used
> proper form lets look at your content and give you the chance to defend
> it. We will get numbingly detailed (well I will anyway).

What seems insulting and rude to you seems perfectly polite and reasonable
to me.

> Quoth the Dolan (again):
>
>>>UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
>>>brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
>>>like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups
>>>worse than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is
>>>especially the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you
>>>are obscene back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry
>>>foul, i.e., if they are not otherwise acting like criminals.
>>>
>
> Now if you were going to make a defendable statement if would have to be
> something like...
>
> "The UK cyclists that I have met..."

Nope! I mean all of the above literally. I am of course making certain
assumptions which I expect others to make along with me - unless of course
one was born yesterday. Those Aussie cyclists are the worst bunch of
numskulls in the entire world.

> I would imagine that you think that is implied but it isn't.

It is of course implied, but I keep forgetting that you were apparently born
yesterday.

You also
> imagine that the readers are as intelligent as you are, they aren't. Lets
> assume for a moment that you are not a racist and don't actually think
> badly about everyone from the UK, Canada, and Australia.

But I do think badly of them. They did not and do not support us in our War
on Terrorism and our War in Iraq. They are all second rate as far as I am
concerned. Only Tony Blair gave us the support we should have had from all
the civilized world. But every UK cyclist I have ever heard of is against
us. Yea - I do think badly of them indeed! By the way, do not EVER get me
going on the French. I will burn your innocent liberal ears right off your
head.

> You who are so concerned with how the reader understands you should
> understand that it won't be clear to everyone. Actually it won't be clear
> to many people at all.
>
> If on the other hand I misunderstand you and you actually are a Xenophobe
> then you deserve the racist tag and I delight in returning it to you.

Others will just have to learn how to read me as best they can. I have a way
of getting though to even the dullest of blockheads eventually.

> On another subject...I'm going to ignore the Dickens crack although not
> entirely since I'm going through the ridiculous step of telling you that
> I'm ignoring it. You knew I couldn't not respond to that one. I don't know
> what your fascination is with making my knee jerk. You can come over, open
> up my skull, attach the electrodes, and we'll map out all of Jeff's knee
> jerk reactions. That could keep us busy for weeks, maybe longer.

I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading
novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main
characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world,
especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every
character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character
has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist.

What killed literature was technology, i.e., the electronic media. All books
and magazines may soon go the way of the Dodo Bird. We will just end up
tethered to our electronic media getting dumber and dumber with every
succeeding generation.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >snip<
>>> If they understand you more clearly because you use proper form, and
>>> don't understand Jeff as well because he doesn't use proper form, the
>>> person at a disadvantage is clearly Jeff, not you. Which, of course,
>>> is then Jeff's problem (if it is a problem, which is easily
>>> debatable).
>>
>> The reason for proper form is so that the content will be there for
>> others
>> to read unfiltered by an inferior intelligence.
>
> Poppycock. Contextural quoting is a literary crutch to assist the
> current author in being understood. It has nothing to do with the
> previous author being "read unfiltered". The previous author got that
> chance when they posted their own article.

I want the current author to be understood, but I want the previous author
to be understood also. Providing the necesaasry quotation does the trick
every time, provided the editing is not done too selectively.

> Your real motive is not fairness, but rather the exact opposite: Your
> motive is in circumventing the reader's choice to not be subjected to
> your blither.

Actually I should be read in full at least 3 or 4 times. Once or twice is
not nearly enough to absorb all of my wisdom.

>>> But of course if you are getting yourself kill filed that's your
>>> problem.
>>
>> My contempt for kill filers is boundless. The only reason to ever kill
>> file anyone is if you think they are crazy and/or are stalking you.
>> Otherwise, it is just foolishness and quite childish.
>>
>> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They are
>> like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and their
>> asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.
>
> It's rather ironic really...
>
> The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the
> extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely
> about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence by
> others.

What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is
never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required to
read anything you do not want to read.

By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are
libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not allowed
to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself.

I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill filers
are liberals. They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that they are
no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. There are only a
very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and they are all
related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to disagreements,
however impolite.

> Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set
> of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered
> left-wing.

The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could
have a much better newsgroup.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Here is Zenin being too cute and smart for words. Is it possible that
>> Zenin and Jeff do not quote me because they mean to ingratiate themselves
>> with the kill filers? Do they fear if they do quote me that they will in
>> turn be kill filed themselves? Are such cowards born that way or are they
>> made that way by society? Nature or nurture?
>
> Now you see this is good. You are attacking the people whose ideas and
> behaviors you don't like. You generalize to others who think and behave as
> they do, which is fine. It is a rational basis upon which to discriminate.
>
> When you say "I don't like the way you think" or "I don't like the way you
> act" it is a fairly straight forward step to "And I don't like other
> people who think and act that way either".
>
> I say "Bravo Ed", you have finally gotten the content as correct as I got
> the form (note the properly quoted text above).

Keep up the good work!

> But when you say all Brits, or All Canadians, or All <insert favorite
> nationality> and then attibute the very idea or behavior that you don't
> like to them you have crossed a line and my knee will jerk.
>
> Now personally I don't care who kill files me. I also don't mind saying
> publicly that I like you and I'm glad you're her. This group would be less
> interesting without you. I don't like some of what you do, however.

Jeff, there is never any reason to kill file me. If and when I am more
annoying than amusing, then just don't bother reading me. There are very
many posters to this group that I do not bother with for various reasons.
But I don't kill file them; I just don't read them.

I once had to take after a character by the name of Cletus Lee from Texas.
He had kill filed me which was OK, but then he interloped comments in
threads to which I was posting advising others to also kill file me. What do
you think of a person who would advise others to kill file someone when he
is no longer even reading that person's posts? I think old Cletus is on BROL
now and they are sure welcome to him.

> And in your opinion my attitude is PC? Liberal yes. PC? I don't think so.
> They aren't the same idologies and they don't go together. My liberal pals
> and I all hate PC. We blame it on the conservatives (just kidding).

Liberalism and PC go together. Don't you read the NY Times and the
Washington Post?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Keep up the bottom posting and include quotations from my messages.
Those are the two things that will keep me a happy camper.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The above quotes are examples of very selective editing....
>
> Y'know Ed, in a nutshell, this is why I sometimes don't quote. I don't
> want to include five long paragraphs when they are there to be found
> earlier in the thread and I don't want to edit because my editing will
> have a bias.
>
> So in those cases, instead of quoting like I did above it is easier to say
>
> Re: Editing and Quoting:
>
> followed by the same paragraph I wrote above. It is in some ways more
> considerate to the reader. For the reader who is folloing the thread they
> don't have go looking for where the >'s end to find the new stuff.

Jeff, what you are doing is actually more work than just posting the
previous message. I will admit you do what you do very well - which leads me
to believe that you could also edit equally as well without being biased.

I believe it is better for the reader to have the previous message quoted
not only for content reasons, but also for stylistic reasons. Your
paraphrase or lead in is not going to capture my essence. My personality
gets lost when you do what you do.

The very best thing about Usenet is this ability to easily provide context
to everything that gets said.

> For the reader who jumped into the thread in the middle, why did you do
> that?
>
> Back in the BBS days I would often have to read through 40 or 50 messages
> in a discussion in which I wanted to get involved. I would never depend on
> the last message to encapsulate what has come before.

I am quite sure that no one does that sort of thing anymore, certainly not
on ARBR. People come to the computer these days for recreation and to be
entertained. You can never depend on anyone to be up to speed on a thread.

> I don't know what your rules say and I still insist I can manage with
> common sense but I would say (and this is not a rule)
>
> If it is a short and complete idea, quote it.

Agreed!

If it is long or a long
> discussion, refer to it.

Either that, or it can be judiciously edited so only the relevant part
matters. However, if you are responding to it completely, then it should be
quoted completely also. I purposely do not go on at great length because it
is not appropriate to do so for a newsgroup like ARBR. Note how I keep my
paragraphs manageable. I can always be very easily quoted in full paragraph
by paragraph.

The only time I ever failed to do one of those
> things is when I was explicitly trying to push one of your buttons.
> Although there are some messages where the content is clear enough that
> anyone who has followed the thread understands how the new follows the
> old.

We will get along famously as long as you bottom post and quote me in your
replies.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

Re Posting Style:

Ed, I'm not going to edit you. Our outlook on things is almost 180 degrees.
There is no way for my bias not to creep in. If you think you can edit
without bias then feel free to do so. I know you can't. People (warning,
whopping generalization coming...whoop whoop whoop) can't do anything
without bias.

You say that people aren't going to go through the thread to pickup the
conversation? Then they will have limited understanding and if that is what
they want then it is ok with me.



Re: Kill filing you and encouraging other to do the same.

I don't like this behavior either. I don't have a problem with someone
deciding that they don't want to read you and using technology to keep you
away. But if they do that then they should actually stay away. The type of
behavior that you describe is that of an intellectual coward.

Me personally, I think you deserve your voice. I don't have to read it if I
don't want to. Anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to.

You and I have the strangest points where we agree but I would say on many
issues we are 180 degrees. Even so I welcome your voice. I don't believe
that only people who think like me should be heard from. That would be
boring.

What could be happening to those who kill you but still jump in is that they
are responding to me, who has not been kill filed, but really talking to
you. Well if they are going to do that then they will almost certainly get
you wrong. I think people should hear all voices. If you only want to hear
the people that agree with you then go someplace where everyone agrees with
you. Public forums, by definition, are not going to be such places.



Re: Politics, Interational Affairs, etc.

Its pretty clear that this is one of those areas where we are 180.



Re: Liberterianism

I sort of like the idea but I feel the same way about it that I do about
communisim. They are both interesting ideas that will never work. I do feel
that personal liberty and freedom should be a lot less restricted than they
are now but I don't really think that will ever happen. I also recognize
that there must be incentive and large rewards to innovate and succeed. I
would like to see the lowest of the low taken care of but I also think that
everyone deserves the chance to "play for the big money". You can't do that
unless there is big money to play for. So I recognize my various utopian
dreams are just that, dreams, and I seek to make things better (by my
definiation which is very different from yours) within the current system.



Books, etc.

You know I didn't respond to that the first time because I thought you were
just trying to provke a response. Ofcourse people read books. They may not
read as much as they did when books were the only entertainment available
but literaure is far from dead. Maybe you don't read novels but a lot of
people do. But Ed you are too smart not to know this alerady. So is this the
response you were trying to provoke. I told you it was easy to do.

 

[Zenin]

Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Zenin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>snip<
>>> Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They
>>> are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and
>>> their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.
>>
>> It's rather ironic really...
>>
>> The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the
>> extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely
>> about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence
>> by others.
>
> What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is
> never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required
> to read anything you do not want to read.

What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are
nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, or
topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but the
same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if it can
also apply in the inverse.

> By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are
> libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not allowed
> to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself.

That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society.

> I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill
> filers are liberals.They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that
> they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. There
> are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and
> they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to
> disagreements, however impolite.

Me thinks you completely misunderstand the way kill files function.

>> Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set
>> of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered
>> left-wing.
>
> The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could
> have a much better newsgroup.

Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups and
can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you
please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path?

-Zenin

*There are left-wing libertarians, ala libertarian socialists. All around
a much more practical and kind hearted bread then their right-wing
relatives.

 

[Jeff Grippe]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda
> could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible
> profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world
> reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us.
>

For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it with
beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view.

Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a similar
opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it had been
longer I would have done something like "Re: War on Terror"

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can't believe I'm responding to a troll, but Ed the Meek has crossed
> the line.
>
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
[...]
>>I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading
>>novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main
>>characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world,
>>especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every
>>character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character
>>has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist.
>
> I guess since you quit reading that *no one* still does?

But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was
known as a book worm. But I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 for the
reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. But more
than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at least
not like how I used to.

Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have
to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an
old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of
30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun contemplating
your mortality. Here is your epitaph:

"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again."

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda
>> could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible
>> profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world
>> reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us.

Mike should read Miller's "Death of a Salesman" where some comments are made
about war profiteering. It was nuts then and it is nuts now.

> For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it
> with beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view.
>
> Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a
> similar opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it
> had been longer I would have done something like "Re: War on Terror"

No, you did it exactly right. Forget about the "Re:" business. It is fine
for email, but it does not work for Usenet. The readers want to know
specifically to what you are responding. Mike has made a statement about the
War on Terrorism and you have responded to it as have I. Now others can chip
in too if they want without writing an essay on the subject. They can either
add or subtract from what has already been said without slighting anyone. It
is the only way for Usenet, of that I am convinced.

Your "Re: War on Terror" would only be appropriate for a new subject thread
of which you would be the author. Even though I do not like what Mike has to
say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him have
his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I know,
no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can
give, so I let others have their full say in my replies.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota