Perot = NAFTA= Across America will be heard a Giant Sucking Sound....and he was correct. NAFTA only worked well for Mexico and Canada and Clinton wanted to extend NAFTA to include Latin America...just to kill off the last remaining jobs in America....and people LIKED Clinton?
I prefer to steer clear of politics. You can and rave about one politician all you want till he/she is removed from power...only to find he/she has been replaced by another Assh*le. Way too much nice scenery waiting for me on the road and paths to get my shorts in a twist about politics. I Prefer to think nice happy thoughts in the happy smiling people mode and if that fails there is always Reefer while listening to the Amazing Blondell. ***************************************** "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
skip said:
Me too. I voted for him once, but then found out he was crazy as a
bedbug so
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I voted for someone else the next time around. Probably the Libertarian Harry Browne who lives nearby as does Al Gore. I've never voted for Al though. Never voted for Bush II either....
Matt Groening had it right: Sleazy (Clinton), Slimy (Dole), and Screwy (Perot).
Perot = NAFTA= Across America will be heard a Giant Sucking Sound....and he was correct. NAFTA only worked well for Mexico and Canada and Clinton wanted to extend NAFTA to include Latin America...just to kill off the last remaining jobs in America....and people LIKED Clinton?
I prefer to steer clear of politics. You can and rave about one politician all you want till he/she is removed from power...only to find he/she has been replaced by another Assh*le. Way too much nice scenery waiting for me on the road and paths to get my shorts in a twist about politics. I Prefer to think nice happy thoughts in the happy smiling people mode and if that fails there is always Reefer while listening to the Amazing Blondell.
Some politics lead to longer working hours, which means less time for riding. I consider that important.
Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Joshua Goldberg said:
Perot = NAFTA= Across America will be heard a Giant Sucking Sound....and he was correct. NAFTA only worked well for Mexico and Canada and Clinton wanted to extend NAFTA to include Latin America...just to kill off the last remaining jobs in America....and people LIKED Clinton?
I prefer to steer clear of politics. You can and rave about one politician all you want till he/she is removed from power...only to find he/she has been replaced by another Assh*le. Way too much nice scenery waiting for me on the road and paths to get my shorts in a twist about politics. I Prefer to think nice happy thoughts in the happy smiling people mode and if that fails there is always Reefer while listening to the Amazing Blondell.
Some politics lead to longer working hours, which means less time for riding. I consider that important.
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
Politics can be a matter of life and death. I know a fellow who never had the slightest interest in politics and moreover was proud of the fact. His ignorance landed him in Vietnam (he was drafted). To this day he can't explain what happened to him. Ignorance is not bliss.
"skip" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
The email and newsreader are completely separate. The OE newsreader is organized a lot like Google, but the posts get on the server much quicker than the Google posts. And it doesn't create a new thread every time someone wants to editorialize(Hi Josh) on the subject line.
skip
OK, thanks skip. I now do notice on my OE a heading under File that says Mail Message and another one that says News Message. The latter must be the newsreader. I guess I will stick to using the Google posts as I like to visit the web site anyway.
It must be quite an honor to have a subject thread named after yourself. I guess we can thank Josh for that. Since you are now the topic of this thread you should feel free to rant and rave to your heart's content. Tom and I should be so lucky.
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Been altering the subject line to reflect changes for 3 years and you are the 1st to think it weird...or everyone has thought it weird but HAD a life and saw no reason to object.
I don't think it is a good idea to alter the subject line no matter how far off the subject the messages get. It creates more confusion than it solves. Most who are posting on a particular thread will follow it to the bitter end and will recollect what has preceded the latest post no matter how far off the subject it is. It is just human nature to wander a bit from the subject as one post succeeds another. Eventually the thread dies a natural death when it wanders too much. That is the best way. Just let it happen.
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Been altering the subject line to reflect changes for 3 years and you are the 1st to think it weird...or everyone has thought it weird but HAD a life and saw no reason to object.
I don't think it is a good idea to alter the subject line no matter how far off the subject the messages get. It creates more confusion than it solves. Most who are posting on a particular thread will follow it to the bitter end and will recollect what has preceded the latest post no matter how far off the subject it is. It is just human nature to wander a bit from the subject as one post succeeds another. Eventually the thread dies a natural death when it wanders too much. That is the best way. Just let it happen.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
I disagree. Sure, those who have been following the original thread may continue, as they know what the topic really is, regardless of the subject line. But there are others who may not have been interested in the original topic, and they will continue to skip those posts, not realizing that the topic is no longer reflected in the subject line. How confusing is it, when the subject line indicates the topic? Is it more confusing than when the subject line does not reflect the topic? I don't think so.
Finally a man of Reason ------------------------ The one thing which I have seen a few here do is place brackets around the new direction the thread has gone. i.e. Death to Saddam (was RANS Rocket seat question). When the subject line does NOT change... as the original topic has long since left the building, people who are interested in oh...I dunno Egg Beater pedals. Will end up missing 2 weeks of posts about Egg Beater Pedals because the subject line of War in Iraq (began weeks earlier and was left untouched). People not wishing to read messages about War in Iraq will never read about the pedals they seek enlightenment on.
Common sense should dictate that when the original thread has been replaced by a new direction/topic, then the subject line needs to change as well. **************************************************************************** ******** "Larry Varney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Edward Dolan said:
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Been altering the subject line to reflect changes for 3 years and you
are
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the 1st to think it weird...or everyone has thought it weird but HAD a
life
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
and saw no reason to object.
I don't think it is a good idea to alter the subject line no matter how far off the subject the messages get. It creates more confusion than it solves. Most who are posting on a particular thread will follow it to the bitter end and will recollect what has preceded the latest post no matter how far off the subject it is. It is just human nature to wander a bit from the subject as one post succeeds another. Eventually the thread dies a natural death when it wanders too much. That is the best way. Just let it happen.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
I disagree. Sure, those who have been following the original thread may continue, as they know what the topic really is, regardless of the subject line. But there are others who may not have been interested in the original topic, and they will continue to skip those posts, not realizing that the topic is no longer reflected in the subject line. How confusing is it, when the subject line indicates the topic? Is it more confusing than when the subject line does not reflect the topic? I don't think so.
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Common sense should dictate that when the original thread has been replaced by a new direction/topic, then the subject line needs to change as well.
So how did your Amber Alert get so screwed up? I would be ashamed to have posted so many threads on one and the same subject. And why do we now have a Re:SKIPPY2 when the original Skippy would have sufficed?
Quoted message said:
Why would anyone want to have 6 or 7 different threads on an Amber Alert or a 100 on Iraq when one would do? Quit modifying the OT subjects for the Google readers sake.
SKIPPY
As far as I am concerned only SKIPPY has said anything sensible on the subject. Why don't you answer the above question instead of doing a song and dance about so-called common sense? I think you are taking a lot on yourself to change the subject heading, even when it is your own subject that you originally posted. I maintain that it causes nothing but confusion. If you feel you have the right to exert that amount of control over other's posts then I think you would probably be happier on a moderated newsgroup where someone has been properly authorized to do that sort of thing. One thing is for sure, do not mess around with any of my posts or I will let all hell loose.
Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
I disagree. Sure, those who have been following the original thread may continue, as they know what the topic really is, regardless of the subject line. But there are others who may not have been interested in the original topic, and they will continue to skip those posts, not realizing that the topic is no longer reflected in the subject line. How confusing is it, when the subject line indicates the topic? Is it more confusing than when the subject line does not reflect the topic? I don't think so.
Determining subject headings is more difficult than you might think. Librarians (catalogers) spend their lives trying to figure out subject headings for documents that they are processing for cataloging. Oftentimes even an improper subject heading on a thread is better if that is what everyone has gotten use to. I do not want every Tom, [censored] and Harry taking onto himself the responsibility for changing subject headings according to what they think the subject is. If you want to originate a new post that is fine, but I do not think it is proper to change someone else's subject heading even if it has wandered off-topic. It is rude and obnoxious behavior.
Larry Varney <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
I disagree. Sure, those who have been following the original thread may continue, as they know what the topic really is, regardless of the subject line. But there are others who may not have been interested in the original topic, and they will continue to skip those posts, not realizing that the topic is no longer reflected in the subject line. How confusing is it, when the subject line indicates the topic? Is it more confusing than when the subject line does not reflect the topic? I don't think so.
Determining subject headings is more difficult than you might think. Librarians (catalogers) spend their lives trying to figure out subject headings for documents that they are processing for cataloging. Oftentimes even an improper subject heading on a thread is better if that is what everyone has gotten use to. I do not want every Tom, [censored] and Harry taking onto himself the responsibility for changing subject headings according to what they think the subject is. If you want to originate a new post that is fine, but I do not think it is proper to change someone else's subject heading even if it has wandered off-topic. It is rude and obnoxious behavior.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Actually, determining subject headings is not more difficult that what I might think. Some, as you have pointed out, may spend their lives trying to figure them out, but I'm not here to criticize what others find difficult to do. What "everyone has gotten used to" is not a good reason to let an error continue. If a law - or a subject heading - is wrong, then it should be fixed. That's the American way. As for not wanting "every Tom, [censored] and Harry" changing the subject headings when they no longer reflect even remotely what the subject is - for too long have we tolerated a society where people ignore what's going on around them, where people don't want to "get involved", where wrongs are not righted, where crime, poverty and ignorance are allowed to continue, simply because that's what "everyone has gotten used to". *That* may not be "rude and obnoxious behavior" - it is far worse.
Ed Why would I mess with your subject line....you seldom post anything remotely related to recumbents and everytime I see OT & Flammable I just ignore it because it so unrelated to bents it should not even be on ARBR in the 1st place. As for.. let all hell loose..oooh don't like something you get all emotional like a Nancy Boy. As I always suspected...you ALSO post under the alias Fabrizio.
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Common sense should dictate that when the original thread has been
replaced
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
by a new direction/topic, then the subject line needs to change as well.
So how did your Amber Alert get so screwed up? I would be ashamed to have posted so many threads on one and the same subject. And why do we now have a Re:SKIPPY2 when the original Skippy would have sufficed?
Quoted message said:
Why would anyone want to have 6 or 7 different threads on an Amber Alert or a 100 on Iraq when one would
do?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quit modifying the OT subjects for the Google readers sake.
SKIPPY
As far as I am concerned only SKIPPY has said anything sensible on the subject. Why don't you answer the above question instead of doing a song and dance about so-called common sense? I think you are taking a lot on yourself to change the subject heading, even when it is your own subject that you originally posted. I maintain that it causes nothing but confusion. If you feel you have the right to exert that amount of control over other's posts then I think you would probably be happier on a moderated newsgroup where someone has been properly authorized to do that sort of thing. One thing is for sure, do not mess around with any of my posts or I will let all hell loose.
I defer to Mr. Varney based on his Joshua Goldberg "man of Reason" certification.
Accordingly I have altered the subject to from SKIPPY2 to SKIPPY3 so a new Google thread will be created for the convenience of the reader who perhaps wasn't interested in the SKIPPY and SKIPPY2 threads Joshua created, but may be interested in the SKIPPY3 thread. The poor reader who has no interest whatsoever in any of the SKIPPY threads gets three threads with the same subject matter to bypass for the price of one.
Well thankyou Skippy, how about everytime you post a message you increase the #. When I added the 2 to Skippy I thought you would have replied with Skippy1...this would have confined the messages to JUST US. I prefer to take messages OFF this list and I will usually ask anyone I am dealing with to email me. No point in having everyone bored to tears over an issue affecting only myself and one other person.
Too bad we cannot get Ed Dolan and Tom to take their UN-bent stuff off ARBR and carry on their Tom educating Ed routine via private emails. I have read a few of the Tom and Ed messages and Tom comes across as way smarter than Ed. I figure Ed hangs on hoping some of Tom's wisdom rubs off on him...it don't seem to be working yet though. **************************** "skip" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I defer to Mr. Varney based on his Joshua Goldberg "man of Reason" certification.
Accordingly I have altered the subject to from SKIPPY2 to SKIPPY3 so a new Google thread will be created for the convenience of the reader who
perhaps
Quoted message said:
wasn't interested in the SKIPPY and SKIPPY2 threads Joshua created, but
may
Quoted message said:
be interested in the SKIPPY3 thread. The poor reader who has no interest whatsoever in any of the SKIPPY threads gets three threads with the same subject matter to bypass for the price of one.
I defer to Mr. Varney based on his Joshua Goldberg "man of Reason" certification.
And I may now certify you as a "man of Good Sense".
Quoted message said:
Accordingly I have altered the subject to from SKIPPY2 to SKIPPY3 so a new Google thread will be created for the convenience of the reader who perhaps wasn't interested in the SKIPPY and SKIPPY2 threads Joshua created, but may be interested in the SKIPPY3 thread. The poor reader who has no interest whatsoever in any of the SKIPPY threads gets three threads with the same subject matter to bypass for the price of one.
SKIPPY
Am I the only one who has developed a craving for peanut butter over the last few days?
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Well thankyou Skippy, how about everytime you post a message you increase the #. When I added the 2 to Skippy I thought you would have replied with Skippy1...this would have confined the messages to JUST US. I prefer to
take
Quoted message said:
messages OFF this list and I will usually ask anyone I am dealing with to email me. No point in having everyone bored to tears over an issue
affecting
Quoted message said:
only myself and one other person.
Really. I've changed the subject to SKIPPY1 at your suggestion so everyone will know this is just between us. I'm sure that will prove helpful.
Quoted message said:
Too bad we cannot get Ed Dolan and Tom to take their UN-bent stuff off
ARBR
Quoted message said:
and carry on their Tom educating Ed routine via private emails. I have
read
Quoted message said:
a few of the Tom and Ed messages and Tom comes across as way smarter than Ed. I figure Ed hangs on hoping some of Tom's wisdom rubs off on him...it don't seem to be working yet though. ****************************
Seems as if Tom is now in the running for a Joshua Goldberg "man of Reason" certification. Or possibly the Wily E. Coyote "educator of the Year" award.
SKIPPY aka SKIPPY2, SKIPPY3, AND SKIPPY1 thanks to Joshua
agreed...enough already sounds good 2me2. Looks like it is going to start raining soon, guess I'll go for my daily 16 mile ride now. seeya *********************************** "skip" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Joshua Goldberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Well thankyou Skippy, how about everytime you post a message you
increase
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the #. When I added the 2 to Skippy I thought you would have replied with Skippy1...this would have confined the messages to JUST US. I prefer to
take
Quoted message said:
messages OFF this list and I will usually ask anyone I am dealing with
to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
email me. No point in having everyone bored to tears over an issue
affecting
Quoted message said:
only myself and one other person.
Really. I've changed the subject to SKIPPY1 at your suggestion so
everyone
Quoted message said:
will know this is just between us. I'm sure that will prove helpful.
Quoted message said:
Too bad we cannot get Ed Dolan and Tom to take their UN-bent stuff off
ARBR
Quoted message said:
and carry on their Tom educating Ed routine via private emails. I have
read
Quoted message said:
a few of the Tom and Ed messages and Tom comes across as way smarter
than
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Ed. I figure Ed hangs on hoping some of Tom's wisdom rubs off on
him...it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
don't seem to be working yet though. ****************************
Seems as if Tom is now in the running for a Joshua Goldberg "man of
Reason"
Quoted message said:
certification. Or possibly the Wily E. Coyote "educator of the Year"
award.
Quoted message said:
SKIPPY aka SKIPPY2, SKIPPY3, AND SKIPPY1 thanks to Joshua
Too bad we cannot get Ed Dolan and Tom to take their UN-bent stuff off
ARBR
Quoted message said:
and carry on their Tom educating Ed routine via private emails. I have
read
Quoted message said:
a few of the Tom and Ed messages and Tom comes across as way smarter than Ed. I figure Ed hangs on hoping some of Tom's wisdom rubs off on him...it don't seem to be working yet though. ****************************
ah no, I must disagree with you, Joshua. as long as the thread remains clearly marked as OT, it harms no one, IMO. I also disagree with your assessment of the balance of wisdom displayed in the dialogue. while I resonate more with Tom's voiced position than Ed's, I can see no fault in either one's presentation or logically arrived conclusions. I'm indebted to both for presenting cogent, and often amusing, discussions.
rich (whom Ed will now accuse of embracing galloping relativism :^) )
"rich westerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Too bad we cannot get Ed Dolan and Tom to take their UN-bent stuff off
ARBR
Quoted message said:
and carry on their Tom educating Ed routine via private emails. I have
read
Quoted message said:
a few of the Tom and Ed messages and Tom comes across as way smarter than Ed. I figure Ed hangs on hoping some of Tom's wisdom rubs off on him...it don't seem to be working yet though. ****************************
ah no, I must disagree with you, Joshua. as long as the thread remains clearly marked as OT, it harms no one, IMO. I also disagree with your assessment of the balance of wisdom displayed in the dialogue. while I resonate more with Tom's voiced position than Ed's, I can see no fault in either one's presentation or logically arrived conclusions. I'm indebted to both for presenting cogent, and often amusing, discussions.
rich (whom Ed will now accuse of embracing galloping relativism :^) )
So, this offtopic thread has wandered to an argument about whether threads that wander offtopic should be renamed to show that they are offtopic?
Isn't there anything more useful you guys could argue about, like politics or tea?
-Bill Hamilton And, in the catgory of "Someone Needs to Get a Life", cnn.comindex.htmlOpen ↗
