Signing off

On 12 Dec 2003 07:08:51 GMT,
[email hidden] wrote:

Ed (in my trollbox so not read) said:

: More to the point is that I am not here to educate or persuade anyone of anything. I am here to
: refute liberal opinion with my own conservative opinion. If you want to be educated on anything,
: I can refer you to a zillion sources, none of which will ever agree with Mr. Sherman's sources.

in other words, he agrees that he gives his opinion greater weight than others' evidence. Not a
surprise, that's why he's in the trollbox in the first place.

Quoted message said:

And just how useful is this? You lose credibility fast if you never back your statements.

Quite. I can respect an argument based on fact, but atempting to refute documented fact with dogma
and ideology is a poor substitute for rational argument. To suggest that evidence is irrelevant
until spun is the realm of politicans and other weasels.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:
: "Perry Butler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:<[email hidden]>...

:> PS: I'm a top poster, who leaves the toilet seat up, and the toilet paper falls to the front.

: I believe there is a logic to bottom posting that top posting does not have, unless you are used
: to reading from the bottom up. I wonder if you read a book from the back to the front also?

I read books from front to back. Of course, if it's a Japanese book, the front will be on the
other side.

: You got the toilet seat wrong and the toilet paper wrong too. At least you are consistent, even if
: consistently wrong.

I thought the toilet seat is a gender issue while the toilet paper is a thing with universally
optimal preference. I know better now...

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Arguing about top or bottom posting is like arguing about if the toilet seat should be left up or
down, [snip]

Perry B

You mean newsgroup posting location is gender related?

C.C.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... <snip>

Quoted message said:

Top posting is less irritating than failure to trim, though.

Indeed.

Bottom posting is preferred if and only if those posting will trim properly.

What's unreasonably confusing is trying to sort through a post where some of the quoted material is
top posted, some of it is bottom posted, some of it is inserted, and none of it trimmed.

skip

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Top posting is less irritating than failure to trim, though. Someone's got to pay for all that
bandwidth and storage. Anyone would think the people who wrote Outhouse made money from computer
upgrades.

Bottom posting and trimming (editing) BOTH are of the essence. To say that one is more irritating
than the other makes no sense when they are equally irritating. People do this sort of thing because
it is a shortcut and they are lazy. Note my posts. I always bottom post and I sometimes spend
considerable time deciding what to edit. I am thinking of the reader and not myself, unlike many
others on this newsgroup.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

: More to the point is that I am not here to educate or persuade anyone of anything. I am here to
: refute liberal opinion with my own conservative opinion. If you want to be educated on anything,
: I can refer you to a zillion sources, none of which will ever agree with Mr. Sherman's sources.

And just how useful is this? You lose credibility fast if you never back your statements.

IMHO learning is what the Usenet is all about, not "No it isn't - Is too!" style of "discussion".

I think Usenet is just about the last place I would go to become educated about anything. I see it
as primarily useful for an exchange of opinions. It most often reminds me of the blind leading the
blind. However, I will grant you that it is often useful for exchanging tiny bits of information,
but that does not fall into my category of education or learning.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 12 Dec 2003 07:08:51 GMT, [email hidden] wrote:

Ed (in my trollbox so not read) said:

: More to the point is that I am not here to educate or persuade anyone of anything. I am here to
: refute liberal opinion with my own conservative opinion. If you want to be educated on
: anything, I can refer you to a zillion sources, none of which will ever agree with Mr.
: Sherman's sources.

in other words, he agrees that he gives his opinion greater weight than others' evidence. Not a
surprise, that's why he's in the trollbox in the first place.

Quoted message said:

And just how useful is this? You lose credibility fast if you never back your statements.

Quite. I can respect an argument based on fact, but atempting to refute documented fact with dogma
and ideology is a poor substitute for rational argument. To suggest that evidence is irrelevant
until spun is the realm of politicans and other weasels.

So, you are only reading me second hand and yet feel qualified to respond to something I have said.
How blind, deaf and dumb can you get! I should not ever give you the courtesy of a reply for your
discourtesy, but I figure you are an ignorant fellow (please note one and all that I did NOT call
him an idiot) and that you do not know what you are saying most of the time anyway.

The question of what constitutes relevant and important evidence is critical to discussion of
anything of course. But this newsgroup is not the proper forum for it. No one here has the time or
effort for it, including you. So everyone takes all the shortcuts and you end up with a Mr. Sherman
who has the knack of impressing the naifs and unsophisticated with his false erudition. I have
elected to be more honest and just give one and all my unvarnished opinions. If you do not like
them, you can choke on them for all I care.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

If I say to Ed that he is wrong because of this and this documented fact, his standard response is
that I am wrong because he disagrees with me

And then he uses slings and arrrows against persons because he can't attack their arguement
successfully. He actually said that the Kent State murders were legal, and that the Nat'l Guard did
the right thing. But this is standard fare from the Rightwing neo-nazis currently in power.

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

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

:> PS: I'm a top poster, who leaves the toilet seat up, and the toilet paper falls to the front.

: I believe there is a logic to bottom posting that top posting does not have, unless you are used
: to reading from the bottom up. I wonder if you read a book from the back to the front also?

I read books from front to back. Of course, if it's a Japanese book, the front will be on the
other side.

: You got the toilet seat wrong and the toilet paper wrong too. At least you are consistent, even
: if consistently wrong.

I thought the toilet seat is a gender issue while the toilet paper is a thing with universally
optimal preference. I know better now...

The toilet seat should always be left down out of respect for the

toilet paper is a much weightier issue and I will have to give it much additional thought. But rest
assured, there is always a more correct way to do something and a less correct way. Nothing is ever
optimally a preference.

But now the real reason why I am replying to this new thread of yours. You are doing precisely what
everyone on this newsgroup is complaining about. Ideally I should not answer such a thread and in
the future I won't. But this message of yours should have been left on the original thread subject,
*Signing off*. I would have seen it for sure as I closely monitor all OT subject threads (the
original *Signing off* thread should of course have been OT as it has nothing to do with recumbents
and cycling). The upshot of it is that I am getting blamed for all these proliferating subject
threads when in reality I have nothing to do with them other than answering them.

As I look down my Google web page site I believe there should never be more than a couple of OT
threads existing in the first 25 threads. These are the active threads that everyone is posting to
and we do not need to concern ourselves much with other than those first 25 threads. Let us not be
proliferating OT threads when we can always just add on to what is already there.

TWO threads per the first 25 threads should be acceptable to everyone on this newsgroup. The NUMBER
of messages flowing to these two OT threads should not be a consideration for anyone, but I can see
where a lot of threads devoted to OT could severely impact the purpose of the newsgroup. As Bill
O'Reilly would say at this point, where am I going wrong?

The bottom line, I am getting sick and tired of being blamed for something that I have nothing to do
with other than responding to what is already there. I do not proliferate threads (in fact, I never
even start them). There is just no way I cannot answer someone when they have written to me or to
something I have previously said. I am not built that way. I feel I owe everyone the elementary
courtesy of a reply.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

skip said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... <snip>

What? ;-P

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Top posting is less irritating than failure to trim, though.

Indeed.

Bottom posting is preferred if and only if those posting will trim properly.

What's unreasonably confusing is trying to sort through a post where some of the quoted material is
top posted, some of it is bottom posted, some of it is inserted, and none of it trimmed.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

skip said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... <snip>

What? ;-P

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Top posting is less irritating than failure to trim, though.

Indeed.

Help! I seem to be lost. skip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bottom posting is preferred if and only if those posting will trim

properly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's unreasonably confusing is trying to sort through a post where some

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the quoted material is top posted, some of it is bottom posted, some of

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is inserted, and none of it trimmed.

[email hidden] (GeoB) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I say to Ed that he is wrong because of this and this documented fact, his standard response
is that I am wrong because he disagrees with me

And then he uses slings and arrrows against persons because he can't attack their arguement
successfully. He actually said that the Kent State murders were legal, and that the Nat'l Guard
did the right thing. But this is standard fare from the Rightwing neo-nazis currently in power.

So, were any of the National Guard members prosecuted for any illegalities? Are they presently
sitting in a prison behind bars somewhere?

I would like to hear some justification for allowing mobs to riot in the streets as if they owned
them. Or is that standard fare from Leftwing neo-communists, not currently in power anywhere except
in Cuba and North Korea.

And GeoB thinks I can't attack his arguments successfully! Elementary my dear Watson!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

: But now the real reason why I am replying to this new thread of yours. You are doing precisely
: what everyone on this newsgroup is complaining about. Ideally I should not answer such a thread
: and in the future I won't. But this message of yours should have been left on the original thread
: subject, *Signing off*. I would have seen it for sure as I

I am a convicted thread hijacker. There is some motivation for that, as long threads often end up in
entirely different topics than where they started from. Hijacking brings the new subjects to
people's attention.

I agree there was less point in this case, though the subject is still identifiable. Sometimes I
have a hard time controlling my urges...

: closely monitor all OT subject threads (the original *Signing off* thread should of course have
: been OT as it has nothing to do with recumbents and cycling).

The thread is metadiscussion, which IMO is not off-topic. If the community would like metathreads to
be labeled as "OT" I could happily do that.

: As I look down my Google web page site I believe there should never be more than a couple of OT
: threads existing in the first 25 threads. These are the active threads that everyone is posting to
: and we do not need to concern ourselves much with other than those first 25 threads. Let us not be
: proliferating OT threads when we can always just add on to what is already there.

You have a point there... Different newsreaders handle threads differently, for example mine would
just rename the entire (original included) thread, Google starts a new thread... So the problems are
different. You can increase the threads per page up to 100 in Google, as if that helped.

: TWO threads per the first 25 threads should be acceptable to everyone on this newsgroup. The
: NUMBER of messages flowing to these two OT threads should not be a consideration for anyone, but I
: can see where a lot of threads devoted to OT could severely impact the purpose of the newsgroup.
: As Bill O'Reilly would say at this point, where am I going wrong?

: The bottom line, I am getting sick and tired of being blamed for something that I have nothing to
: do with other than responding to what is already there. I do not proliferate threads (in fact, I
: never even start them). There is just no way I cannot answer someone when they have written to me
: or to something I have previously said. I am not built that way. I feel I owe everyone the
: elementary courtesy of a reply.

Ok :-) Thread lifetime contributes to the number of active off-topic threads, though.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ [email hidden]

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:
: The question of what constitutes relevant and important evidence is critical to discussion of
: anything of course. But this newsgroup is not the proper forum for it. No one here has the time or
: effort for it, including you.

Unless one just happened to indulge in episthemology 😉 Yes you could take it to philosophy groups
if you like but if you are discussing it at a low level of abstraction and universality you could
just use the original group IMO. Nothing bad about being enlightened about the foundations of one's
own discussion.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ [email hidden]

$kip said:

Stratrider is right. Bryan can't even to bring himself to mention the name of the "other one" who
has actually been on a prolific political "OT kick" in a.r.b.r. for years. I'm not ragging on the
"other one" - fact is I find most of his posts interesting even when I disagree with them. It's
the political bias being shown in the Dolan/Other One matter with which I take issue.

Dolan?

Other One?

Who are these posters of which so many speak?

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

: But now the real reason why I am replying to this new thread of yours. You are doing precisely
: what everyone on this newsgroup is complaining about. Ideally I should not answer such a thread
: and in the future I won't. But this message of yours should have been left on the original
: thread subject, *Signing off*. I would have seen it for sure as I

I am a convicted thread hijacker. There is some motivation for that, as long threads often end up
in entirely different topics than where they started from. Hijacking brings the new subjects to
people's attention.

I agree there was less point in this case, though the subject is still identifiable. Sometimes I
have a hard time controlling my urges...

Yes, but you can see what the problem is. And I am the one getting all the blame for it when all I
am doing is just responding. Of course, my responses generate more responses and so we are all of us
off to the races on yet another OT thread - and the rest of the newsgroup gets more and more [censored]. I have resolved out of consideration for the newsgroup that I am going to try to stick to just
two OT threads out of the first 25 threads on the Google first page from now on.

Quoted message said:

: closely monitor all OT subject threads (the original *Signing off* thread should of course have
: been OT as it has nothing to do with recumbents and cycling).

The thread is metadiscussion, which IMO is not off-topic. If the community would like metathreads
to be labeled as "OT" I could happily do that.

Most of the newsgroup classify anything that does not directly relate to bicycles as being OT. I am
not sure there are many here who know what meta means. I am not sure I know what it means either. Is
it kind of like what metaphysics is to physics?

Quoted message said:

: As I look down my Google web page site I believe there should never be more than a couple of OT
: threads existing in the first 25 threads. These are the active threads that everyone is posting
: to and we do not need to concern ourselves much with other than those first 25 threads. Let us
: not be proliferating OT threads when we can always just add on to what is already there.

You have a point there... Different newsreaders handle threads differently, for example mine would
just rename the entire (original included) thread, Google starts a new thread... So the problems
are different. You can increase the threads per page up to 100 in Google, as if that helped.

I think we should always go by how things look in Google. I think newsreaders do not handle things
all the same way. I think 25 threads per page is about right. I have noticed that any thread not in
those first 25 threads is dying or already dead. But I did not know that you could increase the
number beyond 25.

Quoted message said:

: TWO threads per the first 25 threads should be acceptable to everyone on this newsgroup. The
: NUMBER of messages flowing to these two OT threads should not be a consideration for anyone, but
: I can see where a lot of threads devoted to OT could severely impact the purpose of the
: newsgroup. As Bill O'Reilly would say at this point, where am I going wrong?

: The bottom line, I am getting sick and tired of being blamed for something that I have nothing
: to do with other than responding to what is already there. I do not proliferate threads (in
: fact, I never even start them). There is just no way I cannot answer someone when they have
: written to me or to something I have previously said. I am not built that way. I feel I owe
: everyone the elementary courtesy of a reply.

Ok :-) Thread lifetime contributes to the number of active off-topic threads, though.

There is natural history to threads as there is to most everything else in life. I can almost tell
when a thread is going to expire by who is posting to it and what is being posted to it. Since so
many on this newsgroup hate OT threads, I think it might be best not to be hijacking OT threads and
creating new ones. Most OT threads will only last so long and we should not be trying to resurrect
them and keep them going longer than they should.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

: The question of what constitutes relevant and important evidence is critical to discussion of
: anything of course. But this newsgroup is not the proper forum for it. No one here has the time
: or effort for it, including you.

Unless one just happened to indulge in epistemology 😉 Yes you could take it to philosophy groups
if you like but if you are discussing it at a low level of abstraction and universality you could
just use the original group IMO. Nothing bad about being enlightened about the foundations of
one's own discussion.

Risto, I pretty much had this same discussion once 40 year ago with a fellow librarian. He too could
never understand why I didn't qualify everything I said by adding the notation that it was just my
opinion of course. I answered him the same way I am going to answer you.

Yes, it is just my opinion, but if you make too big a show of that it is like admitting that it is
not based on anything except speculation
- and that is never the case. One can always ASSUME that anything one says is based on opinion, and
whether one wants to buttress that opinion with facts and evidence is optional. I always assume
anything that is said to me by someone else is just an opinion and I do not need that qualifier
stated in order to clarify anything.

More often than not, when one is being asked to acknowledge that something is just your opinion it
is because he disagrees with you and he wants you to admit that you may be wrong. Why should I
give anyone that satisfaction? Most especially when I believe I am 100% correct most of the time.
If others want to qualify their remarks, that is their business. But I choose not to because of
course everything is always just an opinion. The obvious does not need to be stated. It can just
be assumed.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

$kip said:

Stratrider is right. Bryan can't even to bring himself to mention the

name

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the "other one" who has actually been on a prolific political "OT

kick"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in a.r.b.r. for years. I'm not ragging on the "other one" - fact is I

find

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most of his posts interesting even when I disagree with them. It's the political bias being
shown in the Dolan/Other One matter with which I

take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

issue.

Dolan?

Other One?

Who are these posters of which so many speak?

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Dolan is Dolan and that's as clear as the egg on your face.

There is, however, mystery surrounding the true identity of the poster known as The Other One. I'm
convinced it's you. But only B. Ball knows for sure.

$kip

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

:> The thread is metadiscussion, which IMO is not off-topic. If the community would like metathreads
:> to be labeled as "OT" I could happily do that.

: Most of the newsgroup classify anything that does not directly relate to bicycles as being OT. I
: am not sure there are many here who know what meta means. I am not sure I know what it means
: either. Is it kind of like what metaphysics is to physics?

That is how the term started... If thing B is something that is under or above thing A - somehow
commenting thing A or providing foundations to it - then B can be said to provide a metalevel to
A. For example if you apply psychology to Usenet discussions then psychology forms a metalevel to
the discussion. And statistics could form a metalevel to psychology and again mathematics a
metalevel to statistics.

: I think we should always go by how things look in Google. I think newsreaders do not handle things
: all the same way. I think 25 threads per page is about right. I have noticed that any thread not
: in those first 25 threads is dying or already dead.

I can accept that as being "only your opinion". I don't know why we should take Google as the
priviledged viewpoint :-) I've also noticed that in Google, often the thread I'm interested in is
not in the first 25, nor even in the first 50. Maybe because I don't use Google for regular reading?

: this newsgroup hate OT threads, I think it might be best not to be hijacking OT threads and
: creating new ones. Most OT threads will only last so long and we should not be trying to resurrect
: them and keep them going longer than they should.

I see there are reasons not to hijack especially OT threads. (Unless it's valuable metadiscussion
I'd actually like to continue, but then it's maybe just my preference and the other issues could
still be very valid...)

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ [email hidden]

Edward Dolan <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Yes, it is just my opinion, but if you make too big a show of that it is like admitting that it is
: not based on anything except speculation
: - and that is never the case. One can always ASSUME that anything one says is based on opinion,
: and whether one wants to buttress that opinion with facts and evidence is optional. I always
: assume anything that is said to me by someone else is just an opinion and I do not need that
: qualifier stated in order to clarify anything.

I think knowledge is a quite personal matter, and also I see that such a qualifier would just really
be redundant and even irritating.

However, that was not the point previously, but that one should be somewhat verbose in stating one's
opinions. Why did somebody adopt a given opinion? What other opinions does it depend upon? Also we
usually are trying to put forth convincing opinions, so often it's a good idea to do a bit of
handholding.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ [email hidden]