Goodbye

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

DI said:

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

Where do you get your news?

John, you are either asking a rhetorical question, or have forgotten with
whom you are arguing.

Bill Sornson is the guy who is on record as preferring to ignore the facts
when they conflict with his opinion; c.f. the MFH threads of a few months
ago.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is an
obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays

Not just nowadays. It's been an obvious tactic of the right since at
least 9/11. But fortunately, as a strong majority of Americans have
come to recognize the corruption of the Bush administration and the
horror of sending thousands of American troops to their death or
maiming in an illegal, pointless war sold to the American public
through lies that were amplified through the megaphone of "liberal"
media sources such as the New York Times, well, maybe, to some degree,
the mainstream media is letting some of the truth seep out. The truth
hurts, but that doesn't mean that the media have to publish
Administration lies to give it balance. Not anymore. We've had 6+
years of almost nothing but cheerleading out of the media; now it's
time for the truth.

I'm getting Deja-Vu since I went through the whole Viet Nam period
listening for how many kids got killed on a day by day. That one was
ramped up by Johnson (dem) and maintained by Nixon (repug), although I
give some credit to Nixon for pulling out. Johnson was a fool who fell
for the peace talk stuff while China and Russia poured men and supplies
to the north.
Any politician can screw up anything given enough time.
Bill Baka

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:08:46 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's like Harry Reid. Cheney criticizes his /positions/ without a single
personal attack,

LOL you're totally deluded. What are your sources of information?

Give Cheney a mirror and he could argue with himself all day.
He's the reason I hope 'Weed' stays healthy.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>, Hadron <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Antti Salonen said:

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

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

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

I don't want to wear rose colored glasses- Usenet has always had
this.

Yup.

Quoted message said:

It's always been unpleasant. It does seem that the s/n ratio has
dropped in many newsgroups- r.b.racing for example having imploded
years ago under the weight of idiocy. But that said, there is much
gold among the dross and it's worth sifting for.

And people do have killfiles. Use them.

Exactly. There are a few irredeemable idiots in my killfiles, plus a
few utterly annoying threads that I killfiled too. There are people I
argue with regularly, who have enough content in their posts to make it
worth not killfiling them.

Bill Sornson said:

Mark Hickey said:

I had an epiphany. Last night, I was getting a painful deep massage
to help with the effects of my bike accident in 2003. The nice young
woman was leaning heavily toward me to better drive the point of her
elbow into the very sore muscles of my neck. I thought "I'm paying
her to hurt me this much - I don't really have to put up with the
pain". Of course, I didn't stop her because I benefit from the
process, however painful.

Quoted message said:

Which brings me to the current state of the rec.bicycles newsgroups.
I've been frequenting them for over 15 years, and (particularly in the
early years) have learned much, and tried to share what I know through
those years. But it struck me as I was enduring the pain of that
massage that participation in the newsgroups gets more painful by the
year, but no longer holds any particular benefit for me. Technical
discussions break down into pointless bluster as often as not (ala
"jim beam"😉 and discussions about social issues have long since ceased
to hold any promise of civil discourse.

Quoted message said:

And it only gets more and more shrill as time goes by.

Quoted message said:

Character assassination has become the chief tool for those who prefer
to avoid facts that run contrary to their world view, and I've
increasingly been the target of these attacks.

Quoted message said:

It strikes me that most of the "high-content contributors" have also
left these newsgroups over the years, and it's easy to see why. I
suspect that the content to noise ratio is only going to get worse as
time goes by.

Quoted message said:

JT's pernicious accusations are just the latest in a long series, but
they're the ones that opened my eyes to the reality that this is no
longer any fun, and there are many better ways I can spend my time. I
have a very full life, a wonderful family (including four new
granddaughters). I can ride my bike more.

Quoted message said:

So, it's with absolute joy and anticipation that I bid you all a fond
farewell. I've got the same kind of feeling that you get when you're
finishing up a tedious task before walking out the door on a long
vacation. I'm psyched. For this, I can only thank JT for doing his
part to bring this long, glorious waste of time to an end.

Quoted message said:

Happy trails,

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Will you at least stick around in AM-B?!? PLEEEEEEEZE?!?

Hate to see you go, Mark. I had similar feelings a year or so ago (after
Katrina and helm&t threads, of all things). Decided to plonk abusive
posters (including HWNMNBU) and it's been at least tolerable ever since.

Bill "words to live by: don't let the a-holes get you down" S.

PS: WTH will you do with all that extra time?!? LOL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is AM-B still a newsgroup? That place is having it's bones picked dry.
I still check it and post, but it has succumbed to the 5 bungholes who
drown everyone else out. AND the seemingly limitless number of people
who can't see past the bait.

Mark, if this was a way to get the rest of the group to reflect on
what it means to lose a valued contributor, kudos. If you're for real,
thanks for the tech info and the informed opinion.

/s

In article <[email hidden]>, "DI" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Baloney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, those media sources do tend to be conservatively biased.

Quoted message said:

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

If you were paying attention to who owns the mass media companies, you'd
know that what JT says is correct.

What you're not understanding is that bias is in the eye of the
beholder. If your personal bent is to the right, the media looks like
it's skewed to the left. If your personal bent is to the left, it looks
like the media is skewed to the right.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

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

Well, (1) don't give him ideas and (2) these newsgroups are generally
perceived as being about road biking, Vandeman is obsessed with
mountain biking as an all encompassing evil destroying the wilderness
(or at least that was his focus years back, I haven't read a post by him
in years), but probably sees road biking as neutral or even positive.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

"Promoting Torture". I'd like to know when Mark /promoted/ torture.

IIRC Mark wrote a post condoning the use of waterboarding prisoners
suspected of links to terrorism. Since JT and many others include
waterboarding as a form of torture, the conclusion is that Mark condoned
torture. Whether that is "promoting" torture can become a rehash of the
definition of "is."

Of course the really stupid thing is that torture does not result in
gaining reliable information. This has been shown over and over and
over again. It's only in fantasy worlds like "24" where torture is
effective. Mainly torture is an excuse for people to exercise their
sadistic impulses and do things with impunity that would get them tossed
in jail in the civilian world.

And as frosting on the cake, we're even torturing people who have no
connection to terrorism but who were "turned in" by people with a
revenge agenda for one reason or another (clan squabbles and the like).

Quoted message said:

It's exactly like the helm*t threads, where the AHZs accuse
pro-lidders of being for MHLs even though they've expressly stated
opposition to them.

Not exactly. The latter is just a straw man. In Mark's case, if I
recall his posts correctly, he went on record supporting the use of
waterboarding. (It's possible that I am not recalling his posts
correctly, however).

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:27 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Just wondering.

I doubt it. He was probably just checking a few polls
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
and figured that if 60% +/- of the population disapproves of G.W. Bush
generally, then people like you and Hickey, who drink the cool aid by
the gallon, are so far over the right edge of the bell curve as to
qualify as bone fide "wackos."

Paul O said:

As a long time reader (and a very infrequent contributor) I'm also
finding that participating in this newsgroup is becoming less and less
enjoyable. I don't mind an occasional, spirited political or technical
discussion. But the venom that some people pour into their posts is
totally uncalled for.

Agree 100 percent!

Usenet is not the place it once was

I just love these people who advocate plonking anyone they disagree
with. They don't even realize that they come across as malignantly
dogmatic! If you're not willing to read opposing viewpoints, then
don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! And Mark, I
direct this statement at you, even though I often agree with your
political opinions, but I always wonder why you have to take a
bicycling-oriented thread and turn it into a political rant. Hey,
guess what! If you plonk everybody else on the list, then all you'll
ever have to read is your own opinions! Wouldn't that be WONDERFUL!?

Tim McNamara said:

Exactly. There are a few irredeemable idiots in my killfiles, plus a
few utterly annoying threads that I killfiled too. There are people I
argue with regularly, who have enough content in their posts to make it
worth not killfiling them.

Thanks, Tim. I'm so vain that I think this is about me :-)

Cyber-epistemology 101:

If everybody on usenet killfiled your account, would you exist?

Quoted message said:

You just deleted the context and attribution(s) /again/. (And apparently
don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy, either.)

Let's make this easy, Pat.

PLONK

I am not interested in debating what someone else has written. What you have
written shows your flawed thinking. Is that what happens to conservatives?
If you can't yell at people enough you just turn away and won't listen. It
reminds me of a little kid holding both hands over his ears and yelling "I
can't hear you!" when somebody tries to tell him what is going on. I see
you're firmly one of the 27%, Bill. Is the rest of the country "the left"?

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just love these people who advocate plonking anyone they disagree
with. They don't even realize that they come across as malignantly
dogmatic! If you're not willing to read opposing viewpoints, then
don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! And Mark, I
direct this statement at you, even though I often agree with your
political opinions, but I always wonder why you have to take a
bicycling-oriented thread and turn it into a political rant. Hey,
guess what! If you plonk everybody else on the list, then all you'll
ever have to read is your own opinions! Wouldn't that be WONDERFUL!?

plonk

:-)

Scott Gordo said:

Bill Sornson said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

{farewell snipped}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Will you at least stick around in AM-B?!? PLEEEEEEEZE?!?

Quoted message said:

Is AM-B still a newsgroup? That place is having it's bones picked dry.
I still check it and post, but it has succumbed to the 5 bungholes who
drown everyone else out. AND the seemingly limitless number of people
who can't see past the bait.

I still read it, but you're right there's not much real /content/ any more.
(I plonked Vandemoron and all his regular bait-takers who never contribute
anything else.)

Good aspect is it takes very little time nowadays.

Quoted message said:

Mark, if this was a way to get the rest of the group to reflect on
what it means to lose a valued contributor, kudos. If you're for real,
thanks for the tech info and the informed opinion.

It's for real. He's a free man! LOL

Quoted message said:

I just love these people who advocate plonking anyone they disagree
with. They don't even realize that they come across as malignantly
dogmatic! If you're not willing to read opposing viewpoints, then
don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out! And Mark, I
direct this statement at you, even though I often agree with your
political opinions, but I always wonder why you have to take a
bicycling-oriented thread and turn it into a political rant. Hey,
guess what! If you plonk everybody else on the list, then all you'll
ever have to read is your own opinions! Wouldn't that be WONDERFUL!?

Read the Floyd thread and see who turned it from cycling to political. (In
fact, find even one example of Mark /starting/ a political thread, or
introducing political content into a cycling thread. He simply had the
NERVE to reply or respond when others did. How dare he?!?)

As for reading opposing opinions, I'm all for that (do so daily and I *know*
Mark does); but personal attacks, blatant hypocrisy and outright lies and
distortions are different. After a while, they're just not worth answering
or engaging. (Plus, of course, they can name-call all day long, but when
someone issues a pointed reply they totally lose their collective bowel
control. Would be funny but for the willing media playing along to warp
public opinion.)

You're blind and in denial if you can't see the double standards in effect
these days.

BS (not)

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is an
obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays

Quoted message said:

Not just nowadays. It's been an obvious tactic of the right since at
least 9/11. But fortunately, as a strong majority of Americans have
come to recognize the corruption of the Bush administration and the
horror of sending thousands of American troops to their death or
maiming in an illegal, pointless war sold to the American public
through lies that were amplified through the megaphone of "liberal"
media sources such as the New York Times, well, maybe, to some degree,
the mainstream media is letting some of the truth seep out. The truth
hurts, but that doesn't mean that the media have to publish
Administration lies to give it balance. Not anymore. We've had 6+
years of almost nothing but cheerleading out of the media; now it's
time for the truth.

'cheerleading'???
Headline: "Bush awoke this morning"
Subhead: "Precious oxygen wasted; Armageddon imminent"

On what planet are your morning papers printed?
Jeez I've been reading about impending doom in every area of life in
every section of the papers (save WSJ) for six years - which hasn't
happened AFAIK. Do keep me updated though.

p.s. if you meant television, I wouldn't know.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Bill said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:08:46 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's like Harry Reid. Cheney criticizes his /positions/ without a
single personal attack,

LOL you're totally deluded. What are your sources of information?

Give Cheney a mirror and he could argue with himself all day.
He's the reason I hope 'Weed' stays healthy.
Bill Baka

Read what Cheney /actually said/ about Reid the other day -- it was pointed,
yes, but totally about his positions on Iraq Funding (three widely different
ones in five months). Now you might disagree, but it was NOT a "personal
attack" (except, of course, that ANY criticism of a Democrat is considered
personal).

Then Reid replies by calling him an "attack dog" -- right after saying he
wouldn't engage in name-calling LOL -- and cited his alleged "approval
rating" (understandable, as Reid cares more about political advantage than
what's best for the country).

My "source" for this information was watching video tapes of the exchange --
no commentary by anyone needed. That IS what happened. Period.

Tim McNamara said:

What you're not understanding is that bias is in the eye of the
beholder. If your personal bent is to the right, the media looks like
it's skewed to the left. If your personal bent is to the left, it
looks like the media is skewed to the right.

And little things like 82% of the WH press corps voting Democrat is
just...imaginary.

Right.

still me said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

If its for real, I suggest you take the advice
of those here with cool
heads and "let it go".

I doubt I will let it go -- each time someone posts something
inaccurate about me or very wrong about politics, I'll respond.

[Please note that below is general advice to everyone, not specific
advice to you and I am not supporting any particular view on anything
in this post].

I understand your point. I used to get highly cranked at some of the
nonsense I'd see from the "other side". I see some serious issues in
the USA: I see some clever people taking advantage of the masses, I
see outright lies and careful-half statements by politicians, I see
some real ignorance of true facts. I see the very fabric and basis of
our country being threatened by those who exploit it for their own
benefit.

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.
The ol' " teach a pig to sing" issue. If I want to make a difference
in that arena, I need a different forum.

I suggest that you "correct and move on". If you bring correct
information to someone and they say "Oh, I didn't know that", then
you've enlightened someone. If they immediately retreat to the fixed
position of the "other side" and spout what you "know" to be
incorrect, you know where it's going. Right or wrong, you won't change
their mind and they won't change yours. It's the USEnet equivalent of
a diode to ground - a one way ticket for electrons to head to nowhere.

Thread ender! Excellent.