Goodbye

[Bill]

_ wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2007 00:16:20 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Bill Sornson writes:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> I did not write that. Please be more careful in your attributions
>>>>> and/or posting format. (Not to mention that you snipped what the
>>>>> /subject/ of what followed was, leaving the reader to guess.)
>>> All you do is whine, perfessor.
>>> Bill "lemme guess: whoosh?" S.
>> How about counting from one to three. One ">" is what you wrote, two
>> ">" is what Frank wrote, an no prefix is what I wrote. Where do you
>> see what Frank wrote? I don't see it. I think you were either
>> overzealous in trimming or you don't understand how posting to
>> newsgroups works.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Jobst, he's *always* doing this.
>
> As I said before, he has trouble with either
>
> a) the usenet quoting convention; or
>
> b) numbers larger than 2.

Do any of you want to take into account how off the charts this thread
has become or how to know exactly who said what after snippages?
When I started today this thread had about 130 posts.
Who said what and when?
Good luck.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
{missing attribution}

>>> I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away
>>> from declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.
>
>> None of your God-damned business. (That's a /joke/, JB {@SA.O}.)

> If you can't write jokes don't try converting rude rejoinders by
> appending punctuation symbols (aka smileys).

That wasn't a smiley. It's the extraneous stuff you refuse to delete from
your lazy-man's user name.

 

[Bill]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> I had an epiphany.
>
> Mark,
>
> As more a lurker than a participant, I'll personally miss you. I also
> hope you'll reconsider and return. As I'm new here, I can't say how the
> content providers have increased or decreased, but the trend you note is
> common in ng's.
>
> I tend to spend more time in moderated Web based ng's due to the general
> deterioration of the Usenet from when I started back in the 80's. Still,
> for me there has been great content here from you among others. While
> you have no way to enumerate the value you and others bring to lurkers
> like me, it's there.
>
> Good luck and I hope we see you back soon.
>
> -Paul

I'm with you, Paul.
This group is just living up to it's name...misc., very misc.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>>> But that guy reinvented and marketed himself as a "cowboy" who
>>>>> clears brush on a "ranch" in a state where motorists throw their
>>>>> legally quaffed beer cans at cyclists (bringing this sorta back
>>>>> to topic). He got so far into character he even adopted a redneck
>>>>> accent, syntax, born again religion, and I.Q. , thereby giving him
>>>>> appeal to a then Red State dominated electorate.
>>>>> And the rest is history: sordid, despicable, embarrassing,
>>>>> undeniable, on-the-books history.
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> I don't think he ever had an I.Q. to begin with. If he is trying to
>>>> pose as a Texas red neck then he is insulting both Texas and all
>>>> red necks. The "Born again" religious fervor escapes me, like,
>>>> what?, they are holier than thou, thee, and everyone else?
>>>> The Dixie Chicks had it right when they said they were embarrassed
>>>> for Texas.
>>>> My sister did some research on the I.Q.'s of presidents and
>>>> apparently junior is at the head of the Forrest Gump club.
>>>> Would anybody here argue with an amendment to the Constitution that
>>>> the absolute minimum I.Q. to hold any office would be 110 or so?
>>>> Make that 130 for president.
>>>> A dipstick can do far too much damage to the whole country, as we
>>>> are seeing now.
>>> I have no idea about 'IQ tests of Presidents' but he did get better
>>> grades than Mr Gore. How did they measure Millard Fillmore by the
>>> way?
>>
>> Once again Bill believes a blog which in turn believed a hoax:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
>>
>> JFTR, Bush got better grades than /Kerry/ at Yale. (Hell, Gore
>> flunked out of divinity school. LOL )
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
>>
>> (Note how gracious he was at the end, too.)
>>
>>
> What blog? I've observed the Presidents since Ike, and I believe
> Kennedy was the smartest, affairs not counting, and Bush is firmly at
> the bottom of the I.Q. pile.
> Bush #1 had Quayle (the grade school spelling expert).
> Bush #2 has Cheney, and the thought of him running the country is even
> scarier than Bush.
> And of course we all know that Gore invented the Internet. <Snicker>
> Bill Baka

You didn't click either link, did you Bill?

Take that online IQ test yet?!? LOL

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:

> We aren't ready for a black, even half black, that much is true.
> We better never be ready for a Hispanic or we are doomed.
> A woman will get in sooner or later, as will a half-black.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... BILL BAKA.

Bill "someone save that quote" S.

 

[Bill]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:12:41 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We have already been humiliated in the eyes of the world not only by
>> this fools' first term but also by the fact that he somehow got
>> re-elected by a large margin.
>
> False. In what fantasy universe is 51% - 49% "large?"

OK, so maybe I should have said 'any' margin. In 2000 he actually lost
but by clever manipulation of the Electoral 'grade school' and his
brother Jeb being governor of Floriduh, he got into the White house.
>
>> That says the voters are at least as
>> stupid as he is.
>
> True. So pathetically true.

Yes,
And even if we were to manage to impeach him then we would have another
horrible outcome, Cheney.
It's a lose..lose..lost, situation.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> DI wrote:
>> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500, "DI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get everything from assholes like you, then do just the opposite,
>>>> can't go
>>>> wrong by doing that..
>>> My god. There IS another reader of these groups as intellectually
>>> challenged as Sornsen.
>>>
>>> Will wonders never cease?
>> You have to consider who I was talking to, JT would not understand or
>> acknowledge anything sensible, he was baiting me into saying I
>> watched Fox News so he could jump on that. "Intellectually
>> challenged"? dream on Professor.
>
> Dougie might be a druggie; would explain the irrational anger and hysteria.
> (Of course, so would just being an asswipe ;-) )
>
>
Sore Knee,
You and DI should get a room.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:43:58 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Would anybody here argue with an amendment to the Constitution that the
>> absolute minimum I.Q. to hold any office would be 110 or so?
>
> If the I.Q. minimum to post on usenet were raised to room temperature,
> we could get rid of Sornson

Thanks,
My first good laugh on this thread.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

> _ wrote:

ROTFL (Ol' Jobst /really/ likes usernames like that!) ROTFL

 

[Bill]

Antti Salonen wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.tech [email protected] wrote:
>
>> To relegate the thread to BS is a rude ploy.
>
> It doesn't really matter if it's ******** or not, as long as it's in the
> wrong place.
>
> Usenet has thousands of groups in its official hierarchy, not counting
> the alt-hierarchy or national groups. Even if most of active posters in
> rec.bicycles.* might be from the US (ever wonder why?), US politics
> should not be discussed here, but somewhere under sci or talk
> hierarchies. When the discussion is clearly going off-topic the
> follow-ups should be directed elsewhere - see the "Followup-to" NNTP
> header.
>
> I wonder if this really isn't apparent, but new users, no matter where
> they're from, don't come here to discuss US politics. So as long as
> this isn't a moderated forum, it is the responsibility of every poster
> to keep it on-topic. Or is it just OK if a small number of old-time
> posters hijack a newsgroup and make it their own personal playground?
> Usenet newsgroups aren't private forums hosted on private web servers,
> so I think this is actually very relevant.
>
> And hopefully nobody will suggest killfiles again. In a media where one
> contributes and thousands read, it doesn't make any sense to
> categorically make the thousands to deal with the garbage.
>
> Antti

One need not use a kill file, but may choose instead to mark an
offending thread as read, and then get on to the bicycle posts.
It probably is worth noting that I don't remember anything being said
about Tony Blair or any Aussie or Kiwi.
We colonials do tend to go off a bit.
And, yes, this thread has gotten ridiculous even for this group.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> But that guy reinvented and marketed himself as a "cowboy" who
>>>>>> clears brush on a "ranch" in a state where motorists throw their
>>>>>> legally quaffed beer cans at cyclists (bringing this sorta back
>>>>>> to topic). He got so far into character he even adopted a redneck
>>>>>> accent, syntax, born again religion, and I.Q. , thereby giving him
>>>>>> appeal to a then Red State dominated electorate.
>>>>>> And the rest is history: sordid, despicable, embarrassing,
>>>>>> undeniable, on-the-books history.
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> I don't think he ever had an I.Q. to begin with. If he is trying to
>>>>> pose as a Texas red neck then he is insulting both Texas and all
>>>>> red necks. The "Born again" religious fervor escapes me, like,
>>>>> what?, they are holier than thou, thee, and everyone else?
>>>>> The Dixie Chicks had it right when they said they were embarrassed
>>>>> for Texas.
>>>>> My sister did some research on the I.Q.'s of presidents and
>>>>> apparently junior is at the head of the Forrest Gump club.
>>>>> Would anybody here argue with an amendment to the Constitution that
>>>>> the absolute minimum I.Q. to hold any office would be 110 or so?
>>>>> Make that 130 for president.
>>>>> A dipstick can do far too much damage to the whole country, as we
>>>>> are seeing now.
>>>> I have no idea about 'IQ tests of Presidents' but he did get better
>>>> grades than Mr Gore. How did they measure Millard Fillmore by the
>>>> way?
>>> Once again Bill believes a blog which in turn believed a hoax:
>>>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Kennedy at 174 is believable.
Clinton at 182 is pushing it.
Bush Jr. at 91 is probably padded up from his real score.
Sr. was, I think, above 98.
Reagan at 105 is a maybe, depends when, due to Alzheimer's.
>>>
>>> JFTR, Bush got better grades than /Kerry/ at Yale. (Hell, Gore
>>> flunked out of divinity school. LOL )
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
>>>
>>> (Note how gracious he was at the end, too.)
>>>
>>>
>> What blog? I've observed the Presidents since Ike, and I believe
>> Kennedy was the smartest, affairs not counting, and Bush is firmly at
>> the bottom of the I.Q. pile.
>> Bush #1 had Quayle (the grade school spelling expert).
>> Bush #2 has Cheney, and the thought of him running the country is even
>> scarier than Bush.
>> And of course we all know that Gore invented the Internet. <Snicker>
>> Bill Baka
>
> You didn't click either link, did you Bill?

I clicked, see above.
>
> Take that online IQ test yet?!? LOL
>
>
I'm too busy keeping up with this thread.
A simple "Goodbye" seems to have started the longest and most heated
thread I have seen yet.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> We aren't ready for a black, even half black, that much is true.
>> We better never be ready for a Hispanic or we are doomed.
>> A woman will get in sooner or later, as will a half-black.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... BILL BAKA.
>
> Bill "someone save that quote" S.
>
>
Sore Knee,
What do you find to be disingenuous about that?
A Hillary/Obama ticket would probably do the trick, but if they start
attacking each other to be top dog, then I doubt that either will win.
As for a Mexican president of the United States, I don't see that
happening, or do you know something I don't? Not likely.
Bill (laughing at Sore Knee now) Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:

> Kennedy at 174 is believable.
> Clinton at 182 is pushing it.

BILL, IT WAS A HOAX! You're such a moron...

Don't bother taking that IQ test. I bet you can't break 70 (which you get
for being able to "left click" a mouse).

 

[DI]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> DI wrote:
>>> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500, "DI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I get everything from assholes like you, then do just the opposite,
>>>>> can't go
>>>>> wrong by doing that..
>>>> My god. There IS another reader of these groups as intellectually
>>>> challenged as Sornsen.
>>>>
>>>> Will wonders never cease?
>>> You have to consider who I was talking to, JT would not understand or
>>> acknowledge anything sensible, he was baiting me into saying I
>>> watched Fox News so he could jump on that. "Intellectually
>>> challenged"? dream on Professor.
>>
>> Dougie might be a druggie; would explain the irrational anger and
>> hysteria. (Of course, so would just being an asswipe ;-) )
> Sore Knee,
> You and DI should get a room.
> Bill Baka

Sure appears you're whipped, might as well give up and go ride your
tricycle.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Apr 29, 8:46 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > Kennedy at 174 is believable.
> > Clinton at 182 is pushing it.
>
> BILL, IT WAS A HOAX! You're such a moron...
>
> Don't bother taking that IQ test. I bet you can't break 70 (which you get
> for being able to "left click" a mouse).



Is that the Voice of Experience?

 

[Bill Sornson]

DI wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> Sore Knee,
>> You and DI should get a room.
>> Bill Baka

> Sure appears you're whipped, might as well give up and go ride your
> tricycle.

But put a governor on it, first! Those 55 mph descents on Hot Wheels can
get HAIRY...

LOL

 

[Ed Chait]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Bill Sornson writes:
>>
>>>> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning
>>>> "heretics?" Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft?
>>>> Murdering people in the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year
>>>> history of twisting the teachings of Jesus for political reasons
>>>> and out of sheer perverse self-righteousness.
>>
>>> You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out
>>> hundreds if not thousands of years ago than with current,
>>> present-day atrocities like beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic
>>> cleansing, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. If the actors are (or
>>> see themselves as) /oppressed/, that makes it OK?
>>
>> Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
>> listed that are performed in the name of God.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju
>>
>> I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away from
>> declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Geesh,
> More harm and war crimes and outright torture and injustice can be
> attributed to religion than anything else in all of history. The crimes
> committed by the catholic church make ****** and Stalin look like fairly
> decent people. As long as we have religious wars and killing then religion
> is more of a force for evil than for good.
> Hence, I will state, before anyone can accuse me of something, that I am
> 100% Atheist. No caring and loving 'God' would tolerate all this **** in
> his/her name.
> Bill Baka


Actually, if you do a little research, you will discover that *far* more
people have been killed throughout history by atheist despots than by the RC
church. The numbers aren't even close.

ed

 

[[email protected]]

> Actually, if you do a little research, you will discover that *far* more
> people have been killed throughout history by atheist despots than by the RC
> church. The numbers aren't even close.

OK! NAME 10

so, can anyone offer a synopsis of the ********?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Apr 28, 1:07 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > You're right. I am going completely by memory.
> >
> > > If you've read my posts in the past, you'll know I'm big on data and
> > > citations. But in this case, unfortunately, I know of no practical
> > > way of proving or disproving what I recall....
> >
> > > Feel free to believe otherwise - that Mark never started a political
> > > sidetrack to a discussion. That's OK by me.
> >
> > 1) I do not need your permission to believe as I choose.
>
> Oh, good grief. Calm down. I didn't claim you did.

No, I will not calm down. Did not claim what? I do not follow.

> >
> > 2) I resent you arrogating unto yourself the authority
> > to dispense permission to me.
>
> Sheesh! I'm sorry for trying to be gracious!

Again I do not follow. I missed how you are being gracious.

> > 3) Do you imply that I already believe what you would
> > permit me to believe?
>
> At this point, I can't tell what's going through your mind.

At this point I am looking for a direct answer to the question `Do
you think that I believe that Mark never started a political
discussion?

> I was
> attempting to say that, given the practical impossibility of proof, I
> could see why someone might disagree with me.
>
> If my phrasing was really so objectionable as to deserve a three-part
> huff, I really do apologize. But you might consider the possibility
> that you've misinterpreted my meaning - and attitude.

A conditional apology is not an apology. I am not looking for an
apology.

The paragraph that I take exception to is a form of rhetoric that
I object to. It is indirect, and you disavow meaning exactly what
the words say. Then you become exasperated with me for construing
the sentence exactly as it is written, alleging that I am in a
huff and totally misunderstand your intention. I prefer to take
people at their word when common ground is minimal.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

Nevermind.

--
Michael Press