Johnny NoCom or Osama? Time to vote!

[Tom Sherman]

Larry Varney wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a no-win
>>> situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared to the
>>> number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given the
>>> choice between civilized places where they can post, and read the
>>> posts of others, without having to put up with a constant assault of
>>> sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>> wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>> generally outnumber wolves.
>>
> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
> wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few rules,
> and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI crowd by
> comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.

"********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".

I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or have
my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the moderator(s). That
is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I have the assurance that I
can speak freely [2].

>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>> each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>> they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others as
>>> whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to the
>>> people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>
>>
>> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
>> immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue,
>> despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely
>> misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>
> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
> childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
> they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>
>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be with.
>>
>> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>
>
> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing to
> see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
> people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep and
> wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.

Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]

For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
from implying that I supported the posting of such material.

[1] Whatever it happened to be at the moment, since moderators are human
and use subjective criteria.
[2] Within the limits of the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the
1st Amendment.
[3] As to whether or not they constituted libel, I will not comment
since I am not a lawyer.

--
Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why is it that you people hate 'BentRider Online so much? When people
>>>>>complain about the content of posts here, they're usually told one
>>>>>thing: don't read them! Going along with 'free speech', is the concept
>>>>>of 'freedom of choice'. If you think BROL is so damned awful, then why
>>>>>read it? If you think Bryan Ball and I are so horrible, then here's a
>>>>>clue: killfile us, or manually skip over anything we post! Is that so
>>>>>difficult?
>>>>> Yes, things will be difficult until the GC gets back from his
>>>>> California trip. But that doesn't mean you have to resort to reading
>>>>> BROL, does it? If it's as bad as you seem to think it is, take a tip
>>>>> from Nancy Reagan: just say no.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I never read BROL and I have no opinion about it one way or the other.
>>>>However, I do have an opinion on Bryan Ball. He is the character who
>>>>thinks it is just fine to have lots of liberal ranting and raving on
>>>>ARBR since according to him most cyclists are liberals. That is the one
>>>>and only thing I have against him.
>>>>
>>>>I also think Larry Varney does not give enough credit to the accumulated
>>>>wisdom of mankind. He wants to think through everything for himself and
>>>>he wants to base what he thinks on his own personal experiences. That is
>>>>the one and only thing I have against him.
>>>>
>>>>Like I said, I NEVER read BROL. I am strictly an ARBR man. What goes on
>>>>here stays here as far as I am concerned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dolan, read what I write, OK? I have never said that I want to base
>>> what I think on my own person experience ONLY. But I do think that we
>>> have a brain for a reason, and that is to use it. To just stick it in
>>> neutral and never try to make decisions based on what we have actually
>>> learned from personal experience, is really a waste.
>>
>>
>> Well, everyone does what you advocate above. But it is also important to
>> have a decent respect for the opinions of those who have come before us
>> and to take them into account. The world did not begin with you and it
>> will not end with you either. We are all of us just middle men.
>>
>>
>>> And speaking of a waste: trying to reason with you is a prime example.
>>> You do not stand behind anything you have said previously, you do not
>>> disagree based on anything I have actually written, and you lie when you
>>> make claims as to what I have said.
>>
>>
>> Varney is not up to generalities. He should always stick to specifics.
>> When it come to generalities he loses himself and the thread of what
>> anyone has ever said. He is a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He is not a
>> philosopher and intellectual who is capable of big thoughts. I feel
>> guilty for having led him out of his depth on so many occasions. Well,
>> what can you expect of someone who dresses up like Santa Claus and has
>> never yet been known to act his age.
>>
>> But Varney, like all liberals, only knows how to call someone a liar.
>> That is always the last refuge of a scoundrel and a knave.
>>
>
> How much more specific do you want it, Dolan? You refuse to stand behind
> what you have posted. You claim "sui generis" instead. You claim that I
> have taken a particular position, but when faced with the fact that I
> haven't, you then slap a label on me and say I have "back pedaled" from
> some position that I haven't taken, but some vague group has.
> The only depths you have been in, Dolan, are ones of ignorance and
> hatred. You have told us, though, just why you hate people so much:
> because you believe that they are like you, stupid and ignorant.
> I know lots of things, Dolan, and that's a result of learning from those
> who have come before me, as well as learning from my own experiences. And
> when I call you a liar, it is for one reason: that's what you are. It has
> nothing to do with a "last refuge". It's a fact. Just as you are a bigot
> and glory in your ignorance and hatred of everyone, you are a liar.
> Specific enough for you, Dolan?

What I would like to know at this point is would what Varney has just
written be considered a personal attack and would it be accepted at BROL, or
would Varney find that he had been censored by Mr. Ball. This would most
likely pass muster since it is coming from a certain person who is in good
standing there, namely Varney. Maybe why some do not think much of BROL is
because of it's favoritism to some and not to others.

Varney is such a dunderhead that he needs to read everything at least twice
and maybe three times before it soaks in, so here it is again:

>> Varney is not up to generalities. He should always stick to specifics.
>> When it come to generalities he loses himself and the thread of what
>> anyone has ever said. He is a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He is not a
>> philosopher and intellectual who is capable of big thoughts. I feel
>> guilty for having led him out of his depth on so many occasions. Well,
>> what can you expect of someone who dresses up like Santa Claus and has
>> never yet been known to act his age.
>>
>> But Varney, like all liberals, only knows how to call someone a liar.
>> That is always the last refuge of a scoundrel and a knave.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Al Luminium]

snippola>
> As a final note let me say I have a kill file, but no one has ever been in
> it. Someone would have to be some kind of a super pest for me to kill
> file them. Neither you nor Bryan will ever qualify. So the kill filing
> will be up to you.
>
> skip
>
>

So Skip, you're not going to give Bryan any freebies or cashish in return
for a banner ad?
Al, I'm still laughing, Luminium




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[skip]

"Al Luminium" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> snippola>
>> As a final note let me say I have a kill file, but no one has ever been
>> in it. Someone would have to be some kind of a super pest for me to kill
>> file them. Neither you nor Bryan will ever qualify. So the kill filing
>> will be up to you.
>>
>> skip
>>
>>
>
> So Skip, you're not going to give Bryan any freebies or cashish in return
> for a banner ad?
> Al, I'm still laughing, Luminium
>
>
Doesn't look that way.

Right now I'm still laughing over mick moyle's post. Too funny.

skip (why can't we all just get along - it's Christmas for God's sake)

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> ...
>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a no-win
>> situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared to the number
>> on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given the choice between
>> civilized places where they can post, and read the posts of others,
>> without having to put up with a constant assault of sexual "humor",
>> obscenities, and so on.
>
> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain wolves
> on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep generally
> outnumber wolves.
>
>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult each
>> other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people they don't
>> know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others as whores. And
>> some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to the people who do
>> these things: this has crossed the line.
>
> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
> immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue, despite
> the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely misinterpret
> the Bible to suit their own purposes).

Yes, indeed, we Americans do need to grow up about sex, but not in the way
you mean. We need to go back to the period of the High Middle Ages when
monks roamed the land and preached damnation and hellfire to all the
sinners. The common man is always on the verge of giving in to his animal
instincts. But us saints and holy men will never permit such transgressions
of the laws of God and Man. It is chastity or death! I myself would be
willing to slaughter any number of sinners. By so doing I would be saving
their souls for the Kingdom of God.

What you say about chastity not in and of itself being a virtue flies in the
face of the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the one true
Church. Entire monastic orders were built on that very foundation. You have
lost all sense once again due to liberal indoctrination. Liberals like you
are of the Devil, chaste monks like myself are of God and beloved of Him.
Try to get some religion why don't you?

>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be with.
>
> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Only an insane slob would be caught dead associating with the **** heads of
Monkey Island. They are disgusting and depraved and should be burned at the
stake as witches (can men be witches?). Beware the Ides of March!
Retribution is all about you.

--
Regards,

Saint Edward - Order of the Perpetual Miseries - Minnesota

 

[Larry Varney]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a
>>>> no-win situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared
>>>> to the number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given
>>>> the choice between civilized places where they can post, and read
>>>> the posts of others, without having to put up with a constant
>>>> assault of sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>>> wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>>> generally outnumber wolves.
>>>
>> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
>> wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few rules,
>> and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI crowd by
>> comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.
>
>
> "********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".
>
> I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
> Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
> psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or have
> my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the moderator(s). That
> is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I have the assurance that I
> can speak freely [2].
>
>>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>>> each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>>> they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others as
>>>> whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to the
>>>> people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
>>> immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue,
>>> despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely
>>> misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>>
>>
>> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
>> childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
>> they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>>
>>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be with.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing to
>> see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
>> people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep and
>> wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.
>
>
> Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
> sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
> Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
> coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
> that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>
> For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
> similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
> from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>

Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings? And are
you trying now to excuse such postings on the grounds that no one - other than
the feeble-minded - believed the people in the pictures were who others claimed
they were?
Honestly, Sherman, forget the fecal matter nonsense - this is pure ********
all the way.


--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it that you people hate 'BentRider Online so much? When people
>>>>>>complain about the content of posts here, they're usually told one
>>>>>>thing: don't read them! Going along with 'free speech', is the concept
>>>>>>of 'freedom of choice'. If you think BROL is so damned awful, then why
>>>>>>read it? If you think Bryan Ball and I are so horrible, then here's a
>>>>>>clue: killfile us, or manually skip over anything we post! Is that so
>>>>>>difficult?
>>>>>>Yes, things will be difficult until the GC gets back from his
>>>>>>California trip. But that doesn't mean you have to resort to reading
>>>>>>BROL, does it? If it's as bad as you seem to think it is, take a tip
>>>>>>from Nancy Reagan: just say no.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I never read BROL and I have no opinion about it one way or the other.
>>>>>However, I do have an opinion on Bryan Ball. He is the character who
>>>>>thinks it is just fine to have lots of liberal ranting and raving on
>>>>>ARBR since according to him most cyclists are liberals. That is the one
>>>>>and only thing I have against him.
>>>>>
>>>>>I also think Larry Varney does not give enough credit to the accumulated
>>>>>wisdom of mankind. He wants to think through everything for himself and
>>>>>he wants to base what he thinks on his own personal experiences. That is
>>>>>the one and only thing I have against him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I said, I NEVER read BROL. I am strictly an ARBR man. What goes on
>>>>>here stays here as far as I am concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dolan, read what I write, OK? I have never said that I want to base
>>>>what I think on my own person experience ONLY. But I do think that we
>>>>have a brain for a reason, and that is to use it. To just stick it in
>>>>neutral and never try to make decisions based on what we have actually
>>>>learned from personal experience, is really a waste.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, everyone does what you advocate above. But it is also important to
>>>have a decent respect for the opinions of those who have come before us
>>>and to take them into account. The world did not begin with you and it
>>>will not end with you either. We are all of us just middle men.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And speaking of a waste: trying to reason with you is a prime example.
>>>>You do not stand behind anything you have said previously, you do not
>>>>disagree based on anything I have actually written, and you lie when you
>>>>make claims as to what I have said.
>>>
>>>
>>>Varney is not up to generalities. He should always stick to specifics.
>>>When it come to generalities he loses himself and the thread of what
>>>anyone has ever said. He is a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He is not a
>>>philosopher and intellectual who is capable of big thoughts. I feel
>>>guilty for having led him out of his depth on so many occasions. Well,
>>>what can you expect of someone who dresses up like Santa Claus and has
>>>never yet been known to act his age.
>>>
>>>But Varney, like all liberals, only knows how to call someone a liar.
>>>That is always the last refuge of a scoundrel and a knave.
>>>
>>
>> How much more specific do you want it, Dolan? You refuse to stand behind
>>what you have posted. You claim "sui generis" instead. You claim that I
>>have taken a particular position, but when faced with the fact that I
>>haven't, you then slap a label on me and say I have "back pedaled" from
>>some position that I haven't taken, but some vague group has.
>> The only depths you have been in, Dolan, are ones of ignorance and
>>hatred. You have told us, though, just why you hate people so much:
>>because you believe that they are like you, stupid and ignorant.
>> I know lots of things, Dolan, and that's a result of learning from those
>>who have come before me, as well as learning from my own experiences. And
>>when I call you a liar, it is for one reason: that's what you are. It has
>>nothing to do with a "last refuge". It's a fact. Just as you are a bigot
>>and glory in your ignorance and hatred of everyone, you are a liar.
>>Specific enough for you, Dolan?
>
>
> What I would like to know at this point is would what Varney has just
> written be considered a personal attack and would it be accepted at BROL, or
> would Varney find that he had been censored by Mr. Ball. This would most
> likely pass muster since it is coming from a certain person who is in good
> standing there, namely Varney. Maybe why some do not think much of BROL is
> because of it's favoritism to some and not to others.
>
> Varney is such a dunderhead that he needs to read everything at least twice
> and maybe three times before it soaks in, so here it is again:
>
>
>>>Varney is not up to generalities. He should always stick to specifics.
>>>When it come to generalities he loses himself and the thread of what
>>>anyone has ever said. He is a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He is not a
>>>philosopher and intellectual who is capable of big thoughts. I feel
>>>guilty for having led him out of his depth on so many occasions. Well,
>>>what can you expect of someone who dresses up like Santa Claus and has
>>>never yet been known to act his age.
>>>
>>>But Varney, like all liberals, only knows how to call someone a liar.
>>>That is always the last refuge of a scoundrel and a knave.
>
>

Actually, no, the remarks I've made about you would not be permitted on
BROL. True or not, calling someone a liar is not acceptable. No favoritism - it
wouldn't be acceptable.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
<snip>
> Only an insane slob would be caught dead associating with the **** heads of
> Monkey Island. They are disgusting and depraved and should be burned at the
> stake as witches (can men be witches?). Beware the Ides of March!
> Retribution is all about you.
>

OK, pop quiz here: what is a "man witch" called? And bonus points if you got
your answer from an old tv commercial.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Tom Sherman]

Larry Varney wrote:

> ...
> Actually, no, the remarks I've made about you would not be permitted
> on BROL. True or not, calling someone a liar is not acceptable. No
> favoritism - it wouldn't be acceptable.

Case made. Calling someone a liar is acceptable if there is legitimate
evidence to support the assertion. Advantage alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.

--
Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

 

[Tom Sherman]

Larry Varney wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a
>>>>> no-win situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared
>>>>> to the number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given
>>>>> the choice between civilized places where they can post, and read
>>>>> the posts of others, without having to put up with a constant
>>>>> assault of sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>>>> wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>>>> generally outnumber wolves.
>>>>
>>> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
>>> wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few rules,
>>> and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI crowd by
>>> comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.
>>
>>
>>
>> "********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".
>>
>> I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
>> Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
>> psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or
>> have my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the
>> moderator(s). That is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I have
>> the assurance that I can speak freely [2].
>>
>>>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>>>> each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>>>> they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others
>>>>> as whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to
>>>>> the people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
>>>> immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue,
>>>> despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely
>>>> misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
>>> childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
>>> they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>>>
>>>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing to
>>> see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
>>> people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep and
>>> wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>> sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>> Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>> coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>> that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>
>> For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>> similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
>> from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>
>
> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...

[YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people,
I have no wish to be a "net nanny".

Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you
are either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

 

[Larry Varney]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Actually, no, the remarks I've made about you would not be permitted
>> on BROL. True or not, calling someone a liar is not acceptable. No
>> favoritism - it wouldn't be acceptable.
>
>
> Case made. Calling someone a liar is acceptable if there is legitimate
> evidence to support the assertion. Advantage alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
>

No, the case is not made. That's like slighting football (American) because
you're not allowed to bounce the ball, while in baseketball you are. There are
different rules and guidelines, and in some instances, personal attacks, even
if they're true, are not acceptable.
Now, if it turns out that you value above all else, the freedom to call
anyone anything you want, if there are no "rules" that need to be adhered to,
that "on topic" is something you don't care about, then yes, arbr gets the nod.
But most people prefer civil behavior over crude, obscene and objectionable
"freedom".

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Larry Varney]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a
>>>>>> no-win situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared
>>>>>> to the number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when
>>>>>> given the choice between civilized places where they can post, and
>>>>>> read the posts of others, without having to put up with a constant
>>>>>> assault of sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>>>>> wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>>>>> generally outnumber wolves.
>>>>>
>>>> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
>>>> wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few
>>>> rules, and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI
>>>> crowd by comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".
>>>
>>> I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
>>> Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
>>> psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or
>>> have my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the
>>> moderator(s). That is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I
>>> have the assurance that I can speak freely [2].
>>>
>>>>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>>>>> each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>>>>> they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others
>>>>>> as whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say
>>>>>> to the people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither
>>>>> inherently immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not
>>>>> a virtue, despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who
>>>>> delibertely misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
>>>> childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
>>>> they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>>>>
>>>>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing
>>>> to see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
>>>> people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep
>>>> and wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>>> sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>>> Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>>> coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>>> that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>>> similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however
>>> refrain from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>>
>>
>> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...
>
>
> [YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people,
> I have no wish to be a "net nanny".
>
> Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
> as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you
> are either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!
>

Because, in this case, it is not as obvious as you may want us to believe.
This whole business about sheep and wolves, for instance, sounds like just so
much equivocation and obfuscation, made at just the time when someone brings up
the fact that you have not said anything against the MI simians and their crude
attacks on "noncombatants".
But one thing I do want to make clear: I don't expect anyone to condemn the
postings that were on the MI website. But when similar attacks start happening
on arbr, then it would hardly make you a "net nanny" to tell the perpetrator
that such behavior is not welcome on this list, rules or no rules.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Tom Sherman]

Larry Varney wrote:

> ...
> But seriously, yes, I've met some real online assholes who turn out to
> be OK in real life. I just wish they understood that there's nothing
> wrong with being "civil" online as well as off. And I am not comfortable
> with restraints that are too constraining. In the case of BROL, I don't
> think that they are. Essentially, it's just a case of behave as if your
> family were reading what you post.

Here is a picture of the family that raised me: <http://snipurl.com/bkwf>.

--
Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

 

[Tom Sherman]

Larry Varney wrote:

> ...
> Now, if it turns out that you value above all else, the freedom to
> call anyone anything you want, if there are no "rules" that need to be
> adhered to, that "on topic" is something you don't care about, then yes,
> arbr gets the nod. But most people prefer civil behavior over crude,
> obscene and objectionable "freedom".

So we have BROL for the sheep that want a "net nanny" to protect them
from "unpleasantness" and alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where the wolves
may roam in freedom.

--
Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
[...]
>>> Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>>> sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>>> Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>>> coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>>> that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>>> similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
>>> from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>>
>>
>> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...
>
> [YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people, I
> have no wish to be a "net nanny".
>
> Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
> as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you are
> either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!

But I too have detected a tolerance on the part of Mr. Sherman for the
Monkey Islanders. He does not defend them but he does not condemn them
either even when asked to do so. I think we are quite justified in our
suspicion of his motives.

My own read on it is that he personally knows many of these Monkey Islanders
(I believe they are mostly from the Chicago area) and of course they do not
act in real life like how they do on their newsgroup. Nonetheless, one is
known by the company that one keeps.

You can learn an awful lot about a person based on who and what he is
against as well as who and what he is for. Mr. Varney is being far more
honest and forthright here than is Mr. Sherman.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Larry Varney]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Now, if it turns out that you value above all else, the freedom to
>> call anyone anything you want, if there are no "rules" that need to be
>> adhered to, that "on topic" is something you don't care about, then
>> yes, arbr gets the nod. But most people prefer civil behavior over
>> crude, obscene and objectionable "freedom".
>
>
> So we have BROL for the sheep that want a "net nanny" to protect them
> from "unpleasantness" and alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where the wolves
> may roam in freedom.
>

Again, you have it wrong. It's nothing about being "protected", so much as
providing a place where civil behavior is not only expected, it's enforced. No
one is being forced to read or post on BROL, but those who do, are there
because of the content. They liked the information provided, the forum for
asking questions, and they don't like having to put up with the obscenities and
**** that unmoderated forums sometimes have. Were it not for that, then there
would be more participation on arbr, instead of the "catastrophic success" it
has enjoyed over the past few years.
And one more again: you are besmirching the good name of wolves. The
"unpleasantness" on arbr comes not from wolves, but from creatures far more
objectionable.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Al Luminium]

"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a
>>>>>>> no-win situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared
>>>>>>> to the number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given
>>>>>>> the choice between civilized places where they can post, and read
>>>>>>> the posts of others, without having to put up with a constant
>>>>>>> assault of sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>>>>>> wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>>>>>> generally outnumber wolves.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
>>>>> wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few rules,
>>>>> and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI crowd by
>>>>> comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".
>>>>
>>>> I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
>>>> Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
>>>> psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or have
>>>> my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the moderator(s). That
>>>> is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I have the assurance that
>>>> I can speak freely [2].
>>>>
>>>>>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>>>>>> each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>>>>>> they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others as
>>>>>>> whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to the
>>>>>>> people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
>>>>>> immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue,
>>>>>> despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely
>>>>>> misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
>>>>> childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
>>>>> they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing to
>>>>> see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
>>>>> people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep and
>>>>> wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>>>> sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>>>> Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>>>> coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>>>> that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>>>> similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
>>>> from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...
>>
>>
>> [YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people, I
>> have no wish to be a "net nanny".
>>
>> Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
>> as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you are
>> either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!
>>
>
> Because, in this case, it is not as obvious as you may want us to
> believe. This whole business about sheep and wolves, for instance, sounds
> like just so much equivocation and obfuscation, made at just the time when
> someone brings up the fact that you have not said anything against the MI
> simians and their crude attacks on "noncombatants".
> But one thing I do want to make clear: I don't expect anyone to condemn
> the postings that were on the MI website. But when similar attacks start
> happening on arbr, then it would hardly make you a "net nanny" to tell the
> perpetrator that such behavior is not welcome on this list, rules or no
> rules.
>
> --
> Larry Varney
> Cold Spring, KY
> http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
>
>
>

Tell us the truth Larry. Did you ever post as GUEST on MIBFTD? Or GUESSSSST
? How bout the first MI?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Larry Varney]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Larry Varney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>>>>sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>>>>Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>>>>coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>>>>that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>>>
>>>>For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>>>>similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
>>>>from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...
>>
>>[YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people, I
>>have no wish to be a "net nanny".
>>
>>Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
>>as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you are
>>either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!
>
>
> But I too have detected a tolerance on the part of Mr. Sherman for the
> Monkey Islanders. He does not defend them but he does not condemn them
> either even when asked to do so. I think we are quite justified in our
> suspicion of his motives.
>
> My own read on it is that he personally knows many of these Monkey Islanders
> (I believe they are mostly from the Chicago area) and of course they do not
> act in real life like how they do on their newsgroup. Nonetheless, one is
> known by the company that one keeps.
>
> You can learn an awful lot about a person based on who and what he is
> against as well as who and what he is for. Mr. Varney is being far more
> honest and forthright here than is Mr. Sherman.
>

Now I'm really frightened. What's next? A condemnation of some of Rumsfeld's
remarks? If so, I'm going to send the authorities to that house in Minnesota,
and see who is really operating the keyboard - the real Ed Dolan must be locked
away in the closet!

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Varney wrote:
>
>> ...
>> But seriously, yes, I've met some real online assholes who turn out to
>> be OK in real life. I just wish they understood that there's nothing
>> wrong with being "civil" online as well as off. And I am not comfortable
>> with restraints that are too constraining. In the case of BROL, I don't
>> think that they are. Essentially, it's just a case of behave as if your
>> family were reading what you post.
>
> Here is a picture of the family that raised me: <http://snipurl.com/bkwf>.

Yea, Mr. Sherman has finally gotten the knack of how to introduce a link. I
was expecting to see a picture of wolves and that is what I saw.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

> Tom Sherman – Near Rock Island

Even though you do not have your residence in Rock Island, I think it would
be OK to so indicate. No one else in the universe will know or care (unless
you do of course). Here is how your signature should read:

Tom Sherman - Rock Island - Illinois

It is important not to abbreviate Illinois as Il or Ill. looks ridiculous.

 

[Larry Varney]

Al Luminium wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Varney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Larry Varney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>> And you're wrong about moderation of a message board being a
>>>>>>>>no-win situation. Check out how many people post here, as compared
>>>>>>>>to the number on BROL. See the reactions of most people, when given
>>>>>>>>the choice between civilized places where they can post, and read
>>>>>>>>the posts of others, without having to put up with a constant
>>>>>>>>assault of sexual "humor", obscenities, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Given the choice of being a sheep or a wolf, some of us will remain
>>>>>>>wolves on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. (Hi $kip) Numerically, sheep
>>>>>>>generally outnumber wolves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ********, Sherman. This has nothing to do with being a sheepr or a
>>>>>>wolf, but of behaving in a civilized manner. BROL has very few rules,
>>>>>>and trying to excuse the contemptible behavior of the MI crowd by
>>>>>>comparing them to wolves, does a disservice to wolves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"********" is so crude. I prefer, "male bovine fecal matter".
>>>>>
>>>>>I was talking about alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and BROL, not Monkey
>>>>>Island and BROL. If I were posting on BROL, there would be the
>>>>>psychological burden that I could be removed from the board and/or have
>>>>>my messages deleted if I crossed the line [1] of the moderator(s). That
>>>>>is why I stick to un-moderated forums, where I have the assurance that
>>>>>I can speak freely [2].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some people seem to like obscenities. Some people like to insult
>>>>>>>>each other. Some people like to post homosexual attacks on people
>>>>>>>>they don't know. Some people like to refer to the wives of others as
>>>>>>>>whores. And some people are gutless cowards, who will not say to the
>>>>>>>>people who do these things: this has crossed the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People in the US need to grow up about sex. It is neither inherently
>>>>>>>immoral or disgusting. Chastity in and of itself is not a virtue,
>>>>>>>despite the bleatings of "religious" control freaks (who delibertely
>>>>>>>misinterpret the Bible to suit their own purposes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, ********. This has nothing to do with sex, but with the
>>>>>>childish behavior of those who would attack someone by claiming that
>>>>>>they're homosexual, along with attacking their wives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But hey, it's up to you which group of people you prefer to be
>>>>>>>>with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with heat at all, Sherman. But it is disappointing to
>>>>>>see you supporting the vulgarities and childish behavior of these
>>>>>>people, and then try to obfuscate it as being some sort of "sheep and
>>>>>>wolves" scenario. It is beneath you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only a feeble minded person would have believed that the male
>>>>>sadism-masochism bondage picture posted on Monkey Island was of Mr.
>>>>>Larry Varney and Mr. Bryan Ball, or that the woman on the female
>>>>>coprophilia web site linked on Monkey Island was Mr. Ball's wife. Or
>>>>>that 'skank" was an appropriate term for Mr. Ball's wife. [3]
>>>>>
>>>>>For what it is worth, I did not find the above examples (and many
>>>>>similar ones) to be at all humorous. Mr. Varney should however refrain
>>>>>from implying that I supported the posting of such material.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should I refrain? How often have you condemned such postings?...
>>>
>>>
>>>[YAWN] Why should I bother to state the obvious? Unlike certain people, I
>>>have no wish to be a "net nanny".
>>>
>>>Implying that anyone who does not publicly condemn something as evidence
>>>as their support for it is as intellectually bankrupt as saying, "you are
>>>either with us, or with the terrorists". Sheesh!
>>>
>>
>> Because, in this case, it is not as obvious as you may want us to
>>believe. This whole business about sheep and wolves, for instance, sounds
>>like just so much equivocation and obfuscation, made at just the time when
>>someone brings up the fact that you have not said anything against the MI
>>simians and their crude attacks on "noncombatants".
>> But one thing I do want to make clear: I don't expect anyone to condemn
>>the postings that were on the MI website. But when similar attacks start
>>happening on arbr, then it would hardly make you a "net nanny" to tell the
>>perpetrator that such behavior is not welcome on this list, rules or no
>>rules.
>>
>>--
>>Larry Varney
>>Cold Spring, KY
>>http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Tell us the truth Larry. Did you ever post as GUEST on MIBFTD? Or GUESSSSST
> ? How bout the first MI?
>

Nope, I can state quite clearly and honestly, that while I did occasionally
- not often, but occasionally - drop by both boards, I never once posted
anything under the name of GUEST, not matter now many S's it has in it.
Really, it was quite like being a voyeur at something disrespctful, and the
last thing I wanted to do was get too close and get all that icky stuff on me.

--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney