justice for death of a fellow two wheeler



> No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished that you can write something
> so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell
> someone they are showing their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of belittling of other people
> you are now objecting to.

I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and yet when one single
person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same language he uses, that is enough to "totally
astonish" you? I get it now. He should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should
ever attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will re-read the posts, you
will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal person--just one who has been running roughshod over
people without someone calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone is actually bold enough
to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike manner so as not to offend you. That is what
"astonishes" me. You not only defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally
say "enough!"

By the way, none of
> these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
Dolan-they
> were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
do
> it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)

See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to the bully or they will be
called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it won't wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other
posters. But, this is not his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his
stupid means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be you.

Don't you even notice your
> hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category, you are in a category all to
> yourself.

It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to a bully. Don't you notice
your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a category all to yourself---a category of one person who
likes and supports bullies.

By the way, for you to say anyone is
> grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US government classifies
> itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
strong
> democratic tradition" ref http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html

yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is NOT a democracy in any way
shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.

Pat in TX
 
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished
that
> > you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are throwing spitballs. For
> > example, when you tell someone they are showing their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance
> > or when you tell someone they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> > belittling of other people you are now objecting to.
>
> I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and
yet
> when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same language he uses, that is
> enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now.
He
> should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever attempt to bring him up
> short because that would be rude? If you will re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't
> "belittling" a normal person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without
someone
> calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want everybody to bear his
> rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone
is
> actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike manner so as not to offend
> you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not
only
> defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say "enough!"
>
>
> By the way, none of
> > these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
> Dolan-they
> > were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
> do
> > it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)
>
> See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to the bully or they will
> be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it
won't
> wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not his own private website
> and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stup
id
> means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be you.
>
> Don't you even notice your
> > hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category,
you
> > are in a category all to yourself.
>
> It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to
a
> bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a
category
> all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.
>
> By the way, for you to say anyone is
> > grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US government classifies
> > itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
> strong
> > democratic tradition" ref http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
>
> yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is
NOT
> a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.
>
> Pat in TX

So Pat, in your mind being a total hypocrite and belittling other people not related to Ed Dolan is
okay and is somehow standing up to Ed Dolan, which that takes guts like yours...Wow, you must really
impress yourself. You're a real superhero of cyberspace. Also pointing out how the US government
classifies itself is now wrong too since it doesn't match what you believe....and you're the
ultimate authority on that, not the US government. The US government is in fact defined by whatever
YOU decide it is. Thanks for that clarification.

Brian
 
"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > > No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished
> that
> > > you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are throwing spitballs.
> > > For example, when you tell someone they are showing their ignorance and need to fix their
> > > ignorance or when you tell someone they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly
> > > the kind of belittling of other people you are now objecting to.
> >
> > I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and
> yet
> > when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same language he uses, that is
> > enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now.
> He
> > should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever attempt to bring him up
> > short because that would be rude? If you will re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't
> > "belittling" a normal person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without
> someone
> > calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want everybody to bear his
> > rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone
> is
> > actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike manner so as not to
> > offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not
> only
> > defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say "enough!"

Who is this Pat jerk from Texas? For some strange reason I am not seeing his posts on the Google
ARBR web page. I am only getting his posts second hand from Mr. Brian Hughes.

So here is a jerk (Pat) who has killed filed me and yet continues to discuss me and my posts and I
do not even see his posts on the Google ARBR web page. Maybe he should un-kill file me if he wants
to discuss me so I can get in on it. As much as I disagree with Mr. Sherman on almost everything
under the sun, I do respect him for not taking the coward's way out and kill filing me like Pat of
Texas does (can this guy really be from Texas?).

But worse than being a coward is just the plain bad manners of discussing someone you have kill
filed and therefore not making yourself available for a response. Congratulations Pat, you are the
first one to ever do this, the mark of a true scoundrel.

Tell me Pat, are you seeing your posts to me or about me on the Google web page? I am not seeing
them so I do not know what the hell you are talking about. I can not take you on if I am not seeing
your posts. In effect, you are having a one way conversation with yourself and with
Mr. Hughes. I strongly suggest you un-kill file me and make sure your posts get on the Google web
page if you would like to have a conversation with me instead of with just yourself.

> > By the way, none of
> > > these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
> Dolan-they
> > > were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
> do
> > > it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)
> >
> > See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to the bully or they
> > will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it
> won't
> > wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not his own private
> > website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stup
> id
> > means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be you.
> >
> > Don't you even notice your
> > > hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category,
> you
> > > are in a category all to yourself.
> >
> > It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to
> a
> > bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a
> category
> > all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.
> >
> > By the way, for you to say anyone is
> > > grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US government classifies
> > > itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
> strong
> > > democratic tradition" ref http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
> >
> > yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is
> NOT
> > a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.

I don't believe I ever said that this country is not a democracy. On the other hand, this country
is not run like a Vermont Town Hall meeting either or like the early city states of ancient
Greece. I strongly suggest if you want to argue with me about any of this that you get online and
get your head out of the sand where you have put it when you kill filed me. Either that, or stop
discussing me behind my back where I cannot defend myself. Better to be a "bully" like me than a
"coward" like you!

> >
> > Pat in TX
>
> So Pat, in your mind being a total hypocrite and belittling other people not related to Ed Dolan
> is okay and is somehow standing up to Ed Dolan, which that takes guts like yours...Wow, you must
> really impress yourself. You're a real superhero of cyberspace. Also pointing out how the US
> government classifies itself is now wrong too since it doesn't match what you believe....and
> you're the ultimate authority on that, not the US government. The US government is in fact defined
> by whatever YOU decide it is. Thanks for that clarification.
>
> Brian

Great job Brian! You are almost up to my own high standards minus the foul language and the
invective. I can't believe I am missing out on all this good repartee, but the fact is that I am not
seeing his posts on the Google web page. If it weren't for you, I would not be seeing any of this. I
wonder what is going on here?

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <snip>
> > William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He self destructed almost
> > immediately, and so would we all.
>
> If I recollect correctly Mr. Buckley strongly advocated elevated bikeways for NYC. Pretty radical
> idea for an arch-conservative, eh?
>
> skip

Skip, I think Gore Vidal was also running along with Buckley too. Vidal is the world's champion
liberal jackass of all time, but even he self destructed. We are way to quick to put politicians
down in this country. They are highly intelligent as a class and as long as they are not corrupt I
am willing to listen to them.

I lived in NYC for several years in my long lost youth and I do not know how I would ever get around
in that city on a bicycle. At the time I was a prolific user of the subways (where it was a 10 cent
fare to go anywhere in the city) and I was also a walker, one of the few cities in this country
where you can walk and never suffer a dull moment.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"DH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > I agree completely. The UN is worthless. The US must plan on an extended stay in the middle
> > east. You are right. The cold war took 50 years to win. This war may take at least that long. I
> > had to laugh (and cry) when I heard Howard Dean comment on how he would have supported the war
> > in Iraq with permission from the UN! Even John Kerry commented that we don't NEED permission
> > from the UN! I can't imagine serving in the armed forces under a commander-in-chief waiting for
> > permission from the UN to act.
>
> The 'cold war' was 'won' because we out spent the Russians. Instead of spending their money on
> bettering their society, they were engaged in a spending war. Our 'intelligence' was also faulty
> and we over spent as well. I'm sure someone here can expand on what I wrote. I am leaving this
> thread again.

It is far better to defeat an enemy in a "cold war" by outspending him than to have to go to a "hot
war" and do it that way. It was Ronald Reagan of course who was mainly responsible for the ultimate
demise of the Soviet Union. He made it his number one priority to outspend the Soviets on armaments.
And then deploying those Sherman missiles to Europe was a masterstroke too. I think we also had a
600 ship Navy by the time Reagan left office.

The Soviets were always aggressive and inclined to export their ideology abroad irrespective of what
the US did or didn't do. But if it hadn't been for the US the Soviets may very well have ended up
dominating all of the Eastern Hemisphere (that would include Europe). Those who think the Soviet
Union would have imploded anyway with out the US pressure are sadly mistaken. Corrupt and rotten
regimes can go on forever if left relatively alone. The Ottoman Empire is a perfect example of this.
It was known as the sick man of Europe for a hundred years or more before it finally fell.

To think that the Soviets would ever have spent anything on their people to make their lives better
as opposed to armaments is naive in the extreme and marks you as a Soviet and Communist
sympathizer. But almost all liberals and socialists have this red tinge. I think it (this red
tinge) springs mostly from their hatred of capitalism and their great resentment at its success in
the Western World.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
> I agree completely. The UN is worthless. The US must plan on an extended stay in the middle east.
> You are right. The cold war took 50 years to win. This war may take at least that long. I had to
> laugh (and cry) when I heard Howard Dean comment on how he would have supported the war in Iraq
> with permission from the UN! Even John Kerry commented that we don't NEED permission from the UN!
> I can't imagine serving in the armed forces under a commander-in-chief waiting for permission from
> the UN to act.

The 'cold war' was 'won' because we out spent the Russians. Instead of spending their money on
bettering their society, they were engaged in a spending war. Our 'intelligence' was also faulty
and we over spent as well. I'm sure someone here can expand on what I wrote. I am leaving this
thread again.
 
> To think that the Soviets would ever have spent anything on their people to make their lives
> better as opposed to armaments is naive in the extreme and marks you as a Soviet and Communist
> sympathizer. But almost all liberals and socialists have this red tinge. I think it (this red
> tinge) springs mostly from their hatred of capitalism and their great resentment at its success in
> the Western World.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ed, you are consistent, I'll give you that.

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde
 
"DH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > To think that the Soviets would ever have spent anything on their people to make their lives
> > better as opposed to armaments is naive in the extreme and marks you as a Soviet and Communist
> > sympathizer. But almost all liberals and socialists have this red tinge. I think it (this red
> > tinge) springs mostly from their hatred of capitalism and their great resentment at its success
> > in the Western World.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Ed, you are consistent, I'll give you that.
>
> Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde

Now that the cold war is over and the Soviet Union has fallen like a rotten apple, I am unaccustomed
to hearing any more excuses ever being made for them. When I do hear one, as you made in your
previous post in this thread, I am taken aback and hardly know what to say. My cold war rhetoric has
grown rusty from lack of use.

I do not confuse the social welfare state with socialism and communism. They are two different birds
altogether. But thorough going socialists really ought to know better by now. The fact is that that
scheme of organizing a society just doesn't work. It goes against human nature and so is forever
doomed. We need to learn to hate all utopian schemes as they invariably lead to nothing but tragedy
for mankind. Liberals are not as bad as socialists but there is a strongly family resemblance
nonetheless.

I suspect the US is headed in the direction of the European welfare states. But that is not
socialism. It probably is liberalism though. But it will not extend beyond seeing to the general
welfare. Socialism, like communism, is as dead as a door nail for all eternity. The example of the
Soviets has seen to that. That is why it is so hilarious whenever I spot the "red tinge". Only
American university professors still believe any of that kind of ****!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota