Leave Ed Alone, It's Not Him,he's not Johnny NoCom



Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>The hogwash I am talking about is the idea that diversity is a good
>>>>>thing and that we should tolerate everybody, no matter how different
>>>>>they are from us. We should even tolerate the g.d. Muslims! That is the
>>>>>liberal orthodoxy which you have swallowed whole cloth and it is the
>>>>>most outrageous nonsense. Differences count. I take note of those
>>>>>differences and render my judgments accordingly. So does all the rest of
>>>>>humanity, except for numskull liberals like yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go again, Dolan lashing at out me for something I have never
>>>>said. Yes, I do think diversity is a good thing, though I haven't talked
>>>>about it. Who can stand the same old thing all the time? But "tolerate
>>>>everybody"? I've never said that, and I don't believe it. And yes,
>>>>differences count. Is it right to hate you, simply because you're
>>>>different?
>>>
>>>
>>>Since you are a liberal nut and screwball, you do not have to say
>>>anything at all. I know you backwards and forwards by virtue of your
>>>identity as a liberal. But still, I appreciate your back pedaling.
>>>

>>
>> Hold on a moment, Dolan. You admit now that I haven't said what you
>>claimed I've said, and it's not necessary that I say anything because you
>>know me as my "identity as a liberal" - how would I get that "identity",
>>if I haven't said anything? And how does one back pedal on something they
>>haven't said? You're making less sense by the moment.

>
>
> You have back pedaled from the standard liberal position. The liberal
> orthodoxy is that differences are wonderful and that we should relish them
> and learn from them. The more diversity the better. If you do not hold to
> that rubbish, then I stand corrected.
>
>


Come on, Dolan! You're accusing me of back pedaling from someon else's
positions? Not from positions of my own? Well, jeez, Dolan, then how many
positions that aren't your own have you back pedaled from? Dozens? Hundres? Or
is it "sui generis" time once more? But seriously, Dolan, buy a clue. People
back pedal from their own positions, not from something they've never said. Sheesh.

>>>Diversity is a very bad thing. It creates nothing but rancor and hatred.
>>>We humans love uniformity. Only complete idiots want diversity.
>>>
>>>Yes indeed! Differences do count. But where is your evaluation of those
>>>differences. I have no patience at all for those who recognize
>>>differences but then do not take the next step in evaluating those
>>>differences. I attribute it to cowardice. Political correctness is
>>>another name for cowardice.
>>>

>>
>> I do evaluate differences. You, on the other hand, say that you don't
>>bother thinking about things, including differences, by instead engaging
>>in bigotry, hate, prejudice and so on, as shortcuts that save you time
>>from having to think.
>> Dolan, it looks like you're using both hands to dig yourself deeper into
>>that pit of absolute goofiness.

>
>
> This business of having to think through everything for yourself is nuts.
> There is always a long history of thought that has gone into everything
> under the sun. I take recognition of this history and I do not dismiss it
> like you do.
>


ROTFL! I find it so hard to believe, someone who practically holds it aloft as
a banner of honor, that they DON'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES! I cannot think of a
more damning insult, than that which you seem to brag about. Dolan, it's never
too late to learn - but you have to do it for yourself. You seem to take pride
in being led around, of being some obstreperous sheep, rather than an actual
human being. Ever wonder about the Latin term for a modern human, Dolan? Ever
wonder about it? Did you consider it an insult?

> Christendom has a fear and hatred of Islam and for good reason. I do not
> have to examine any individual Muslim in order to know what to think about
> him. I know what to think about him based on a long history. That is the way
> it is with me about everything. I consult the history and that is where I
> settle unless there is good and compelling reason not to settle. I deplore
> and condemn all those who think they can come to their own conclusions based
> on their own thinking. That is insane and absurd. I always ask such ego
> maniacs who do they think they are that they can fly in the face of history.


Dolan, it is you who are flying in the face of history. Mankind's history is
full of people who did just what you condemn: they thought for themselves, they
reasoned, they researched. Did you ever wonder why it's no longer common
knowledge that the earth is flat? That it's no longer believed that the sun
revoles around the earth? Why, oh, this is a waste of time - of COURSE you've
never wondered about these things, or any things. You've already told us,
unbelieveable as it sounds, that you do not think. You follow. You adhere to
prejudices. You take "short cuts" that save you from using your mind.

>



--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...It is true that I do much like Muslims....


Mr. Dolan,

It is refreshing to see that you have lost your prejudice.

--
Tom Sherman
 
Not Johnny NoCom wrote:

> Guys and Gals:
> after doing some personal research of my own i have found that this Johnny
> NoCom person is NOT Ed Gin who a lot of you really think it is....


I knew Johnny NoCom was Elvis!

--
Tom Sherman
 
"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:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>The hogwash I am talking about is the idea that diversity is a good
>>>>>>thing and that we should tolerate everybody, no matter how different
>>>>>>they are from us. We should even tolerate the g.d. Muslims! That is
>>>>>>the liberal orthodoxy which you have swallowed whole cloth and it is
>>>>>>the most outrageous nonsense. Differences count. I take note of those
>>>>>>differences and render my judgments accordingly. So does all the rest
>>>>>>of humanity, except for numskull liberals like yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go again, Dolan lashing at out me for something I have never
>>>>> said. Yes, I do think diversity is a good thing, though I haven't
>>>>> talked about it. Who can stand the same old thing all the time? But
>>>>> "tolerate everybody"? I've never said that, and I don't believe it.
>>>>> And yes, differences count. Is it right to hate you, simply because
>>>>> you're different?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since you are a liberal nut and screwball, you do not have to say
>>>>anything at all. I know you backwards and forwards by virtue of your
>>>>identity as a liberal. But still, I appreciate your back pedaling.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hold on a moment, Dolan. You admit now that I haven't said what you
>>> claimed I've said, and it's not necessary that I say anything because
>>> you know me as my "identity as a liberal" - how would I get that
>>> "identity", if I haven't said anything? And how does one back pedal on
>>> something they haven't said? You're making less sense by the moment.

>>
>>
>> You have back pedaled from the standard liberal position. The liberal
>> orthodoxy is that differences are wonderful and that we should relish
>> them and learn from them. The more diversity the better. If you do not
>> hold to that rubbish, then I stand corrected.
>>
>>

>
> Come on, Dolan! You're accusing me of back pedaling from someon else's
> positions? Not from positions of my own? Well, jeez, Dolan, then how many
> positions that aren't your own have you back pedaled from? Dozens?
> Hundres? Or is it "sui generis" time once more? But seriously, Dolan, buy
> a clue. People back pedal from their own positions, not from something
> they've never said. Sheesh.


You need to renounce your liberalism. That is the only way you can ever get
to a clean slate with me. But I KNOW you are a liberal and from that a
hundred and one things follow.

>>>>Diversity is a very bad thing. It creates nothing but rancor and hatred.
>>>>We humans love uniformity. Only complete idiots want diversity.
>>>>
>>>>Yes indeed! Differences do count. But where is your evaluation of those
>>>>differences. I have no patience at all for those who recognize
>>>>differences but then do not take the next step in evaluating those
>>>>differences. I attribute it to cowardice. Political correctness is
>>>>another name for cowardice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do evaluate differences. You, on the other hand, say that you don't
>>> bother thinking about things, including differences, by instead engaging
>>> in bigotry, hate, prejudice and so on, as shortcuts that save you time
>>> from having to think.
>>> Dolan, it looks like you're using both hands to dig yourself deeper
>>> into that pit of absolute goofiness.

>>
>>
>> This business of having to think through everything for yourself is nuts.
>> There is always a long history of thought that has gone into everything
>> under the sun. I take recognition of this history and I do not dismiss it
>> like you do.
>>

>
> ROTFL! I find it so hard to believe, someone who practically holds it
> aloft as a banner of honor, that they DON'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES! I cannot
> think of a more damning insult, than that which you seem to brag about.
> Dolan, it's never too late to learn - but you have to do it for yourself.
> You seem to take pride in being led around, of being some obstreperous
> sheep, rather than an actual human being. Ever wonder about the Latin term
> for a modern human, Dolan? Ever wonder about it? Did you consider it an
> insult?


I do not mind in the least being led around by history. In fact, I glory in
it. When it comes to the human predicament, there is truly nothing new under
the sun. But everyone is constantly being bamboozled by technology. That is
because we do no have any perspective on the human predicament. That is why
I am a conservative. We conservatives are anchored in the history of our
species on this earth. Liberals are in fantasy land and think they are above
history and that they can achieve utopia if only ... Yea, that is the crux
of it, IF ONLY. Screw it. We humans are not gods. We are only one step above
the dumb creatures and that is where we will always be. We are no more
sapiens than is the ape.

>> Christendom has a fear and hatred of Islam and for good reason. I do not
>> have to examine any individual Muslim in order to know what to think
>> about him. I know what to think about him based on a long history. That
>> is the way it is with me about everything. I consult the history and that
>> is where I settle unless there is good and compelling reason not to
>> settle. I deplore and condemn all those who think they can come to their
>> own conclusions based on their own thinking. That is insane and absurd. I
>> always ask such ego maniacs who do they think they are that they can fly
>> in the face of history.

>
> Dolan, it is you who are flying in the face of history. Mankind's history
> is full of people who did just what you condemn: they thought for
> themselves, they reasoned, they researched. Did you ever wonder why it's
> no longer common knowledge that the earth is flat? That it's no longer
> believed that the sun revoles around the earth? Why, oh, this is a waste
> of time - of COURSE you've never wondered about these things, or any
> things. You've already told us, unbelieveable as it sounds, that you do
> not think. You follow. You adhere to prejudices. You take "short cuts"
> that save you from using your mind.


I do not want Varney thinking about anything. It is OK for Galileo and other
geniuses to be thinking about things, but it is not OK for idiots like
Varney to be thinking on their own. Varney needs to accept what has been
handed down to him from previous generations and not presume to think about
anything for himself. That way lies madness.

It is a full time job for most of us to just learn all that has preceded us.
Let us leave any original thinking to those very few that are capable of it.
Too much thinking will drive inferior minds to the nut house. Varney needs
to realize that he is not in the same category as Galileo and behave himself
accordingly.

The truth is that most of us cannot think ourselves out of paper bag. We are
all of us so incredibly stupid that we should blush at our ignorance. I will
go with history every time about what to think about things and I will
forever abhor all the so-called think-for-themselves screwballs.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
<snip>
> I do not want Varney thinking about anything. It is OK for Galileo and other
> geniuses to be thinking about things, but it is not OK for idiots like
> Varney to be thinking on their own. Varney needs to accept what has been
> handed down to him from previous generations and not presume to think about
> anything for himself. That way lies madness.
>
> It is a full time job for most of us to just learn all that has preceded us.
> Let us leave any original thinking to those very few that are capable of it.
> Too much thinking will drive inferior minds to the nut house. Varney needs
> to realize that he is not in the same category as Galileo and behave himself
> accordingly.
>
> The truth is that most of us cannot think ourselves out of paper bag. We are
> all of us so incredibly stupid that we should blush at our ignorance. I will
> go with history every time about what to think about things and I will
> forever abhor all the so-called think-for-themselves screwballs.
>

It is now quite clear why you do not think for yourself. You feel that you
are "so incredibly stupid", and figure it's safer just to shut off your brain,
rather than risk anything. And, it's now clear why you despise me - as you put
it, you "abhor" anyone who thinks for themself.
You are to be pitied, Dolan.


--
Larry Varney
Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney
 
"Larry Varney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> <snip>
>> I do not want Varney thinking about anything. It is OK for Galileo and
>> other geniuses to be thinking about things, but it is not OK for idiots
>> like Varney to be thinking on their own. Varney needs to accept what has
>> been handed down to him from previous generations and not presume to
>> think about anything for himself. That way lies madness.
>>
>> It is a full time job for most of us to just learn all that has preceded
>> us. Let us leave any original thinking to those very few that are capable
>> of it. Too much thinking will drive inferior minds to the nut house.
>> Varney needs to realize that he is not in the same category as Galileo
>> and behave himself accordingly.
>>
>> The truth is that most of us cannot think ourselves out of paper bag. We
>> are all of us so incredibly stupid that we should blush at our ignorance.
>> I will go with history every time about what to think about things and I
>> will forever abhor all the so-called think-for-themselves screwballs.
>>

> It is now quite clear why you do not think for yourself. You feel that
> you are "so incredibly stupid", and figure it's safer just to shut off
> your brain, rather than risk anything. And, it's now clear why you despise
> me - as you put it, you "abhor" anyone who thinks for themself.
> You are to be pitied, Dolan.


When I say we, I mean most especially you. You are under the illusion that
you are thinking for yourself, but that is not really the case. There is
nothing you have ever thought that someone else has not thought before you.
You are nothing but a carbon copy of those who have preceded you. You strut
about the stage as if in a theater, but it is all for naught. You only fool
yourself.

I know what you are and what you are worth - no more and no less than anyone
else. I am not putting you down, I am merely putting you equal with all the
other slobs in the world - including myself. But really, your liberal
pretensions are insufferable. If there is anything I hate about people, it
is a holier than thou attitude. You have that attitude and that is why I
"despise" you.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> The notorious DiscoDuck strikes yet once again! I wonder how dirty I

should
> get with this jerk. The problem I have is that I have some regard for

my
> good name with others on this group, so I will forgo what I would

really
> like to say to this supreme jerk.


That is because you HAVE nothing to say of quality. Your posts are
simply a way for yout feel better about yourself but no true content
exists in them

> What is really funny is that no one in this world will know what

DiscoDuck
> is going on about. He has top posted and has not included any of the

post
> that he is commenting on. Well, his brain is most likely in his

testicles
> and/or his anus so we can never expect anything intelligent from him.

He is
> only good for scatological and sexual references.


Actually you are the only one complaining that you don't know what I am
saying. Others (with half a brain) are doing fine. This suggests you
have less than half a brain.
 
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:34:20 -0500, "Arne" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <Giyzd.3298$Tf5.771@lakeread03>:

>Always top post the reply, rereading the same note at the top is boring...
>and not necessary... we have already seen it. All we need is the reply. If
>we need more, we can scroll down.....


Unless we want to discuss on a point-by-point basis, ion which case
interleaved quoting is the obvious and most workable solution.

>Scrolling down through a couple of pages to see a one line reply is for
>people with Alzheimer's.......


And quoting the entire thread history untrimmed every time is for
people who simply do not understand how Usenet works - this is the
default behaviour for top-posters. I can't recall offhand a
top-poster who trims, although I'm sure there must be one or two.
Top-posting generally betrays either a lack of thought, a lack of
understanding of the fundamentals if Usenet, or perhaps a user of a
web forum which uses a Usenet group as a feed, in which case ignorance
often leads posters to believe that the web forum /is/ the group.

>For me, I can look at the subject and recall what has previously been
>written... I don't need to see it all over again on every reply.....


Lucky you. Some of us subscribe to more than one group, follow more
than one discussion at a time, and do not check every group every day.

>So, top post the reply, put the repeated **** at the bottom, where those of
>us with a usable memory can ignore it.


NO! If you *must* top-post, excise the previous post altogether - or
at least remove its antecedents. Otherwise a large amount of the
storage used by the news server is taken up with untrimmed quoted
text, usually including .sigs, because the people who top-post all
seem to be Outhouse users, and Outhouse does not, by default, do any
of the things which good practice demands.

Now if Outhouse behaviour were the norm there would follow not only
your entire previous post but the whole past thread to this point.

Get OE-QuoteFix and start using Usenet properly :)
 
Yes, leave Ed alone. You should have all figured out by now that Ed is
really Johnny NoCom, just looking for a little recognition.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:34:20 -0500, "Arne" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <Giyzd.3298$Tf5.771@lakeread03>:
>
>>Always top post the reply, rereading the same note at the top is boring...
>>and not necessary... we have already seen it. All we need is the reply. If
>>we need more, we can scroll down.....

>
> Unless we want to discuss on a point-by-point basis, ion which case
> interleaved quoting is the obvious and most workable solution.
>
>>Scrolling down through a couple of pages to see a one line reply is for
>>people with Alzheimer's.......

>
> And quoting the entire thread history untrimmed every time is for
> people who simply do not understand how Usenet works - this is the
> default behaviour for top-posters. I can't recall offhand a
> top-poster who trims, although I'm sure there must be one or two.
> Top-posting generally betrays either a lack of thought, a lack of
> understanding of the fundamentals if Usenet, or perhaps a user of a
> web forum which uses a Usenet group as a feed, in which case ignorance
> often leads posters to believe that the web forum /is/ the group.
>
>>For me, I can look at the subject and recall what has previously been
>>written... I don't need to see it all over again on every reply.....

>
> Lucky you. Some of us subscribe to more than one group, follow more
> than one discussion at a time, and do not check every group every day.
>
>>So, top post the reply, put the repeated **** at the bottom, where those
>>of
>>us with a usable memory can ignore it.

>
> NO! If you *must* top-post, excise the previous post altogether - or
> at least remove its antecedents. Otherwise a large amount of the
> storage used by the news server is taken up with untrimmed quoted
> text, usually including .sigs, because the people who top-post all
> seem to be Outhouse users, and Outhouse does not, by default, do any
> of the things which good practice demands.
>
> Now if Outhouse behaviour were the norm there would follow not only
> your entire previous post but the whole past thread to this point.
>
> Get OE-QuoteFix and start using Usenet properly :)
>
 
Duh, thanks for the response.

Interleaved is a pain in the ass..... it requires even more time to figure
out what to read. Especially if the posting idiots have just kept reusing
the orig post and those dumb > things just keep adding to the clutter.

This top-poster trims. I also read more than one newsgroup.... and I can
certainly recall enough about the thread so as not to have to reread all the
**** that has gone before. If I need a hint, I can scroll down.

Being of Yankee blood in New England, I have frequently used an out house.
But not lately.... we used what we had.

You will never have to go to the bottom of any of my messages to read.....
"duh, thanks for the response..." . It will be at the top....(see above).
..
Arne, USA
..
..
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Nothing of consequence......
 
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:34:05 -0500, "Arne" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <eTAzd.3302$Tf5.832@lakeread03>:

>Duh, thanks for the response.


You're welcome.

>Interleaved is a pain in the ass..... it requires even more time to figure
>out what to read. Especially if the posting idiots have just kept reusing
>the orig post and those dumb > things just keep adding to the clutter.


Ah, right, so your contempt extends to the standards as well as the
conventions of Usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
 
There are a lot of stupid conventions in the world I disagree with (but not
have contempt for; that is your word)... this may be one of them.. along
with bottom posting. Another is wearing a neck tie... now, there is a useful
convention. Oh, and at the top of my list is the greeting: "Hi, how are
you.?".....

If there is anything else you would like clarified, let me know.... always
glad to help. I see you have foresworn the convention of using your name for
some cutsie little thing to hide behind. Wuz up wid dat?
..
Arne, USA
..
..
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ah, right, so your contempt extends to the standards as well as the
> conventions of Usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
>
 
Arne wrote:
> There are a lot of stupid conventions in the world I disagree with (but not
> have contempt for; that is your word)... this may be one of them.. along
> with bottom posting. Another is wearing a neck tie... now, there is a useful
> convention. Oh, and at the top of my list is the greeting: "Hi, how are
> you.?".....


Hi, how are you?

Yes, there are stupid conventions, but bottom posting and interleaving
responses are not among them. Guy Chapman is correct in everything he
has written in this thread on the issue of top vs. bottom posting.

> If there is anything else you would like clarified, let me know.... always
> glad to help. I see you have foresworn the convention of using your name for
> some cutsie little thing to hide behind. Wuz up wid dat?


Guy's full name appears in the header. :)

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
 
Richard Drown wrote:

> Yes, leave Ed alone. You should have all figured out by now that Ed is
> really Johnny NoCom, just looking for a little recognition.


Johnny NoCom's real name is:

FABRIZIO MAZZOLENI!

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
 
--
NoBodyHome
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Drown wrote:
>
>> Yes, leave Ed alone. You should have all figured out by now that Ed is
>> really Johnny NoCom, just looking for a little recognition.

>
> Johnny NoCom's real name is:
>
> FABRIZIO MAZZOLENI!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island











Now, that if funny... lol....
>
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Arne wrote:
>> There are a lot of stupid conventions in the world I disagree with (but
>> not have contempt for; that is your word)... this may be one of them..
>> along with bottom posting. Another is wearing a neck tie... now, there is
>> a useful convention. Oh, and at the top of my list is the greeting: "Hi,
>> how are you.?".....

>
> Hi, how are you?
>
> Yes, there are stupid conventions, but bottom posting and interleaving
> responses are not among them. Guy Chapman is correct in everything he has
> written in this thread on the issue of top vs. bottom posting.
>
>> If there is anything else you would like clarified, let me know....
>> always glad to help. I see you have foresworn the convention of using
>> your name for some cutsie little thing to hide behind. Wuz up wid dat?

>
> Guy's full name appears in the header. :)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island





I couldn't agree more. Postings should be on the bottom.
>
 
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:17:33 -0500, "Arne" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <syBzd.3306$Tf5.754@lakeread03>:

>> Ah, right, so your contempt extends to the standards as well as the
>> conventions of Usenet. Thanks for the clarification.


>There are a lot of stupid conventions in the world I disagree with


What part of "standards" were you having trouble understanding?

>If there is anything else you would like clarified, let me know.... always
>glad to help. I see you have foresworn the convention of using your name for
>some cutsie little thing to hide behind. Wuz up wid dat?


Ah, my .sig seems to be missing for some reason. Thank you.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:11:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Guy's full name appears in the header. :)


And my given name usually in the .sig, which was borked for some
reason, plus my full name is stated on my home page, linked in my
..sig.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
--
NoBodyHome
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:17:33 -0500, "Arne" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <syBzd.3306$Tf5.754@lakeread03>:
>
>>> Ah, right, so your contempt extends to the standards as well as the
>>> conventions of Usenet. Thanks for the clarification.

>
>>There are a lot of stupid conventions in the world I disagree with

>
> What part of "standards" were you having trouble understanding?
>
>>If there is anything else you would like clarified, let me know.... always
>>glad to help. I see you have foresworn the convention of using your name
>>for
>>some cutsie little thing to hide behind. Wuz up wid dat?

>
> Ah, my .sig seems to be missing for some reason. Thank you.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound


Good job, that.....
 
"Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Giyzd.3298$Tf5.771@lakeread03...
> Always top post the reply, rereading the same note at the top is boring...
> and not necessary... we have already seen it. All we need is the reply. If
> we need more, we can scroll down.....
>
> Scrolling down through a couple of pages to see a one line reply is for
> people with Alzheimer's.......
>
> For me, I can look at the subject and recall what has previously been
> written... I don't need to see it all over again on every reply.....
>
> So, top post the reply, put the repeated **** at the bottom, where those
> of us with a usable memory can ignore it.
> .
> Arne, USA


Arne is incorrigible on this matter, but he is wrong. He needs to read up on
Usenet etiquette.

--
Regards.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 

Similar threads

V
Replies
0
Views
338
Mountain Bikes
Virginia Newbon
V