Real Names vs. User Names



"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to be.
>> I
>> am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into the
>> wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right mental
>> attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially have
>> all
>> the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle course
>> which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to
>> them,
>> not a pilgrimage of the soul.

>
> Well said : but define a "mountain biker"? If its some goateed **** who
> says "kewl" a lot then I would agree. If it were someone with a
> mountainbike who is using a mountainbike for the rougher terrain on a
> long distance tour then I would disagree. Touring cyclists fit into your
> "pilgrimage" group too you know.


If that is indeed the case, then I will allow them to pass unmolested on my
sacred footpaths.

I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was suitable for
mountain bikes. I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue
to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike. The road can be
very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail. Jeep roads, sometimes
called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes as
well as all gravel roads of course.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
>> So your deduction of more threads is wrong.

In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>It is my impression that text only documents take up hardly any space at
>all.


This is true only in context.

>> A groups and R groups are admined differently.

>
>What is an A group (alternate?) and what is an R group (recreation?)?


You got those right.

> How do they differ from one another?


The alt.* hierarchy of groups were set up by John Gilmore (chanced to
see him on Friday evening) as a more loosely administered set of news
groups than the more main stream big-7/8. Admining by hierarchy is
easier than individual group (although this is done in a few cases).

If an ISP does not want to carry the alt.* groups or expire articles at
a shorter frequency that is possible.

Cross posting between hierarchies means that software has to decide
whether big-8 or alt.* expiration policies hold. Most take a
conservative approach and keep the big-8 groups longer.

This is also why full feeds between ISPs are highly coveted.

>What is "admined"? I am using the OE

Short for administered.
>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that?


Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users.
Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems.

--
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to be.
> >> I
> >> am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into the
> >> wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right mental
> >> attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially have
> >> all
> >> the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle course
> >> which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to
> >> them,
> >> not a pilgrimage of the soul.

> >
> > Well said : but define a "mountain biker"? If its some goateed **** who
> > says "kewl" a lot then I would agree. If it were someone with a
> > mountainbike who is using a mountainbike for the rougher terrain on a
> > long distance tour then I would disagree. Touring cyclists fit into your
> > "pilgrimage" group too you know.

>
> If that is indeed the case, then I will allow them to pass unmolested on my
> sacred footpaths.


"Allow"? Since you don't own the public lands, it's not your place to
allow or disallow.

"Your"? See my previous comment.

"Sacred"? I don't recognize your right to call a public resource
"sacred", so I guess you'll just have to swallow the disappointment of
having to share.

> I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was suitable for
> mountain bikes.


Not been in Colorado or Utah much, then? Any trail that's suitable for
walking is suitable for mountain bikes.

> I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue
> to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike.


Luckily, your beliefs only bind you, and nobody else.

> The road can be
> very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail.


Isn't a trail a very small road?

> Jeep roads, sometimes
> called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes as
> well as all gravel roads of course.


Actually, the best mountain bike trails are shared-use trails -
hiking/biking (no horses/mules). And the less hikers, the better.
Hikers tend to walk side-by-side and widen the trail unnecessarily,
walk around wet spots to make the wet spots wider, and leave trash and
dog feces (yeah, they bring their dogs, and don't clean up after them.)

Now, if you'd like to buy some land, and designate it as "no bikes",
then that is your perogative. On public lands where biking on trails
is allowed, you'd best keep your snobbish attitude to yourself. But,
guessing from your posts, you'd only dare voice your opinion behind the
safety of your keyboard.

E.P.
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4468aedc$1@darkstar...

Alt. newsgroup restored.

>>> So your deduction of more threads is wrong.

>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It is my impression that text only documents take up hardly any space at
>>all.

>
> This is true only in context.
>
>>> A groups and R groups are admined differently.

>>
>>What is an A group (alternate?) and what is an R group (recreation?)?

>
> You got those right.
>
>> How do they differ from one another?

>
> The alt.* hierarchy of groups were set up by John Gilmore (chanced to
> see him on Friday evening) as a more loosely administered set of news
> groups than the more main stream big-7/8. Admining by hierarchy is
> easier than individual group (although this is done in a few cases).
>
> If an ISP does not want to carry the alt.* groups or expire articles at
> a shorter frequency that is possible.
>
> Cross posting between hierarchies means that software has to decide
> whether big-8 or alt.* expiration policies hold. Most take a
> conservative approach and keep the big-8 groups longer.
>
> This is also why full feeds between ISPs are highly coveted.
>
>>What is "admined"? I am using the OE

> Short for administered.
>>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that?

>
> Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users.
> Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems.


Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I know
about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to
spare.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:

> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual
Sorrows? Am I missing something here?
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> You are aware, aren't you, that Mike Vandeman SUPPORTS harming bicycle
>> operators by stringing piano wire across the trail, and setting stakes in
>> a position to impale riders as they round a curve or jump a log? Yes, my
>> friend, Michael J Vandeman supports killing bike riders. There has been
>> discussion here as to whether or not he personally participates in these
>> activities. I have no proof that he is a participant, but the tenor of
>> his postings clearly show his support.

>
> He is just fantasizing as I do myself.
>



There is absolutely NO evidence that he is fantasizing.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>I must confess I have a terrific bias in favor of members of
>>>>>>>>>newsgroups who use their real names. I think what happens when you
>>>>>>>>>use a user name is that you tend to hide behind it and behave more
>>>>>>>>>or less like a scoundrel. However, if you are going to use a user
>>>>>>>>>name, then it had best make some kind of sense. I will not stand
>>>>>>>>>for gobbledygook.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman uses his real name, and all he posts is gobbledygook,
>>>>>>>> and he makes no effort to conceal the fact that he is a scoundrel.
>>>>>>>> I like your theory, but I found an exception to the rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not noted the offenses that you speak of in reference to
>>>>>>> Vandeman. Like me, he is contentious and returns invective with
>>>>>>> invective. After all, if someone is calling you a liar, then you
>>>>>>> have every right to return the favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, you must be new here. Mike posts huge quantities of flawed
>>>>>> data, where the flaws always support his agenda. The data NEVER takes
>>>>>> into account the facts that many of the routes he would close -- he
>>>>>> would close them all, by the way -- have been on the ground for a
>>>>>> century, sometimes more. He is prone to point to his own work as
>>>>>> proof of his assertions. He ignores any fact that refutes his
>>>>>> assertions in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if what you say is true, I like his bias. It is the same as mine.
>>>>> I am against mountain bikers using trails that were originally
>>>>> designed for hikers. Mountain bikers need to have their own trails,
>>>>> and those trails should never go anywhere near a wilderness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is NOT Mike's bias. His bias is to CLOSE all wilderness areas to
>>>> all visitation. Today, his rubber du jour is bike tires, tomorrow his
>>>> rubber will be boots. His bias seems to completely ignore development
>>>> and go after recreational uses.
>>>
>>> Wilderness Areas can be used by hikers (with some limitations from time
>>> to time perhaps) and horse parties, if not too large. But that is about
>>> it as far as I am concerned. I do not even like helicopters flying
>>> overhead. Needless to say, Wildernesss Areas need to be managed even for
>>> the use of hikers and horses, just as all natural areas need to be
>>> managed. No one can ever do just whatever they want to do.
>>>

>>
>> I have never heard anybody call for open range on a wilderness area,
>> where we can go in and do whatever we want. Personally, all I want is to
>> travel on the existing routes to get from one place to another. I'm all
>> for management, that's fine. What I don't want is a gate across the
>> trail. As I said in another post, I have a trail in my area that is a
>> hold over from the Pony Express days, and the Mike Vandeman crowd wants
>> it closed to everybody.

>
> I will go along with you on that. Roads that are already established, even
> jeep roads, can stay but let us preserve what little wilderness is left by
> banning any more roads. Frankly, I do not think we need any more trails
> either, except perhaps trails for mountain bikes in already developed
> recreational areas.
>
> The wilderness is sacred to me. It is where we all come from as a species.
> We should revere it and preserve it as best we can. There is just so
> little of it left. You really need to go to old Europe to see what man has
> done to that continent. Yes, parts of it are a garden, but there is no
> wilderness left there (except maybe in the high arctic). We do not need to
> do the New World what man has done to the Old World.
>


The wilderness is sacred to me as well, that is why I fight to keep the
trails open. We (the recreation community) are losing routes at an
astounding rate, routes that have been in inventory for decades, centuries
even. I leave the creation battles to other people, I'm happy to keep what I
have and not be locked out.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Alt. newsgroup restored.


What ever.

>>>What is "admined"? I am using the OE

>> Short for administered.
>>>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that?

>>
>> Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users.
>> Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems.

>
>Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I know
>about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to
>spare.


And you are proud of that?

Learn some stuff about the net. Get over into other groups and web sites.
Do something more than posting an opinion or lurking.

--
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446a6508$1@darkstar...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Alt. newsgroup restored.

>
> What ever.


Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups?

>>>>What is "admined"? I am using the OE
>>> Short for administered.
>>>>newsreader. How does what you say impact on that?
>>>
>>> Reader clients like OE are only a problem for posting or reading users.
>>> Like bad dogs and children, in the wrong hands, they are problems.

>>
>>Thanks for all the useful information. I never knew any of that. What I
>>know
>>about computers and the Internet you could put in a thimble with room to
>>spare.

>
> And you are proud of that?
>
> Learn some stuff about the net. Get over into other groups and web sites.
> Do something more than posting an opinion or lurking.


I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially
newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much
lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for
idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when
the groups are not moderated.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

>
>
> What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual
> Sorrows? Am I missing something here?


My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed others'
signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from
Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered.

But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. I
am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who is
not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are
living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter here!
There, now you are not missing anything anymore!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> I do not do much
> lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for
> idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever.


LOL!

I see you fit right in eh.

Mike
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups?


Because that's why we implemented the Followup-To: line in headers.

You can similarly ask you you don't?
You can similarly ask why you attribute an entire article than the
relevant bits (a subject decision). The usual argument is for full context.
That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts.

It's a job.


>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially
>newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much

Then what are you doing here?
>lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for
>idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when

like yourself?
>the groups are not moderated.


The same question is asked not only of news groups but blogs, Wikis, and
other internet protocols.
1) People are lazy, even vandals. 2) The number of non-vandals appears
to exceed vandals. 3) Some lazy people are lazy in different ways.
I could go on.

If you don't really give a damn, and I know many people who don't,
you are really wasting your time here.

--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

>>
>> What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual
>> Sorrows? Am I missing something here?

>
>My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed others'
>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from
>Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered.


I like Peter's posting.
Chalk one minus point.

Signatures here developed due to early network unreliabilities.

Done well they can be very powerful; knowing this from personal experience.


>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups. I
>am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who is
>not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are
>living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter here!
>There, now you are not missing anything anymore!


I've seen no greatness nor saintliness. You could be.
I have been somewhat lucky/fortunate to have encountered a few pretty
good brains of our age. I will wait over time for you to demonstrate it.

The greatest people on the net that I know tend to have a minimum of 2
secretaries (I have 0), and they don't have time to post. Some did
decades ago when they were grad students or asst. profs. or other lower
position. They have people read for them if and where it matters.

--
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446b89f2$1@darkstar...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>>> aka
>>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>>
>>> What's all this "Great" business? And why "aka" as the the Perpetual
>>> Sorrows? Am I missing something here?

>>
>>My signature developed over time mostly as a result of how I viewed
>>others'
>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter Clinch from
>>Scotland. He absolutely has the dumbest signature I have ever encountered.

>
> I like Peter's posting.
> Chalk one minus point.
>
> Signatures here developed due to early network unreliabilities.
>
> Done well they can be very powerful; knowing this from personal
> experience.


His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business
transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to
cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else
does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of
signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance.

>>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups.
>>I
>>am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not. Anyone who
>>is
>>not in a state of perpetual sorrow at the miserable kind of world we are
>>living in is beyond the pale. Earth ... abandon all hope ye who enter
>>here!
>>There, now you are not missing anything anymore!

>
> I've seen no greatness nor saintliness. You could be.
> I have been somewhat lucky/fortunate to have encountered a few pretty
> good brains of our age. I will wait over time for you to demonstrate it.


There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are.

> The greatest people on the net that I know tend to have a minimum of 2
> secretaries (I have 0), and they don't have time to post. Some did
> decades ago when they were grad students or asst. profs. or other lower
> position. They have people read for them if and where it matters.


I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know
now is that it is for idiots exclusively. What do secretaries have to do
with anything.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446b8881$1@darkstar...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups?

>
> Because that's why we implemented the Followup-To: line in headers.


I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool around
with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with my
original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for
many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a
follow-up.

> You can similarly ask you you don't?


Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above
sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess.

> You can similarly ask why you attribute an entire article than the
> relevant bits (a subject decision). The usual argument is for full
> context.
> That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts.


I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look
good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows they
do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message.

> It's a job.


I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is
something wrong with way your brain works.

>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially
>>newsgroups, other than having some fun with all three. I do not do much

> Then what are you doing here?
>>lurking anymore since I have discovered that all newsgroups are by and for
>>idiots, without any exceptions whatsoever. How could it be otherwise when

> like yourself?
>>the groups are not moderated.


Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God, what
a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy.

> The same question is asked not only of news groups but blogs, Wikis, and
> other internet protocols.
> 1) People are lazy, even vandals. 2) The number of non-vandals appears
> to exceed vandals. 3) Some lazy people are lazy in different ways.
> I could go on.


Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all
times, even though you are a scientist.

> If you don't really give a damn, and I know many people who don't,
> you are really wasting your time here.


YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't?

Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun and
games. Why the hell do you do it?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[newsgroups restored]

Why does not this idiot post also to ARBR since everyone knows that is where
I am at. He no doubt does not want a response from someone so Great as
Myself.

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> I am not as concerned about erosion to the trail as you imagine me to
>> >> be.
>> >> I
>> >> am concerned about the kind of mental attitudes that others take into
>> >> the
>> >> wilderness with them. Only hikers and equestrians have the right
>> >> mental
>> >> attitude for the wilderness (reverence). Mountain bikers especially
>> >> have
>> >> all
>> >> the wrong attitudes. They view the trail as some kind of obstacle
>> >> course
>> >> which they are challenged to conquer. In other words, it is a sport to
>> >> them,
>> >> not a pilgrimage of the soul.
>> >
>> > Well said : but define a "mountain biker"? If its some goateed **** who
>> > says "kewl" a lot then I would agree. If it were someone with a
>> > mountainbike who is using a mountainbike for the rougher terrain on a
>> > long distance tour then I would disagree. Touring cyclists fit into
>> > your
>> > "pilgrimage" group too you know.

>>
>> If that is indeed the case, then I will allow them to pass unmolested on
>> my
>> sacred footpaths.

>
> "Allow"? Since you don't own the public lands, it's not your place to
> allow or disallow.


There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only.
Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the
original trail users. Get your own g.d. trails.

> "Your"? See my previous comment.
>
> "Sacred"? I don't recognize your right to call a public resource
> "sacred", so I guess you'll just have to swallow the disappointment of
> having to share.


If you are just into fun and games on your g.d. bike, the get thee to a
recreation area designed for that kind of nonsense. The wilderness is not
for the likes of you.

>> I have never yet seen a high altitude trail that I thought was suitable
>> for
>> mountain bikes.

>
> Not been in Colorado or Utah much, then? Any trail that's suitable for
> walking is suitable for mountain bikes.


Now I know why Vandeman calls all mountain bikers LIARS! But they are also
SCOUNDRELS! May the Devil take them!

>> I have seen such trails at lower elevations. But I continue
>> to believe that some kind of road is best suited for a bike.

>
> Luckily, your beliefs only bind you, and nobody else.


Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from
wilderness areas. You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
slob.

>> The road can be
>> very rough, but is should be a road and not a trail.

>
> Isn't a trail a very small road?


No! Never! A road will require some construction. Most trails are nothing
but simple footpaths and involve little if any construction. They are easily
destroyed by bikes.

>> Jeep roads, sometimes
>> called 4-wheel drive roads, would seem to be ideal for mountain bikes as
>> well as all gravel roads of course.

>
> Actually, the best mountain bike trails are shared-use trails -
> hiking/biking (no horses/mules). And the less hikers, the better.
> Hikers tend to walk side-by-side and widen the trail unnecessarily,
> walk around wet spots to make the wet spots wider, and leave trash and
> dog feces (yeah, they bring their dogs, and don't clean up after them.)


Anyone who brings a dog on one of my sacred footpaths is a slob equally as
evil as a mountain biker.
Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they
belong!

> Now, if you'd like to buy some land, and designate it as "no bikes",
> then that is your perogative. On public lands where biking on trails
> is allowed, you'd best keep your snobbish attitude to yourself. But,
> guessing from your posts, you'd only dare voice your opinion behind the
> safety of your keyboard.


The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of conflicts
among users. Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already
developed recreation areas. Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero.

Regards,

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter

>> Chalk one minus point.

>
>His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business
>transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to
>cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else
>does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of
>signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance.


Tens times maybe, doubt 100. I have used signatures. I have
accomplished amazing things trolling with sigs. Lots of people have
signatures like Peter. He's far less a jerk than you are pushing your
points. If you want to hold him to cycling, you have to hold yourself
to the same if not better standard.

Chalk another minus point.

>>>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the newsgroups.
>>>I am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not.

>>
>> I've seen no greatness nor saintliness

>
>There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are.


Oh I would disagree with the first. And you are being dopey for not
seeing the brains out there. Pretty dumb hanging with other dopey
people, eh?

>I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know

Well, I do.
>now is that it is for idiots exclusively.


Such as yourself?

>What do secretaries have to do with anything.


Greatness.
--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups?


Testing reality.

>> Followup-To:

>
>I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool around

A less than full functionr reader.
>with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with my
>original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for
>many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a
>follow-up.


On the contrary millions other than yourself do.

>> You can similarly ask you don't?

>
>Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above
>sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess.


Think typos. Not the greatest SAT score.

>> That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts.

>
>I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look
>good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows they
>do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message.


A complete message has little to do with the appearance of intellect.
This isn't a matter of looking good.


>> It's a job.

>
>I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is
>something wrong with way your brain works.


That's not my problem. While poseurs have complained about my
moderation, 3 prior moderators and a slew of others support me.
It's a variation of Moose turd pie or the little chicken baking bread
and others wanting slices.


>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially

...
>> Then what are you doing here?

>
>Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God, what
>a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy.


Lazy in a different kind of lazy as the average person as well documented.

>Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all
>times, even though you are a scientist.


Literate like Minniver Cheevey?
I find that most scientists more literate in the right areas than most
non-scientists.

>YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't?


It's a job.

>Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun and
>games. Why the hell do you do it?


Professional uses of the internet.
We locate talented users of the net.

> the Great - Minnesota

seemingly less than.
>Saint

Still unconvinced. Are you under the influence?

--
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446d3f2e$1@darkstar...

[newsgroups restored]

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter
>>> Chalk one minus point.

>>
>>His signature might be appropriate if he were involved in business
>>transactions or his own blog on a website, but on newsgroups related to
>>cycling it has no place at all. He is a jerk plain and simple. No one else
>>does his kind of signature. By the way, why don't you have some kind of
>>signature? False modesty is a hundred times worse than false arrogance.

>
> Tens times maybe, doubt 100. I have used signatures. I have
> accomplished amazing things trolling with sigs. Lots of people have
> signatures like Peter. He's far less a jerk than you are pushing your
> points. If you want to hold him to cycling, you have to hold yourself
> to the same if not better standard.
>
> Chalk another minus point.


Peter Clinch is a jerk because he takes newsgroups seriously. That is why
his confounded signature never fails to **** me off. I do not take
newsgroups seriously (as my every post attests) so I can have any kind of
signature which pleases my fancy. In fact, my signature is so outrageous
that only a numskull like you would take it seriously.

I am thinking of upping the ante on my signature to make it even more
outrageous than it already is. Why the hell should a jerk like Peter Clinch
have a a longer signature than someone so Great as Myself!

Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya.

>>>>But my signature is also a clue as to how I view others on the
>>>>newsgroups.
>>>>I am Great and they are not and I am Saintly and they are not.
>>>
>>> I've seen no greatness nor saintliness

>>
>>There are no brains on Usenet. You are a dope for thinking that there are.

>
> Oh I would disagree with the first. And you are being dopey for not
> seeing the brains out there. Pretty dumb hanging with other dopey
> people, eh?


I hang out here for amusement only. How many times do I have to tell you
this before it sinks in.

>>I do not have the foggiest idea what Usenet was like ages ago. All I know

> Well, I do.
>>now is that it is for idiots exclusively.

>
> Such as yourself?


Glad to see you are finally getting with the program. I will keep reminding
you just how stupid you are lest you forget.

>>What do secretaries have to do with anything.

>
> Greatness.


I have never known a secretary in my life who was not as dumb as an ox.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446d416f$1@darkstar...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Why do you keep horsing around editing the newsgroups?

>
> Testing reality.
>
>>> Followup-To:

>>
>>I do not see any follow-ups on my newsreader. But in any event, fool
>>around

> A less than full functionr reader.
>>with your own original messages. I do not like others fooling around with
>>my
>>original messages. All you are really doing is screwing up the thread for
>>many on other newsgroups. No one will go to another group to read a
>>follow-up.

>
> On the contrary millions other than yourself do.


Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane?

>>> You can similarly ask you don't?

>>
>>Eugene, there is something wrong with the way your brain works. The above
>>sentence does not make any sense to me. It is grammatically a mess.

>
> Think typos. Not the greatest SAT score.


Everyone make typos, but if you are making too many of them, then you are a
slob who has no consideration for the reader.

>>> That's silly in the extreme case of "Me, too" posts.

>>
>>I agree, but I do not like those who edit a post to make themselves look
>>good at the expense of the other person. Way too many do that. It shows
>>they
>>do not have any confidence in their ability to handle a complete message.

>
> A complete message has little to do with the appearance of intellect.
> This isn't a matter of looking good.


Looking good is what it is all about. You obviously have never been saddled
with a liberal arts education. I envy scientists who think they are educated
because they have pursued nothing but science. Try to get some culture, why
don't you?

>>> It's a job.

>>
>>I do not think you would be a good moderator at all because there is
>>something wrong with way your brain works.

>
> That's not my problem. While poseurs have complained about my
> moderation, 3 prior moderators and a slew of others support me.
> It's a variation of Moose turd pie or the little chicken baking bread
> and others wanting slices.


Yes, I realize it is most likely a thankless job. How would you ever be able
to please me for instance? Perish the thought!

>>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially

> ..
>>> Then what are you doing here?

>>
>>Your freaking comments should have followed my complete statement. God,
>>what
>>a dunce! You are not only dumb, but you are incurably lazy.

>
> Lazy in a different kind of lazy as the average person as well documented.
>
>>Just quit taking shortcuts with me. I expect you to be literate at all
>>times, even though you are a scientist.

>
> Literate like Minniver Cheevey?
> I find that most scientists more literate in the right areas than most
> non-scientists.


I find it just the opposite. Scientists seem like the original dummies to
me, besides being the ultimate dullards. It all comes from their lack of a
liberal arts education.

>>YES! Of course I am wasting my time! And you aren't?

>
> It's a job.


How is it your job to be posting to these freaking cycling newsgroups?

>>Anyone who is posting to Usenet is wasting his time. I do it for the fun
>>and
>>games. Why the hell do you do it?

>
> Professional uses of the internet.
> We locate talented users of the net.


So what the hell do these freaking newsgroups have to do with the Internet?
And why would you want anyone with any brains on the Internet anyway? Yes,
the computer and the Internet were invented by some very smart people, but
it is for dummies like you and me and all the rest of mankind. That is ever
the way of it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota