Real Names vs. User Names



"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
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> [newsgroups restored]


Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.

> > "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.


Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.

Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
get used to them.

> Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the
> original trail users.


Merely your opinion.

> Get your own g.d. trails.


Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...

> > "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.


Strawman. Try again.

> The wilderness is not
> for the likes of you.


Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.

> >> 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!


An unsupported hypothesis by both of you.

The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.

And they weren't at very high altitudes.

The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
CO and UT.

So much for your blanket statement, eh?

> >> 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.


Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.

> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
> slob.


Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!

Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.

> >> 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!


Of course it is. It passes traffic, either human or animal, and it
goes from place to place.

Sounds like a road to me.


> A road will require some construction.


Trails don't spring up from nothing. They have to be cut, and usually,
animals do the "construction", using their hooves to flatten and
defoliate a path. No different han using a shovel - just slower.

> Most trails ... are easily
> destroyed by bikes.


Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
LOGIC?

> >> 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.


Again with the "sacred" and "your". Unless you personally own the land
the trail sits on, the trails are, at best, "ours." And sacred? I
don't recognize your religion as valid or real. Get over it.

> Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they
> belong!


I think you are mixing your religions.

> > 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.


Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
grade. What's your excuse?

> Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already
> developed recreation areas.


Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.

> Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero.


Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
good-looking.

E.P.
 
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?

--
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> [newsgroups restored]

>
> Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.


You were impolite, so I was impolite back. Surely that is fair.

>> > "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.

>
> Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
> the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.


That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first
built - over a hundred years ago in many instances. Unless those original
trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes.

> Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
> get used to them.


It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
totally different mental attitudes are involved. Mountain bikers are into
fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God.

>> Mountain bikes are late comers. They mostly constitute a nuisance to the
>> original trail users.

>
> Merely your opinion.
>
>> Get your own g.d. trails.

>
> Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
> segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
> into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...


I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed
recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM
lands. I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict
mountain biking. Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.

>> > "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.

>
> Strawman. Try again.
>
>> The wilderness is not
>> for the likes of you.

>
> Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.


There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on. That
you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike marks you as a
savage. Try to get some culture, why don't 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!

>
> An unsupported hypothesis by both of you.
>
> The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
> were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
> scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.
>
> And they weren't at very high altitudes.
>
> The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
> CO and UT.
>
> So much for your blanket statement, eh?


Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth!

>> >> 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.

>
> Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
> want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
> your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.


All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to
bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that.

>> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
>> slob.

>
> Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
> that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!
>
> Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
> trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.


When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games. It is nothing but
a g.d. sport to you. You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my
sacred wilderness. You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and
all the finer things in life. May you perish for your blasphemy against the
Wilderness.

>> >> 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!

>
> Of course it is. It passes traffic, either human or animal, and it
> goes from place to place.
>
> Sounds like a road to me.
>
>
>> A road will require some construction.

>
> Trails don't spring up from nothing. They have to be cut, and usually,
> animals do the "construction", using their hooves to flatten and
> defoliate a path. No different han using a shovel - just slower.
>
>> Most trails ... are easily
>> destroyed by bikes.

>
> Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
> LOGIC?


Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads.

>> >> 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.

>
> Again with the "sacred" and "your". Unless you personally own the land
> the trail sits on, the trails are, at best, "ours." And sacred? I
> don't recognize your religion as valid or real. Get over it.
>
>> Why doesn't the Devil take such miscreants immediately to Hell where they
>> belong!

>
> I think you are mixing your religions.
>
>> > 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.

>
> Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
> personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
> grade. What's your excuse?


We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
mental.

>> Mountain bikes need their own trails, preferably in already
>> developed recreation areas.

>
> Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
> even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
> while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.


"We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
mental." - Ed Dolan

>> Why waste wilderness on slobs like Ed Pirrero.

>
> Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
> computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
> good-looking.


You are not worthy of wilderness. What you are worthy of is Coney Island
and/or Disney World. Why can't you slobs stay where you belong - among your
own kind. We do not want you in our sacred wilderness unless you adopt the
humble posture of the hiker. Arrogant bikers belong on roads or specially
constructed bike trails.

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: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
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> [newsgroups restored]

> >
> > Obviously, netiquette is not your forte.

>
> You were impolite, so I was impolite back.


Impolite by trimming the huge x-post? That's a very strange definition
of "impolite".

So strange, in fact, that I think you are just being a weasel.

> Surely that is fair.


Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right (even assuming that eliminating
the massive x-post is impolite.)

That and your idiotic full-quoting. You're the last person who should
be making politeness determinations.

> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only.

> >
> > Actually, the history has been that only those things *existed*. In
> > the last 30 years, types and kinds of uses have expanded somewhat.

>
> That is unfortunately true, but I go back to when those trails were first
> built - over a hundred years ago in many instances.


"Built"? You're kidding, right? Many of the trails, and even roadways
we use, started as *game trails*. They weren't built, they were
co-opted by human hikers.

> Unless those original
> trails have been upgraded, they are not suited for bikes.


How strange, then, that I can ride on game trails all day long. How is
that possible?

In fact, I can ride on trails *too narrow* for comfortable walking. So
your unique definition of "trails suitable for biking" or "walking" is
questionable, at best.

> > Since you will unable to curtail those uses, you should find a way to
> > get used to them.

>
> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
> totally different mental attitudes are involved.


This is a strawman argument. And one made with absolutely no real
knowledge. You have no idea what "attitude" MTBers bring with them on
the trail.

> Mountain bikers are into
> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God.


Neither of those characterizations is even close to being true for the
majority of the persons in the groups you mention.

You should really check the hypocrisy meter before you call other
people "liars".

> > Luckily, we can use multi-use trails without destroying more land for
> > segregated trails. You're advocating additional human encroachment
> > into wild spaces? Hmmm, doesn't sound very respectful of nature...

>
> I am advocating that bike trails be built only in already developed
> recreational areas. This can include much of the National Forest and BLM
> lands.


And that's where the hugely vast majority of those trails are. The
multi-use ones, that is.

> I trust the National Parks and State Parks to severely restrict
> mountain biking.


The National Parks already are very restricted, and I'm not sure
there's much of a problem with this, from any quarter. But don't
imagine that somehow this will keep them pristine - if you've ever
hiked in Arches NP, you'll see that foot traffic only has made trails
over 10 feet wide in places - and that's a huge swath in terms of a
fragile ecosystem.

State parks? I know of a few in WA that *encourage* MTBing. Like
Deception Pass State Park. The trails near Cranberry Lake are great.

> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.


Yeah, you're a real tough guy. LOL.


> >> The wilderness is not
> >> for the likes of you.

> >
> > Of course it is. You'll just have to get used to sharing it.

>
> There are plenty of recreational lands for you to ride your bike on.


And in those areas where there are multi-use trails, you'll just have
to get used to MTBers. That and other places where MTBs were
incorrectly classified with motorized vehicles, which is now being
corrected.

> That
> you would want to invade the sacred wilderness on a bike marks you as a
> savage. Try to get some culture, why don't you.


Your opinion is amusing, but luckily completely fanicful.

> > The only trails I have ever seen that are unsuitable for mountain bikes
> > were also not suitable for casual walkers. They were boulder field
> > scrambles, or small slot canyons where bikes just wouldn't fit.
> >
> > And they weren't at very high altitudes.
> >
> > The trails MOST suitable for MTBers are the higher-altitude trails in
> > CO and UT.
> >
> > So much for your blanket statement, eh?

>
> Vandeman is right. Mountain bikers are the scum of the earth!


Of course, you don't like being overmastered by a superior intellect.
It's human nature. But name-calling will not change the fact that your
mistaken impression of what constitutes a superior biking trail is at
odds with what is actually a superior biking trail.


> >> Vandeman and I are working hard to get your and your ilk banned from
> >> wilderness areas.

> >
> > Except you won't be able to. So do your Sisyphus impression all you
> > want. The plain fact is that MORE areas are being opened to MTBers, so
> > your Holy Crusade is coming up exactly opposite of your intent.

>
> All wilderness areas and pristine natural areas will be forever closed to
> bikers. Vandeman and I will see to that.


No, you won't. Neither one of you has any sort of power to do that.
He doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and you don't understand how
politics works. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, OK by me. I'll
keep riding my bike in ever-expanding legal areas.

> >> You strike me as nothing but a typical lazy mountain biker
> >> slob.

> >
> > Hiding behind the safety of your keyboard makes it very easy to say
> > that. Chalk up another courageous usenetter!
> >
> > Since you obviously have no idea what it takes to ride a bike on
> > trails, I'll let your laughable statement pass.

>
> When you are riding your bike, you are into fun and games.


False.

> It is nothing but
> a g.d. sport to you.


False.

> You are not fit to ever place a single foot in my
> sacred wilderness.


Actually, I'm quite fit. And since the land doesn't belong to you,
personally, I may visit it in any legal manner I choose. Tough luck
for the internet tough guy. :)

> You are a savage - nothing but a despoiler of culture and
> all the finer things in life.


I'm sure that this is merely projection on your part.

> May you perish for your blasphemy against the
> Wilderness.


LOL. Your threat is duly noted.

> >> Most trails ... are easily
> >> destroyed by bikes.

> >
> > Another unsupported assertion. Do you envirowackos know anything about
> > LOGIC?

>
> Here we see an idiot trying to equate trails with roads.


Well, since I didn't do that, here we have another strawman. When
you're losing an argument, invent one for your opponent!

> >> The public lands have to be managed so as not to create a lot of
> >> conflicts
> >> among users.

> >
> > Sure. That doesn't include excluding a group of users because *you
> > personally* don't like them. Most people get over that by the fourth
> > grade. What's your excuse?

>
> We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
> mental.


There are no physical conflicts, any more than there would be if it
were hikers using the trails in opposite directions. The "mental"
conflicts you claim exist only in your mind, and are thus not only
invalid, but hilarious.

> > Or on any public lands not designated "Wilderness". But no, cutting
> > even more trails doesn't make any sense. Keeping human impact down
> > while still providing recreation should be the ultimate goal.

>
> "We cannot use the same trails because of the conflicts, both physical and
> mental." - Ed Dolan


"Dolan is an delusional wacko." - Ed Pirrero

Quoting your own opinion doesn't make it valid.

> > Wow, more usenet courage. I wish I could be such a tough guy behind my
> > computer screen. The internet is great - you can be tough AND
> > good-looking.

>
> You are not worthy of wilderness.


More of your inane opinion. Luckily, I'm not bound by your singular
opinion. In fact, I scoff at it. If you were directly in my presence,
I think we both know that you'd be a bit more circumspect in your
commentary.

Have fun pretending your efforts matter,

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

>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.


Why what make you think that I take you 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!


He's more useful than you.
He gets his role.

>Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya.


8^)

>>>> no greatness nor saintliness

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


The greater fool: The fool or the fool who follows the fool?


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


And how much and what are you drinking?


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


That's your sample.

>less than Great

--
 
>> Testing reality.

In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane?


McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy:
32 Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy.


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


Maybe so.

>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?


Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're
broadminded!
W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss]

Are you going to accelerate your process of offing yourself?


>>>> It's a job.
>>>moderator

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


You aren't the audience.
I know the audience.
This is why a publishing industry exists.
We're not here to please you.

>>>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially
>>>> Then what are you doing here?

>> Minniver Cheevey

>
>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.


Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're broadminded!
W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss]

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

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


I'm not posting from the cycling groups.
You can have the cycling groups and they can have you.

>>>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.


Well first, off when I was a student I heard of those smart people (they
are smart, but not quite as smart as the smartest people I know, all are
flawed of course). Now I work with and for those people. So you may
think I'm dumb, and certain other parts can think that as well, but the
reality is that we invite and select people from various source.
What do you think the Internet is to news groups? It's the transport
mechanism. And we locate talented individuals for purposes of review.
But I see nothing to invite you. You honestly admit to knowing nothing about
the Internet and computers. And this is a computer network.

If you want the humanities, I suggest spending your time with the smart
people over in the humanties.* hierarchy. Not many because they have
not figured out moderation, but you can troll for them when you are sober.

>less than Great


--
 
>> Surely that is fair.
>Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right


Two Wrights made an airplane fly! Oh and before they did that, the
built (care to take a wild guess?) BICYCLES...
They even invented the left handed thread to keep the left pedal from
unscrewing itself. Which by the way, has MANY usefull applications in
the modern world.


> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians only.


Do some research on Buffalo Soldier Bicycle Corps... back in the 1890's
(how's that for history) they rode into Northern Montana and toured
Yellowstone (hmm.... a National Park perhaps?) on bicycles. They
traveled almost 2,000 miles from Ft. Missoula, MT across the Rocky
Mountains and Great Plains, all the way to St. Louis, MO. I think there
might be a historical precedent there......


> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.


That is a pretty harsh statement.... Have you ever witnessed such an
event?
Or even seen what the wall behind those who were executed looks like
several years later?
I have... In fact I ride by such a wall every day, it's a pretty
sobering sight I assure you.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>[newsgroups restored]

>>


>
> It is very hard to get used to mountain bikers on hiking trails since
> totally different mental attitudes are involved. Mountain bikers are into
> fun and games and hikers are into making pilgrimages to find Truth and God.
>




Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.
>


I'm so relieved to hear of hikers' piety . . but is there something
incongruous here?
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446e3918$1@darkstar...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>signatures, especially one idiot who goes by the name of Peter

>>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.

>
> Why what make you think that I take you seriously?


It is immaterial whether you take me seriously or not, but you take
newsgroups seriously. This is a major error on your part and marks you as a
numskull. If you truly had any real education you would realize that
newsgroups are for idiots, morons and imbeciles. It is only the high school
educated crowd who think newsgroups are cool.

>>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!

>
> He's more useful than you.
> He gets his role.


I am not here to be useful, but to put idiots like you in your place.

>>Chalk up major minus points for Eugene Miya.

>
> 8^)
>
>>>>> no greatness nor saintliness

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

>
> The greater fool: The fool or the fool who follows the fool?


If you weren't so dumb, you would be amused by my foolishness too. It takes
wit to recognize it in others. But you are a plodder, just like Jon
Meinecke. You two must be soul mates as you are both such dullards.

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

>
> And how much and what are you drinking?
>
>
>>I have never known a secretary in my life who was not as dumb as an ox.

>
> That's your sample.


Even a smart secretary is dumb. Otherwise she would not be doing what she is
doing.

Regards,

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

"Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Sigmund Freud

PS. By the way, what is your home newsgroup? I know it is not any of these
cycling groups.
 
"Eugene Miya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:446e3cb9@darkstar...
>>> Testing reality.

>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Have you ever seriously considered the idea that you might be insane?

>
> McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy:
> 32 Schizophrenia may be a necessary consequence of literacy.


The medium is NOT the message. The message is the message. Only a fool
scientist would think otherwise.

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

>
> Maybe so.
>
>>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?

>
> Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're
> broadminded!
> W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss]


The best professors I ever had in college were teachers of the humanities.
The worst professors I ever had in college were teachers of the sciences. I
wonder why that was?

> Are you going to accelerate your process of offing yourself?


No, I will let nature takes its' course. After all, when you are dead, you
are dead for all eternity.

"Once I wasn't, Then I was, Now I ain't again."

- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard

>>>>> It's a job.
>>>>moderator

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

>
> You aren't the audience.
> I know the audience.
> This is why a publishing industry exists.
> We're not here to please you.


Believe it or not, I am your audience. That is no doubt why you have been
such a miserable failure. But don't feel bad about it. Everyone is a
miserable failure in my book. I think there is something called the Peter
Principal at work to explain this phenomenon.

>>>>>>I do not give a damn about computers, the Internet and most especially
>>>>> Then what are you doing here?
>>> Minniver Cheevey

>>
>>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.

>
> Praised the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're
> broadminded!
> W. Churchill to R. V. Jones [Alan Turing's boss]


"The best professors I ever had in college were teachers of the humanities.
The worst professors I ever had in college were teachers of the sciences. I
wonder why that was?" - Ed Dolan

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

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

>
> I'm not posting from the cycling groups.
> You can have the cycling groups and they can have you.


We need to know your home group so I can let them know what a fool you are.
But I suspect they already know it.

>>>>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.

>
> Well first, off when I was a student I heard of those smart people (they
> are smart, but not quite as smart as the smartest people I know, all are
> flawed of course). Now I work with and for those people. So you may
> think I'm dumb, and certain other parts can think that as well, but the
> reality is that we invite and select people from various source.
> What do you think the Internet is to news groups? It's the transport
> mechanism. And we locate talented individuals for purposes of review.
> But I see nothing to invite you. You honestly admit to knowing nothing
> about
> the Internet and computers. And this is a computer network.


Here we have an excellent illustration of the blind leading the blind. I
would not be caught dead working around freaking computers. They are
strictly for fun and games. As long as I can have some fun I will stick
around for a bit, but to devote your life to this kind of nonsense marks you
as the ultimate fool.

I still can't figure out what your job and your work is - and how it relates
to newsgroups? What the f*** are you reviewing?

> If you want the humanities, I suggest spending your time with the smart
> people over in the humanties.* hierarchy. Not many because they have
> not figured out moderation, but you can troll for them when you are sober.


I will stick with my cycling newsgroups, thank you very much, as there is no
sense at all in seeking out anything more elevated than that. The libraries
of the world are full of tomes well written by great men which I can read
whenever I want. Why on earth would I bother with the idiots of Usenet - no
matter the subject?

Have you seriously considered the possibility that you might be insane,
besides being just stupid of course.

Regards,

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

"Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Sigmund Freud
 
"IT3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Who is saying what?

>>> Surely that is fair.

>>Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right

>
> Two Wrights made an airplane fly! Oh and before they did that, the
> built (care to take a wild guess?) BICYCLES...
> They even invented the left handed thread to keep the left pedal from
> unscrewing itself. Which by the way, has MANY usefull applications in
> the modern world.
>
>
>> >> There is a long history of trails being for hikers and equestrians
>> >> only.

>
> Do some research on Buffalo Soldier Bicycle Corps... back in the 1890's
> (how's that for history) they rode into Northern Montana and toured
> Yellowstone (hmm.... a National Park perhaps?) on bicycles. They
> traveled almost 2,000 miles from Ft. Missoula, MT across the Rocky
> Mountains and Great Plains, all the way to St. Louis, MO. I think there
> might be a historical precedent there......
>
>
>> Any mountain biker who tries to invade wilderness should be
>> thrown up against a wall and executed Mexican style.

>
> That is a pretty harsh statement.... Have you ever witnessed such an
> event?
> Or even seen what the wall behind those who were executed looks like
> several years later?
> I have... In fact I ride by such a wall every day, it's a pretty
> sobering sight I assure you.


Remember that scene from the movie "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre"? After
the Mexican bandits have murdered Humphry Bogart, they are caught by the
police and are immediately executed by firing squad. Nobody seemed to mind
dying, not even the bandits. Well, that is what life is like when life is
cheap I guess.

Actually, I think a bullet to the back of the head is probably the most
humane way to put someone out of their misery, don't you?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:15:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>Yes, I think only moderated groups will work.


Usenet is a combination of moderated and unmoderated.
Some unmoderated groups work fine excepting spam.
The balance is in given hierarchies and subhierarchies.

>Like rec.bicycles.off-road. It's DEAD, thanks to mountain bikers' fear
>of the truth!


Minor hack.

>> An unmoderated group will be
>>chock full of idiots who will say lots of nasty things. That is human
>>nature.


Not necessarily.

>>But do you really just want to exchange information with others? That can
>>get rather dull after awhile and sooner or later you have exhausted the
>>subject. I do like the interplay of personality on an unmoderated group. I
>>think that would be pretty much missing on a moderated group. A little
>>fireworks from time to time makes for a more interesting group.


That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups.
That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is.

--
 
Eugene Miya wrote:
me to time makes for a more interesting group.
>>

>
> That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups.
> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is.
>


You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.

PH
 
In article <[email protected]>, pmhilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>me to time makes for a more interesting group.
>>
>> That's a rather boring passive way to look at news groups.
>> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is.
>>

>
>You are attempting rational discourse with an irrational being.


Oh I know that. Most people here are barely rational.
You mean Ed or Mikey?
You edited Ed's quote following my attribution.
Anyone can go fishing.

This is merely a net.ranger cast.

--
 
>> That's said by a person who has no concept of what a moderated group is.

In article <[email protected]>,
Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Au contraire, you big dumbbell! Not only would I know how to write to a
>moderated group, but I would be even better as the moderator myself. You,

Empty words Ed. Are you posting under the influence of alcohol?
>for instance, would have a hard time passing muster because you are so
>confounded dull all the time. Either say something interesting or get lost
>why don't you!


Oh yeah, I try to do so on the weekends.
My moderated group posts have to wait until Monday when I get back.


Bye Ed.

--