Edward Dolan wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "JimmyMac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> >> "JimmyMac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> >> >> "JimmyMac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >>
> >>> >> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS - NOR DOES HE EVEN INCLUDE ANY OF THE
> >> >> >> MESSAGE
> >> >> >> TO
> >> >> >> WHICH HE IS RESPONDING!
> >> >
> >> > I was responding to your very first post something which I am
> >> > reasonably certain no one else was at all challenged to comprehend, so
> >> > stop frothing at the mouth.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if you are responding to a first post or a hundredth
> >> post.
> >> Top posting is NEVER OK!
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact.
>
> Nope, it is netiquette. You confuse email with Usenet as always. They are
> completely different because of the presence of outside readers.
Really???
> >> And you must always include some of the previous
> >> message to which you are replying for reasons of context if nothing else.
> >> No
> >> one, I repeat no one, will ever look up a previous post.
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact.
> >
> >> That is why
> >> everything has to be there right in front of the reader at first glance
> >> in
> >> every post.
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact.
> >
> >> Often I do not recall what I might have said in a previous post
> >> without looking it up - which I will never do. Screw it! This is Usenet,
> >> not
> >> a college symposium.
> >>
> >> >> >> > Ed,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A very telling confession. Do print a copy for your therapist
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> > Jim
> >> >> >> > McNamara
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, you don't know where Tom Sherman is either?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unlike you, I lament not for I couldn't care less.
> >> >>
> >> >> You were never much of a poster to ARBR as far as I can tell, other
> >> >> than
> >> >> your sporadic personal vendettas.
> >> >
> >> > And just how many on-topic posts can you claim to have ever made???
> >>
> >> What does it matter if the message is on-topic or off-topic. All that
> >> matters is that it be interesting.
> >
> > Fiddle-faddle ... rubbish. If it mattered not, then there would be
> > need for only a single newsgroup, whereas in fact there is an
> > established hierarchy with many groups focused on a limited, specific
> > topics. It is generally accepted that posters are expected to confine
> > themselves to the groups intended subject matter. Off-topic posts are
> > considered inappropriate. This is an elementary concept that you
> > apparently do not comprehend or at least have no intention of abiding
> > by.
>
> As long as off-topic posts do not interfere with those that are on-topic it
> does not matter. Your good buddy Ed Gin knew how to interfere with every
> post no matter whether it was on-topic or off-topic. That is because he was
> a troll with his insane drivel. That is something Tom Sherman and I never
> were. Too bad you can't tell the difference.
Now who is taking liberty with netiquette??? Off-topic by definition
is just that ... off-topic no matter what kind of spin you vainly
attemnpt to put on it. Don't confuse the issue by introducing
irrelevant information regaridng the diferrences between Gin, you and
Sherman that isn't even accurate. Tom Sherman might be accused of
drivel, but a troll he was not. You and Gin both qualify as trolls who
employed insane drivel. Too bad you can't tell the difference between
on-topic, off-topic and what is appropriate in terms of netiquette. I
refer you to my previous explanation. Perhaps if you read it a second
time, it will sink in.
> >> > As concerns personal vendettas, I have taken a total of 3 individuals
> >> > to
> >> > task, your beloved Tom Sherman being one. You were an active
> >> > participant in that particular personal vendetta.
> >>
> >> I just chipped in briefly to keep you from self-destructing. Tom Sherman
> >> was
> >> making you look like a fool.
> >
> > How very suppportive of you, but there is no need to concern yourself.
> > I don't self-desturct. As for the rest ... opinion stated as fact.
> >
> >> Ed Gin was another
> >> > and again you were an active participant in some (though not all) of
> >> > that personal venedetta. That's 2 for 2 which cancel one another out
> >> > since you were part and parcel of the action.
> >>
> >> I only got in on the tail end of that one when Ed Gin started stepping on
> >> all of my posts with his insane drivel.
> >
> > Baderdash ... twaddle. You had more issues with Ed GIn than the one
> > stated and still do since you constantly refer to him as the criminal
> > vandal troll that destroyed ARBR. Truth be told, the TROLL that has
> > inflicted the most damage on this newsgroup is you.
>
> It was all about Ed Gin stepping on my posts and everyone else's with his
> insane drivel. Of course, one thing lead to another since he was clearly
> insane - and a criminal to boot. It is really pitiful that you do not know
> how to make distinctions that matter. All Ed Gin and I had in common were
> our first names.
I'll take that as an ammenement of your original contention. It is
really pitiful that you have misconstrued that I am unable to make
distinctions and it is even more pitiful that you for some unknown
reason think that I made any statement that could be interpreted to
mean that I thought you and Ed Gin had anything in common ... outside
of being a trolls that spam newsgroupgs with gibberish of, that is.
There now I've made a statement regarding some commonality regarding
you two Eds.
> >> As for the third ...
> >> > well, you can't very well be expected to participate in that personal
> >> > vendetta since you are the target. There you have it.
> >>
> >> I do not take you any more seriously than did Tom Sherman and Ed Gin.
> >> That
> >> right there should tell you something.
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact. Prattle ... gibberish. If I was not taken
> > seriosulsy then why were you all unable to ingonre me and why were you
> > allso driven to reply to everything that I have had to say. You're
> > just so full ****.
>
> Nope, I would occasionally take Tom Sherman seriously when he made some
> sense, but you are into nothing but vendettas. Are you Sicilian by chance?
How very noble of you. I'm sure that very admission alone will bring
Tom back to ARBR. An Irishman asks if someone with a name of McNamara
is Sicilian???
> >> I have
> >> > focused my attention on three individuals and two (you and Gin) have
> >> > been the focal point of many members on ARBR, so I find myself in good
> >> > company. You, on the other hand, have taken on just about everyone on
> >> > this newsgroup, Vanderman, for whom you have an obvious affection,
> >> > being an exception. So let's see then. The score is me THREE and you
> >> > a SIZEABLE INDEFINIT NUMBER that continues to grow. Do the math. The
> >> > numbers are decidedly not in your favor, so you can cease your
> >> > whining..
> >>
> >> Every post is sui generis with me. I do not react to persons, only to
> >> their
> >> messages. But I post generally to one and all based on the subject. You
> >> only
> >> post to carry on your personal vendettas. Are you crazy ... that is the
> >> question?
> >
> > More ********. In reacting to a message, you are reacting to its
> > author, no matter what kind of a spin you vainly attempt to put on it.
> > You cannot shroud yoursel in a Latin catch phrase to explain away your
> > actions. The math speaks for itself.
>
> Again no, I am unlike you that way. I am an adult who has fully matured and
> I do not ever waste time on personal ****.
This very statementis ****.
> I only respond to your posts by
> saying what I want to say, not necessarily what you want to hear.
Your manner of response has absolutely no relevance to the issue at
hand. The fact remains that in responding to a message, you are
responding to the author of the message. In reacting tlo a message,
you are reacting to th author regardless of the form you reaction take.
This is so very obvious that it should not even have to be stated.
> As far as
> I am concerned, you remain a perfect stranger to me and you most likely
> always will.
A perfect stranger whom you have talke to on the phone, sho helped you
rid yourself of a virus on you PD and whom you engaged in private
emails.
> I have absolutely no emotional investment in any of my posts,
> not matter how it may read to the contrary. That is what being an adult is
> all about.
****. No one who reads that will believe you. The very words you
write betray you. Besides having no emotion investment in what youy
write is not a sign of adulthood. If anything, taking responsibility
for what you write is a sign of adulthood. Since you don not, what
does that say of you maturity? Get real, Dolan.
> >> >> Tom Sherman was the mainstay of this
> >> >> entire newsgroup. He was ever helpful to newbies and knew more about
> >> >> recumbents than any other person I ever encountered on any newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> > This is pitiful. You sound as though you've lost a loved one. Stay
> >> > tuned for the same old song to be sung if and when Vandeman pulls up
> >> > stakes. Are same sex marriages legal in Minnesota?
> >>
> >> Everything I say about Tom Sherman is true. The only pitiful thing here
> >> is
> >> your jealousy of him - and me!
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact. You do that a lot, don't you? And you base
> > your assumption on what, pray tell? Are you dellusional or did you
> > just skip your meds today? Jealousy ... don't flatter youself Ed.
> > Regardless, thanks for starting off my day with a bit amusement.
>
> You are the one who is making sexual allusions. Very dangerous territory for
> you to venture upon with me because of my Saintliness. You do not ever want
> to arouse Saint Edward the Great from His slumbers.
And this is in response to what above that allegedly has sexual
connotations? I addressed jealousy ...nothing morr ... nothing less,
but it is interesting that you chose the opperative word "arouse" in
your reply.
> >> >> I knew it was just a matter of time before he would leave as there
> >> >> were
> >> >> just
> >> >> so many idiots and scoundrels infecting ARBR. The fact is that he was
> >> >> too
> >> >> good for us. He was wrongheaded about almost everything outside of
> >> >> recumbents, but that is why I was here - to counteract act him.
> >> >
> >> > This is an unmoderated newsgroup. Who asked you to assume the role of
> >> > moderator? If weren't deaf, dumb and blind, you would heed the
> >> > requests of those who have asked you to cease and desist or pack it up
> >> > and leave. You often insist that EVERYONE who posts on newsgroups, and
> >> > particularly ARBR, are idiots, morons, and imbeciles. Which particular
> >> > cretin category do you fall under??? Pick one!!! Since you are the
> >> > most prolific poster on ARBR, it would logically follow that whatever
> >> > category you chose, you would be the quintessential representative.
> >>
> >> All newsgroups need someone who has the best interest of the group at
> >> heart.
> >
> > "Best interest fo the group at heart". Surely you jest. Time for a
> > vote. Who of you consider Ed Dolan to be that person? Those who have
> > kill-filed you have already voted.
>
> I am into housekeeping chores for the most part as there is never anything
> of any substance being said that interests me much.
No one has asked for you to play monderator on an unmoderated formum.
Houskeepin according to whom. You alleged housekeeping consists of
off-topic nonsense which itself is in need of housekeeping. If there
is nothing of any substance being said that interests you, then begone
troll ... take a hike on "your sacred trails"..
> >> You only show up here for your vendettas. If a newsgroup just had your
> >> type,
> >> it would be still born. I will admit I have gotten rid of some dead wood
> >
> > Opinion, stated as fact. Nothing could improve this newsgroup as much
> > as your absence. Ask yourself why is it that so many have professed
> > to have kill-filed you. Your kill-file statistics are your legacy.
>
> I know exactly the type who kill-file someone so Great as I. The world is
> full of of such dullards. They are nondescript pitfall souls who simply
> can't hold their own in a conversation. They want to have their say and
> cannot brook any opposition without getting all insulted. So far, you have
> at least a somewhat thicker skin that those types I must admit.
They are those who have exercised som ecommon sense ... those who heard
enough of your **** and just decided enough is enough. Others didn't
kill-file you. They just left altogether. Others just ignore you.
Some like myself taek you on from time to time to tell it like it is
not that you are ever open minded enough to listen.
> >> from time to time, but I keep the group lively. Never a dull moment when
> >> Ed
> >> Dolan the Great is around.
> >> [...]
> >
> > Always a dullard moment when HEAD Dolan the GRATE is around.
>
> I write for the few who can appreciate me, not for the many who never have a
> clue. Most importantly, anyone but me ever notice how all these
> conversations that I have with Jim are all about me and never about him?
> That right there should tell you who is interesting and who is not!
Few??? Vandeman doesn't qualify as a few. These conversations are not
exclusively about you and even if they were, your conclusion does not
follow from the premise. You like logical fallacies, dont' you?
Frankly I don't understand what Vandeman admires in you. I don't think
he could recognize intellect and writing ability if it slapped him
upside his hard head.
Jim McNamara
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
