Re: Ed Dolan, Jim McNamara & Tom Sherman

[JimmyMac]

On Nov 29, 3:48*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> I can't learn anything from Jim. He is too like me - argumentative and
> discursive to a fault.

Discursive implies digressing from subject to subject and this elusive
tactic is practiced not by me but by Doaln. I have often complained
about this very issue ... Dlona's lack of focus and his diversionary
modus operandi.

> Unlike me, he does not ever learn when to let go, but
> I understand him as well as I understand myself.

Ed wants to let go and even more wants for me to let go when he has
been logically entrapped with nowhere to turn since admission of error
or defeat are not acceptable options for one with so delicate an ego.

> Tom is the far more
> interesting character for me. I can learn from him because he is
> sufficiently different from me.
>
> Jim and I represent the liberal arts. We are essentially generalists. Tom is
> a scientist and represents those specialties as well as anyone I have ever
> encountered. I make fun of those types but I respect them nonetheless. Our
> world could not function without them. I do not like them ever ruling
> anything other than their specialties, but that is more than enough.
>
> Jim seems not to have a clue as to what I am doing on these newsgroups
> whereas Tom does.

I beg to differ. I know why you are here, but I am not convinced that
you are objective enough to realize and/or admit to yourself why you
are here.

> It is a mark of his intelligence that he has figured me
> out. But still I would trust Jim more than I ever would Tom. Tom has a
> strangeness about him that Jim does not have. As Jim would say, these
> newsgroups are just chock full of conundrums.

And .... you are numero uno.

> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
> PS. By the way, unless you use your real name, I will always treat you with
> the contempt that you deserve.

[JimmyMac]

On Nov 30, 8:53*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 29, 3:48 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
> > I can't learn anything from Jim. He is too like me - argumentative and
> > discursive to a fault.
> >> Discursive implies digressing from subject to subject and this elusive
>
> tactic is practiced not by me but by Doaln. *I have often complained
> about this very issue ... Dolan's lack of focus and his diversionary
> modus operandi.
>
> I do not like to get stuck in a rut like JimmyMac. But even so, JimmyMac
> takes me up on my every diversionary move. Stalkers are their own worst
> enemy.

TRANSLATION: I Ed Dolan do not want to get stuck in an argument when
it become apparent to me that I am about to have it stuck to me.

> > Unlike me, he does not ever learn when to let go, but
> > I understand him as well as I understand myself.
> >> Ed wants to let go and even more wants for me to let go when he has
>
> been logically entrapped with nowhere to turn since admission of error
> or defeat are not acceptable options for one with so delicate an ego.
>
> This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.

There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
obscure in what I wrote. My statement was simple but precise ... not
esoteric in nature.

> > Tom is the far more
> > interesting character for me. I can learn from him because he is
> > sufficiently different from me.
>
> > Jim and I represent the liberal arts. We are essentially generalists. Tom
> > is
> > a scientist and represents those specialties as well as anyone I have ever
> > encountered. I make fun of those types but I respect them nonetheless. Our
> > world could not function without them. I do not like them ever ruling
> > anything other than their specialties, but that is more than enough.
>
> > Jim seems not to have a clue as to what I am doing on these newsgroups
> > whereas Tom does.
> >> I beg to differ. *I know why you are here, but I am not convinced that
>
> you are objective enough to realize and/or admit to yourself why you
> are here.
>
> Ah, but I am! Tom knows this much about me even if you don't. You need to
> learn to read between the lines.

You are not an enigma. You are quite transparent.

> > It is a mark of his intelligence that he has figured me
> > out. But still I would trust Jim more than I ever would Tom. Tom has a
> > strangeness about him that Jim does not have. As Jim would say, these
> > newsgroups are just chock full of conundrums.

> >> And .... you are numero uno.

> > Regards,
>
> > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> > aka
> > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
> > PS. By the way, unless you use your real name, I will always treat you
> > with
> > the contempt that you deserve.

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 8:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
[...]
> This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.

There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
obscure in what I wrote. My statement was simple but precise ... not
esoteric in nature.

It is esoteric in content - you numbskull! No one is interested in the kind
of **** you write about, most especially not me!
[...]

Regards,

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 1, 6:35*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 30, 8:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.
>
> There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
> obscure in what I wrote. *My statement was simple but *precise ... not
> esoteric in nature.
>
> It is esoteric in content - you numbskull! No one is interested in the kind
> of **** you write about, most especially not me!
> [...]

Ed, don't allow your imagination to mislead you into overestimating
your relevance. You will never be mistaken for a member of the
illuminati. Readers, it would apper that Conan the Librarian does not
know the definition of the word esoterica. Regardless, since Dolan
has asserted that he is not interested in what I write, I hearby
formally, and publicly, grant him permission to stop reading and
responding to what I write. I could not have made this any simpler
for anyone so simple.

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

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 6:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 30, 8:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.
>
> There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
> obscure in what I wrote. My statement was simple but precise ... not
> esoteric in nature.
>
> It is esoteric in content - you numbskull! No one is interested in the
> kind
> of **** you write about, most especially not me!
> [...]

>>Ed, don't allow your imagination to mislead you into overestimating
your relevance. You will never be mistaken for a member of the
illuminati. Readers, it would apper that Conan the Librarian does not
know the definition of the word esoterica. Regardless, since Dolan
has asserted that he is not interested in what I write, I hearby
formally, and publicly, grant him permission to stop reading and
responding to what I write. I could not have made this any simpler
for anyone so simple.

Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested in.
That describes you and your posts perfectly.

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 2, 2:35*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 1, 6:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Nov 30, 8:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.
>
> > There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
> > obscure in what I wrote. My statement was simple but precise ... not
> > esoteric in nature.
>
> > It is esoteric in content - you numbskull! No one is interested in the
> > kind
> > of **** you write about, most especially not me!
> > [...]
> >>Ed, don't allow your imagination to mislead you into overestimating
>
> your relevance. *You will never be mistaken for a member of the
> illuminati. Readers, it would apper that Conan the Librarian does not
> know the definition of the word esoterica. *Regardless, since Dolan
> has asserted that he is not interested in what I write, I hererby
> formally, and publicly, grant him permission to stop reading and
> responding to what I write. *I could not have made this any simpler
> for anyone so simple.
>
> Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested in.
> That describes you and your posts perfectly.

You've taken a bit of literary license with the term esoterica which
generally is accepted to mean something which is intended for or
likely to be understood by an initiated minority or small number of
people with a specialized knowledge or interest. What I write seldom
falls into such a category. By the way, did did provide you with an
out when I granted you permission to stop reading and responding to
what I write. You must be a glutton for punishment. Wel,l I will do
my utmost to be accommodating.

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 2, 2:35*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 1, 6:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Nov 30, 8:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > This is all esoterica which interests no one, least of all me.
>
> > There was nothing abstract, complex, perplexing, cryptic, ambiguous,
> > obscure in what I wrote. My statement was simple but precise ... not
> > esoteric in nature.
>
> > It is esoteric in content - you numbskull! No one is interested in the
> > kind
> > of **** you write about, most especially not me!
> > [...]
> >>Ed, don't allow your imagination to mislead you into overestimating
>
> your relevance. *You will never be mistaken for a member of the
> illuminati. Readers, it would apper that Conan the Librarian does not
> know the definition of the word esoterica. *Regardless, since Dolan
> has asserted that he is not interested in what I write, I hearby
> formally, and publicly, *grant him permission to stop reading and
> responding to what I write. *I could not have made this any simpler
> for anyone so simple.
>
> Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested in.
> That describes you and your posts perfectly.

You meant in you opinion did you not? You have taken literary license
with the term esoteric which is generally accepted to mean something
which is intended for or would likely be understood by an initiated
minority or a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or
interest. Seldom does anything which I write fall into this
category. By the way, I did provide you with an out when I formally
and publicly granted you permission to stop reading and responding to
what I write. You must not be a glutton for punishment. I'll do my
best to be accommodating.

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

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 2:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
[...]

> Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested
> in.
> That describes you and your posts perfectly.

>> You've taken a bit of literary license with the term esoterica which
generally is accepted to mean something which is intended for or
likely to be understood by an initiated minority or small number of
people with a specialized knowledge or interest. What I write seldom
falls into such a category. ...

What you write falls precisely into that category. Hells Bells, it is all
addressed to me and I am not even bothering to read it anymore. You cannot
get more esoteric than that!
[...]

Regards,

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 2, 5:17*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 2, 2:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested
> > in.
> > That describes you and your posts perfectly.
> >> You've taken a bit of literary license with the term esoterica which
>
> generally is accepted to mean something which is intended for or
> likely to be understood by an initiated minority or small number of
> people with a specialized knowledge or interest. *What I write seldom
> falls into such a category. ...
>
> What you write falls precisely into that category. Hells Bells, it is all
> addressed to me and I am not even bothering to read it anymore. You cannot
> get more esoteric than that!
> [...]

The definition of the word simply does not fit. I write not just to
you regardless of how I have directed what I have written. What I
write is not intended for or likely to be understood by only a
minority or small number of people with specialized knowledge or
interest. Do you not comprehend what esoterica means or are you just
plain dumb? Never mind your posts are self-authenticating in that
regard. I have to agree with your first sentence that started this
thread ... I can't learn anything from Jim.

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

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 5:17 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 2, 2:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested
> > in.
> > That describes you and your posts perfectly.
> >> You've taken a bit of literary license with the term esoterica which
>
> generally is accepted to mean something which is intended for or
> likely to be understood by an initiated minority or small number of
> people with a specialized knowledge or interest. What I write seldom
> falls into such a category. ...
>
> What you write falls precisely into that category. Hells Bells, it is all
> addressed to me and I am not even bothering to read it anymore. You cannot
> get more esoteric than that!
> [...]

>>> The definition of the word simply does not fit. I write not just to
you regardless of how I have directed what I have written. What I
write is not intended for or likely to be understood by only a
minority or small number of people with specialized knowledge or
interest. Do you not comprehend what esoterica means or are you just
plain dumb? Never mind your posts are self-authenticating in that
regard. I have to agree with your first sentence that started this
thread ... I can't learn anything from Jim.

Esoterica must be considered within the confines of this newsgroup. In any
event, you are too hung up on dictionary definitions. Context is EVERYTHING!
What I say is hundred times better than what any dictionary says.

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 3, 7:45*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 2, 5:17 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Dec 2, 2:35 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Esoterica is anything that the vast majority of folks are not interested
> > > in.
> > > That describes you and your posts perfectly.
> > >> You've taken a bit of literary license with the term esoterica which
>
> > generally is accepted to mean something which is intended for or
> > likely to be understood by an initiated minority or small number of
> > people with a specialized knowledge or interest. What I write seldom
> > falls into such a category. ...
>
> > What you write falls precisely into that category. Hells Bells, it is all
> > addressed to me and I am not even bothering to read it anymore. You cannot
> > get more esoteric than that!
> > [...]
> >>> The definition of the word simply does not fit. *I write not just to
>
> you regardless of how I have directed what I have written. *What I
> write is not intended for or likely to be understood by only a
> minority or small number of people with specialized knowledge or
> interest. *Do you not comprehend what esoterica means or are you just
> plain dumb? *Never mind your posts are self-authenticating in that
> regard. *I have to agree with your first sentence that started this
> thread ... I can't learn anything from Jim.
>
> Esoterica must be considered within the confines of this newsgroup. In any
> event, you are too hung up on dictionary definitions. Context is EVERYTHING!
> What I say is hundred times better than what any dictionary says.

Circumstances, conditions, factors, situations (context) are
irrespective of the definition of a word. I'd suggest that Conan the
Librarian look up the definition of DEFINITION which is about meaning
and not peripherals that alter the meaning of a word to conform to
Dolan's twisted misuse of the term esoterica. Lets all be thankful
that Merriam-Webster never took Dolan on board.

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

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 7:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
[...]
> Esoterica must be considered within the confines of this newsgroup. In any
> event, you are too hung up on dictionary definitions. Context is
> EVERYTHING!
> What I say is hundred times better than what any dictionary says.

>> Circumstances, conditions, factors, situations (context) are
irrespective of the definition of a word. I'd suggest that Conan the
Librarian look up the definition of DEFINITION which is about meaning
and not peripherals that alter the meaning of a word to conform to
Dolan's twisted misuse of the term esoterica. Lets all be thankful
that Merriam-Webster never took Dolan on board.

Dictionaries update their definitions of words to conform with how Great
Writers use them. Since I am a great Writer, you will be ahead of the curve
by paying close attention to how I use words.

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 3, 9:48*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 3, 7:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Esoterica must be considered within the confines of this newsgroup. In any
> > event, you are too hung up on dictionary definitions. Context is
> > EVERYTHING!
> > What I say is hundred times better than what any dictionary says.
> >> Circumstances, conditions, factors, situations (context) are
>
> irrespective of the definition of a word. *I'd suggest that Conan the
> Librarian look up the definition of DEFINITION which is about meaning
> and not peripherals that alter the meaning of a word to conform to
> Dolan's twisted misuse of the term esoterica. *Lets all be thankful
> that Merriam-Webster never took Dolan on board.
>
> Dictionaries update their definitions of words to conform with how Great
> Writers use them. Since I am a great Writer, you will be ahead of the curve
> by paying close attention to how I use words.

Not more of your myopic, opinionated dogma??? Granted, language is
adaptive in that it is shaped by what speakers and listeners and
writers and readers require to engage in communication, but dictionary
definitions are not updated merely to conform to how great writers use
words, but also to reflect common slang and misused words (both
written and spoken) that unfortunately become absorbed and accepted
as part of the vernacular; and, eventually the colloquial becomes the
formal. That is why we have experienced a *******ization and
adulteration of our mother tongue. Misuse and outright abuse of
language has become commonplace today. Consider yourself part and
parcel of the problem, but by all means do not misconstrue that to
mean that you are a great writer worth of be emulated.

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

[Edward Dolan]

"JimmyMac" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 9:48 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
[...]
> Dictionaries update their definitions of words to conform with how Great
> Writers use them. Since I am a Great Writer, you will be ahead of the
> curve
> by paying close attention to how I use words.

>> Not more of your myopic, opinionated dogma??? Granted, language is
adaptive in that it is shaped by what speakers and listeners and
writers and readers require to engage in communication, but dictionary
definitions are not updated merely to conform to how great writers use
words, but also to reflect common slang and misused words (both
written and spoken) that unfortunately become absorbed and accepted
as part of the vernacular; and, eventually the colloquial becomes the
formal. That is why we have experienced a *******ization and
adulteration of our mother tongue. Misuse and outright abuse of
language has become commonplace today. Consider yourself part and
parcel of the problem, but by all means do not misconstrue that to
mean that you are a great writer worth of be emulated.

How important and/or popular writers use words will determine dictionary
definitions sooner or later. Colloquialisms and slang are a separate area
aside from how the meaning of a standard word can change over time due to
how writers evolve words to mean what they want them to mean. Poets
especially are notorious for doing this.

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

[JimmyMac]

On Dec 4, 1:28*pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> "JimmyMac" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 3, 9:48 pm, "Edward Dolan" > wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Dictionaries update their definitions of words to conform with how Great
> > Writers use them. Since I am a Great Writer, you will be ahead of the
> > curve
> > by paying close attention to how I use words.
> >> Not more of your myopic, opinionated dogma??? *Granted, language is
>
> adaptive in that it is shaped by what speakers and listeners and
> writers and readers require to engage in communication, but dictionary
> definitions are not updated merely to conform to how great writers use
> words, but also to reflect common slang and misused words (both
> written and spoken) *that unfortunately become absorbed and accepted
> as part of the vernacular; and, eventually the colloquial becomes the
> formal. That is why we have experienced a *******ization and
> adulteration of our mother tongue. *Misuse and outright abuse of
> language has become commonplace today. *Consider yourself part and
> parcel of the problem, but by all means do not *misconstrue that to
> mean that you are a great writer worth of be emulated.
>
> How important and/or popular writers use words will determine dictionary
> definitions sooner or later.

I should then be unconcerned about your misuse of words since you are
neither important nor popular and the dictionary is no immediate
danger.

Colloquialisms and slang are a separate area
> aside from how the meaning of a standard word can change over time due to
> how writers evolve words to mean what they want them to mean. Poets
> especially are notorious for doing this.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> > > > aka
> > > > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota