CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   General (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The Dilemma of Tom Sherman (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=196000)

JimmyMac October 24th 08 04:50 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.

A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.

I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???

Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. Nice self-portrait though, by the way.

We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so close,
yet so far.

Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???

We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly To
Sherman.

All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.

Regards,

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



Edward Dolan October 24th 08 07:54 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can
not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a
false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in
the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.

A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a
pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us
all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.

I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the
whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???

Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. Nice self-portrait though, by the way.

We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in
the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so
close,
yet so far.

Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us
feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong
not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???

We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly To
Sherman.

All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as
those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that
gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.


Tom Sherman continues to preach the virtues of the collective
(liberalism-socialism-communism) without due regard for the virtues of the
individual. He is your typical liberal asshole, but should know better.
Hells Bells, even Communist China has come around to acknowledging the
importance of the individual.

Regards,

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





JimmyMac October 26th 08 01:12 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 24, 1:54*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can
not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a
false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in
the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.


A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a
pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us
all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.


I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. *You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. *Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. *Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. *Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. *Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.


Balderdash ... poppycock ... being part and parcel of society
inherently presupposes an association with a community of others an
affiliation which, by your own admission, you firmly reject., so you
cut the crap.

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the
whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???


Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. *The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. *Nice self-portrait though, by the way.


We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in
the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so
close,
yet so far.


Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us
feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong
not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???


We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly Tom
Sherman.


All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as
those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that
gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.


Tom Sherman continues to preach the virtues of the collective
(liberalism-socialism-communism) without due regard for the virtues of the
individual. He is your typical liberal asshole, but should know better.
Hells Bells, even Communist China has come around to acknowledging the
importance of the individual.


Diversion duly noted. In response to what I said (wrote) what
relevance is this tangential issue? Try to stay focused, if at all
possible.

Regards,


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



JimmyMac October 26th 08 01:58 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 24, 1:54*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can
not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a
false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in
the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.


A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a
pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us
all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.


I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. *You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. *Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. *Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. *Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. *Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.


Balderdash ... poppycock!!! Being part and parcel of society
inherently presupposes association with a community of others ... an
affinity that you firmly reject.

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the
whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???


Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. *The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. *Nice self-portrait though, by the way.


We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in
the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so
close,
yet so far.


Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us
feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong
not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???


We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly To
Sherman.


All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as
those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that
gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.


Tom Sherman continues to preach the virtues of the collective
(liberalism-socialism-communism) without due regard for the virtues of the
individual. He is your typical liberal asshole, but should know better.
Hells Bells, even Communist China has come around to acknowledging the
importance of the individual.


Irrelevant, tangential diversion. What has this to do with the issues
raised? Try to stay focused .


Regards,


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



Edward Dolan October 26th 08 03:42 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 1:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.


Balderdash ... poppycock ... being part and parcel of society

inherently presupposes an association with a community of others an
affiliation which, by your own admission, you firmly reject., so you
cut the crap.

You confuse being social with being a member of a society. This is a common
failing of those who have never had a course in sociology or anthropology.
[...]

Regards,


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




JimmyMac October 26th 08 02:44 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can
not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a
false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in
the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.

A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a
pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us
all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.

I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.


Balderdash ... poppycock!!! Being part and parcel of society
inherently presupposes association with a community of others ... an
affinity that you firmly reject.

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the
whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???

Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. Nice self-portrait though, by the way.

We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in
the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so
close,
yet so far.

Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us
feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong
not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???

We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly To
Sherman.

All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as
those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that
gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.


Tom Sherman continues to preach the virtues of the collective
(liberalism-socialism-communism) without due regard for the virtues of the
individual. He is your typical liberal asshole, but should know better.
Hells Bells, even Communist China has come around to acknowledging the
importance of the individual.


AND, this diversionary, tangential issue has what significant
relevance to the issues I raised above? Try to stay focused if at all
possible

Regards,

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



JimmyMac October 26th 08 02:45 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 6:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Tom Sherman is so close to being rational that it is a shame that he can
not
claim what is rightfully his. Liberalism (socialism-communism) was a
false
dream. It has never worked and it never will because it goes against our
human natures. Marx and Engels were most woefully wrong. The Soviet
experiment in Russia was the the most serious social experiment ever in
the
history of mankind and it failed. I urge Tom Sherman to give up on those
dreams. All collective solutions ultimately fail.

A pure Conservatism (individualism) is as much an abomination as is a
pure
Liberalism (collectivism). Imagine the absurdity of living in society
without taking into account the matrix of society itself which binds us
all
together. **** all extremisms all the way to Hell and back! They are all
totally insane.

I am an individual, but I am also part of society. And so are we all.


Your past posts betray you and contradict this very notion, so you can
spare the readership your bull****. You are a self-professed,
misanthropic recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an
insular lifestyle. Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially
detached hermit by choice. Internet forums serve as ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.


Balderdash ... poppycock!!! Being part and parcel of society
inherently presupposes association with a community of others ... an
affinity that you firmly reject.

This means that we must have at least some minimum consideration for the
whole.


And we can expect this from you ... WHEN, pray tell???

Tom Sherman is not so much wrong in his liberalism as he is off on his
emphasis. There is an eternal conflict between the individual and the
collective.


Heed your own words. The "eternal conflict with the collective" can
readily be interpreted as your conflict with the newsgroup collective
(members), particularly ARBR. Nice self-portrait though, by the way.

We must meet in the middle if we are to survive. All the
conflicts of society are really internal to ourselves. I want to meet in
the
middle, but not Tom Sherman. It is why I feel sorry for him. He is so
close,
yet so far.

Tom Sherman needs to recognize that there is a place in society for the
individual. If he cannot do this, then he is a nut case. We all of us
feel
our individualism, but we also feel our social selves as well. We belong
not
only to ourselves, but to the society of which we are members.


When do you intend to practice what you preach???

We are eternally at war with ourselves and with our society.


You are eternally at war with ARBR members ... particularly To
Sherman.

All of the above is Sociology 101, but there are none so ignorant as
those
who do not know any better. It is only a liberal arts education that
gives
any insight into these eternal conflicts.


A liberal arts education and/or course in sociology is not required.
This is simple common sense ... something which you either lack or
refuse to exercise.


Tom Sherman continues to preach the virtues of the collective
(liberalism-socialism-communism) without due regard for the virtues of the
individual. He is your typical liberal asshole, but should know better.
Hells Bells, even Communist China has come around to acknowledging the
importance of the individual.


AND, this diversionary, tangential issue has what significant
relevance to the issues I raised above? Try to stay focused if at all
possible

Regards,

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




JimmyMac October 30th 08 03:00 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 25, 10:42*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 24, 1:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have to
do is reside in that society.
Balderdash ... poppycock ... being part and parcel of society


inherently presupposes an association with a community of others an
affiliation which, by your own admission, *you firmly reject., so you
cut the crap.

You confuse being social with being a member of a society. This is a common
failing of those who have never had a course in sociology or anthropology..
[...]


Had courses in both and didn't need either to realize what you fail
to ... that is that a hermit is by choice not a member of society.
One who chooses not to participate is not a member ... end of story!

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan October 30th 08 04:37 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 10:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 24, 1:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have
to
do is reside in that society.
Balderdash ... poppycock ... being part and parcel of society


inherently presupposes an association with a community of others an
affiliation which, by your own admission, you firmly reject., so you
cut the crap.

You confuse being social with being a member of a society. This is a
common
failing of those who have never had a course in sociology or anthropology.
[...]


Had courses in both and didn't need either to realize what you fail

to ... that is that a hermit is by choice not a member of society.
One who chooses not to participate is not a member ... end of story!

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Regards,


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




JimmyMac October 30th 08 06:31 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 29, 11:37*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 10:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message


....
On Oct 24, 1:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]


You don't have to be a party animal to be part of society. All you have
to
do is reside in that society.
Balderdash ... poppycock ... being part and parcel of society


inherently presupposes an association with a community of others an
affiliation which, by your own admission, you firmly reject., so you
cut the crap.


You confuse being social with being a member of a society. This is a
common
failing of those who have never had a course in sociology or anthropology.
[...]
Had courses in both and didn't need either to realize what you fail


to ... that is that a hermit is by choice not a member of society.
One who chooses not to participate is not a member ... end of story!

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.


Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a
member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan October 30th 08 11:45 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.


Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a

member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.

Regards,


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




JimmyMac November 1st 08 02:56 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Oct 30, 6:45*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.
Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a


member of society make. * No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. * Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. *Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.


The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. I
state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception? If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 1st 08 11:38 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a

member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.


The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. I

state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture.

Regards,

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



JimmyMac November 3rd 08 11:32 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 1, 5:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message


....
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]


A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.


Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a

member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!


It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.
The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. *I


state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.


Man you are D E N S E !!! It is as if English were your second
language. Allow me to translate (English to dumbed down English) for
you. When I stated that biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition [in and of itself] does not a member of society make, it
should have been obvious that this is about all that a hermit has in
common with other members of a society that they choose not to
actively associate with. In effect, what I was saying is that it
takes more than biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition to be a card carrying member of society. Got it now
dunderhead?

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and


hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.
I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture.


Classic logical fallacy (non sequitor) ... stating, as a conclusion,
something that does not strictly follow from the premise. Sharing a
language is not basically sharing everything. Just because we can
communicate in a common language and were born into the same culture,
ti doew not logically follow that we then must both be members of
society since one of us is a professed hermit . A hermit is estranged
from society, disenfranchised from the group as a whole ... a non-
participant by choice who embraces a life of solitude. The very
definition of hermit precludes grounds for debate and that's that on
that. No matter what kind of spin you put on this, it is what it is.

Regards,

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



JimmyMac November 4th 08 03:25 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 1, 5:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message


....
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]


A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.


Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a

member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!


It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.
The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. *I


state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and


hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture

..
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible
premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society. A Turk, a Japanese, a
Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit. By choice, a hermit is
NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

Regards,

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



Edward Dolan November 4th 08 09:12 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture


Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible

premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a

Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is

NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!

Regards,

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




JimmyMac November 6th 08 06:03 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 4, 3:12*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.


Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.


I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible


premise? *OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. *Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a


Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is


NOT a member of society!!! *Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!


You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the
term hermit. Back to Soc 101 for you. If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 6th 08 07:06 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.


Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or
anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.


I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a
common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible


premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a


Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general
which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is


NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these
terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!


You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the

term hermit. Back to Soc 101 for you. If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

I am always delighted to be proven wrong as that means I can learn something
new. But you have got an awful long ways to go to find me wrong about
anything.

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.

Regards,


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




JimmyMac November 7th 08 03:33 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 6, 1:06*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message


....
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:


"JimmyMac" wrote in message

[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.


Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or
anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.


I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a
common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible


premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.


Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.


A Turk, a Japanese, a


Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.


They are members of a particular society but not of society in general
which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.


By choice, a hermit is


NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.


You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these
terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!
You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the


term hermit. *Back to Soc 101 for you. *If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. *You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

I am always delighted to be proven wrong as that means I can learn something
new. But you have got an awful long ways to go to find me wrong about
anything.

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.


I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,
but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! First, you cannot be proved
wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. Enough said.

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 8th 08 01:12 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.


I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,

but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

It is rare alright. It is the one experiment that all sociologists would
love to do, but it is the forbidden experiment. Such an experiment would
show just what is required for a human primate to become a human being.

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! First, you cannot be proved

wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. Enough said.

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.

Regards,

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




JimmyMac November 9th 08 10:26 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 7, 7:12*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 6, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society..
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.


A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.
I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,


but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

It is rare alright. It is the one experiment that all sociologists would
love to do, but it is the forbidden experiment. Such an experiment would
show just what is required for a human primate to become a human being.

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! *First, you cannot be proved


wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. *FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. * A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. * Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. *The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. *In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. *Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. *Enough said.

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of sociology
or anthropology. *He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his education.


JimmyMac November 10th 08 06:01 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 7, 7:12*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 6, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society..
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.


A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.
I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,


but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

It is rare alright. It is the one experiment that all sociologists would
love to do, but it is the forbidden experiment. Such an experiment would
show just what is required for a human primate to become a human being.

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! *First, you cannot be proved


wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. *FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. * A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. * Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. *The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. *In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. *Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. *Enough said.

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of sociology
or anthropology. *He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his education.


Edward Dolan November 10th 08 09:36 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
[...]
If it were not for the computer and the internet, Dolan would not have

anyone to annoy or offend. Let's hope that his PC crashes. That
would mean that Dolan would have to endure social contact in order to
get his PC repaired or replaced ... what a torturous price to pay for
the pitiful, churlish hermit.

I have lived at least 95% of my life without a computer and the Internet. I
guess I could live the remaining 5% the same as before if I had to. Unlike
JimmyMac, I was never stupid enough to think computers were important.

Regards,

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




Edward Dolan November 10th 08 09:46 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 7:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of
sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his
education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.


You may have gone through the motions, but that doesn't mean you

soaked anything in. How could I possible be educated by one so
uneducated? You can babble on all you want about Sociology of which
you seem to know little despite it having been your major. What is
Sociology other than the study of the development, structure, and
function of social institutions, social relationships and collective
behavior of human society? You have deliberately chosen not to have
any social relationships. You have consciously rejected society and
in doing so are no longer a member. Recognize your incoherent,
irrational premise for what it is ... indefensible. Why delude
yourself? Regardless of your preposterous contention to the contrary,
no sensible person will ever accept your errant postulate that a
hermit is a member of society. You are a self-professed, misanthropic
recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an insular
lifestyle. Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially detached
hermit by choice. Internet forums serve as an ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless
crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You
cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry ****head cockup pratting
naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted
fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

JimmyMac illustrates perfectly why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It would be better if he had stayed totally ignorant like his peasant
ancestors and never gone to college, even to one so poor as Loyola. You are
either to the manor born or working class. JimmyMac is working class to the
core and should never attempt anything the least bit intellectual. It is
clearly beyond him.

Regards,

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




JimmyMac November 12th 08 07:42 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 10, 3:46*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 7, 7:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of
sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his
education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.
You may have gone through the motions, but that doesn't mean you


soaked anything in. *How could I possible be educated by one so
uneducated? *You can babble on all you want about Sociology of which
you seem to know little despite it having been your major. * What is
Sociology other than the study of the development, structure, and
function of social institutions, social relationships and collective
behavior of human society? *You have deliberately chosen not to have
any social relationships. *You have consciously rejected society and
in doing so are no longer a member. *Recognize your *incoherent,
irrational premise for what it is ... indefensible. *Why delude
yourself? *Regardless of your preposterous contention to the contrary,
no sensible person will ever accept your errant postulate that a
hermit is a member of society. *You are a self-professed, misanthropic
recluse who has embraced the secluded solitude of an insular
lifestyle. *Disenfranchised from reality, you are a socially detached
hermit by choice. *Internet forums serve as an ersatz social
interaction that only momentarily disrupts your otherwise self-
sequestered isolation. *Without the lifeblood of the Usenet newsgroup
audience to sustain you, you have nothing and are nothing. *Your
worthless, rehashed, regurgitated posts are a callous waste of
Internet bandwidth, server CPU cycles and archival disk storage.
Fortunately, once your have departed, your monotonous, vitriolic,
scatological harangues will be relegated to the status of cyber-
coprolite!

You smarmy lagerlout git. *You bloody woofter sod. *Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
foot-licking twit. *You dankish clack-dish plonker. *You gormless
crook-pated tosser. *You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. *You
cockered bum-bailey poofter. *You craven dewberry ****head cockup pratting
naff. *You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. *You dread-bolted
fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.


What we have here is Dolan at the end of his rope, having a charisma
malfunction ... throwing a tantrum. The fact is, and Ed know this,
when he is wrong he will not succumb to admission of his error, but
rather will resort to diversion and name calling ... how immature.
When someone is persistent in pressing a point an Ed finds himself
trapped in a corner, this is just his modus operandi. Interestingly
enough, those who offer the most resistance when their wisdom,
authority or intentions are called into question are often the very
same persons who have an inherent inability to establish valid grounds
to discredit others. What we have her is a sterling example at
work.

JimmyMac illustrates perfectly why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It would be better if he had stayed totally ignorant like his peasant
ancestors and never gone to college, even to one so poor as Loyola. You are
either to the manor born or working class. JimmyMac is working class to the
core and should never attempt anything the least bit intellectual. It is
clearly beyond him.


AND ... Dolan illustrates that a little knowledge combined with
egocentric, delusional self-indulgence is an even more dangerous
thing. This is an example of typical Dolan wayward gibberish. He
knows nothing of my ancestors, my education or academic rankings of
the school I attended and I'll not debate any of these diversionary
issues with a the hermit Dolan who, need I reiterate, is NOT A MEMBER
OF SOCIETY and whose opinion matters not because he matters not.! As
for being a member of the working class, as I have indicated in the
past, I do not share Ed's warped disdainful perspective regarding the
working class and will not debate this issue with him either having
already done so. Unlike like Ed, prefer not to continue to recycle
the same old grist through the mill ad nauseum. Suffice it to say
however that Dolan himself, who claims not to be a member of the
working class, must have been conceived in the back seat of car with
an automatic transmission which explains why he grew up to be such a
shiftless *******! Oh, and Ed ... you needn't struggle to insult my
intelligence. It is beyond your capacity to do so. For one, you are
not intelligent enough to pull it off and two nothing you have ever
said or ever will say defines who and what I am. When are you going
to master this elementary concept dunderhead?

Regards,


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



JimmyMac November 12th 08 07:46 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 10, 3:36*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
[...] If it were not for the computer and the internet, Dolan would not have

anyone to annoy or offend. *Let's hope that his PC crashes. *That
would mean that Dolan would have to endure social contact in order to
get his PC repaired or replaced ... what a torturous price to pay for
the pitiful, churlish hermit.

I have lived at least 95% of my life without a computer and the Internet.
guess I could live the remaining 5% the same as before if I had to.


T O T A L B U L S H I T !!!!! I challenge you to prove it and pull
the plug. Cant' do it, can you?????

Unlike JimmyMac, I was never stupid enough to think computers were important.


Your entitled to you own stupid opinion.

Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 13th 08 01:47 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 3:46 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 7, 7:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of
sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his
education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.


You may have gone through the motions ....


You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless
crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You
cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry ****head cockup pratting
naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted
fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.


What we have here is Dolan ....


JimmyMac is a stalker - and a dumb one at that. With that goes any and all
credibility. He needs to renew his friendship with Ed Gin. Those two go
together like salt and pepper.

JimmyMac illustrates perfectly why a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.
It would be better if he had stayed totally ignorant like his peasant
ancestors and never gone to college, even to one so poor as Loyola. You
are
either to the manor born or working class. JimmyMac is working class to
the
core and should never attempt anything the least bit intellectual. It is
clearly beyond him.


AND ... Dolan illustrates ....


JimmyMac stands condemned out of his own mouth. All anyone ever has to do is
read his idiotic posts (but no longer on mine). He is a simple minded
stalker who has no credibility and who is also a monumental bore. JimmyMac
is truly a lost soul - a worthless Chicago asshole and ****head. His wife
will have nothing to do with him and even his two poor old longsuffering
hound dogs have abandoned him. But JimmyMac will never make a good hermit.
He is a dependent type who lives off of others. In other words, a blood
sucking leech!

****ing Regards,


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




Edward Dolan November 13th 08 01:51 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 3:36 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
[...]
If it were not for the computer and the internet, Dolan would not have

anyone to annoy or offend ....

I have lived at least 95% of my life without a computer and the Internet.
I guess I could live the remaining 5% the same as before if I had to.


T O T A L B U L S H I T !!!!! I challenge you to prove it and pull

the plug. Cant' do it, can you?????

You first.

Unlike JimmyMac, I was never stupid enough to think computers were
important.

[...]

Regards,


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




JimmyMac November 13th 08 02:07 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 12, 7:51*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 10, 3:36 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote: "JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
[...]
If it were not for the computer and the internet, Dolan would not have


anyone to annoy or offend ....



I have lived at least 95% of my life without a computer and the Internet.


JimmyMac November 13th 08 02:27 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 12, 7:47*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 10, 3:46 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message


....
On Nov 7, 7:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]


Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of
sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his
education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.


You may have gone through the motions ....


You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock.
You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish
foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless
crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You
cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry ****head cockup pratting
naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted
fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.
What we have here is Dolan ....


JimmyMac is a stalker - and a dumb one at that. With that goes any and all
credibility. He needs to renew his friendship with Ed Gin. Those two go
together like salt and pepper.


In his own words ... that would be the stalker Ed Dolan ... I will lie
in wait for him [Tom Sherman] like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.
There is no one I like to pound on better than Tom Sherman. No one
else is worthy of me. I am just waiting for him to say one wrong word
[on the political situation] and I will go berserk.

JimmyMac illustrates perfectly why a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.
It would be better if he had stayed totally ignorant like his peasant
ancestors and never gone to college, even to one so poor as Loyola. You
are
either to the manor born or working class. JimmyMac is working class to
the
core and should never attempt anything the least bit intellectual. It is
clearly beyond him.

AND ... Dolan illustrates that a little knowledge combined with

egocentric, delusional self-indulgence is an even more dangerous
thing. This is an example of typical Dolan wayward gibberish. He
knows nothing of my ancestors, my education or academic rankings of
the school I attended and I'll not debate any of these diversionary
issues with a the hermit Dolan who, need I reiterate, is NOT A MEMBER
OF SOCIETY and whose opinion matters not because he matters not.! As
for being a member of the working class, as I have indicated in the
past, I do not share Ed's warped disdainful perspective regarding the
working class and will not debate this issue with him either having
already done so. Unlike like Ed, prefer not to continue to recycle
the same old grist through the mill ad nauseum. Suffice it to say
however that Dolan himself, who claims not to be a member of the
working class, must have been conceived in the back seat of car with
an automatic transmission which explains why he grew up to be such a
shiftless *******! Oh, and Ed ... you needn't struggle to insult my
intelligence. It is beyond your capacity to do so. For one, you are
not intelligent enough to pull it off and two nothing you have ever
said or ever will say defines who and what I am. When are you going
to master this elementary concept dunderhead?

Please note that I added back the remainder of my post to which Dolan
was responding, but callously deleted without so much as the courtesy
of the customary snip notation, but that is par for the course.
This is the same guy who complains whenever someone responds to one of
his posts without quoting it in its entirety, but take the liberty to
break the very rules he expects others to play by. Then again, the
sociopathic Dolan never plays fair.

JimmyMac stands condemned out of his own mouth. All anyone ever has to do is
read his idiotic posts (but no longer on mine). He is a simple minded
stalker who has no credibility and who is also a monumental bore. JimmyMac
is truly a lost soul - a worthless Chicago asshole and ****head. His wife
will have nothing to do with him and even his two poor old longsuffering
hound dogs have abandoned him. But JimmyMac will never make a good hermit..
He is a dependent type who lives off of others. In other words, a blood
sucking leech!


I For what is a hermit but a blood sucking leech who lives off others
and contribute nothing to the very society from which they have
voluntarily cut ties. have no intention of becoming a hermit. My
wife and dogs would not hear of it, nor am I the least bit so
inclined.

****ing Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 13th 08 03:24 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 7:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Unlike JimmyMac, I was never stupid enough to think computers were
important.

[...]


I'm not the one who asserted that computers were unimportant in his

life and could be lived without. I knew you couldn't stand by what
you said. You often can't. I new you couldn't pull the plug. Like I
said before ... T O T A L B U L L S H I T !!!!!

You ought to know by now that I will NEVER do anything that will convenience
you. If and when I do whatever I do, it will be for my convenience only. Now
go take your poor old longsuffering hound dogs for a walk and quit bothering
the honorable members of these distinguished newsgroups.

Regards,


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




Edward Dolan November 13th 08 03:42 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 7:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
JimmyMac is a stalker - and a dumb one at that. With that goes any and all
credibility. He needs to renew his friendship with Ed Gin. Those two go
together like salt and pepper.


In his own words ... that would be the stalker Ed Dolan ... I will lie

in wait for him [Tom Sherman] like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.
There is no one I like to pound on better than Tom Sherman. No one
else is worthy of me. I am just waiting for him to say one wrong word
[on the political situation] and I will go berserk.

As long as Tom Sherman does not say "one wrong word" I leave him alone. Note
how he leaves me alone! You prove over and over again with your every post
that you are not in his league.
[...]

Please note that I added back the remainder of my post to which Dolan

was responding, but callously deleted without so much as the courtesy
of the customary snip notation, but that is par for the course.
This is the same guy who complains whenever someone responds to one of
his posts without quoting it in its entirety, but take the liberty to
break the very rules he expects others to play by. Then again, the
sociopathic Dolan never plays fair.

Stalkers do not deserve any courtesy, let alone respect. They only deserve
contempt. You will get lots and lots of that from me from now on. I will
also continue to trim your posts when you go and on blithering like the
idiot that you are. Any long windedness will automatically be deleted
without even being read.

JimmyMac stands condemned out of his own mouth. All anyone ever has to do
is
read his idiotic posts (but no longer on mine). He is a simple minded
stalker who has no credibility and who is also a monumental bore. JimmyMac
is truly a lost soul - a worthless Chicago asshole and ****head. His wife
will have nothing to do with him and even his two poor old longsuffering
hound dogs have abandoned him. But JimmyMac will never make a good hermit.
He is a dependent type who lives off of others. In other words, a blood
sucking leech!


I For what is a hermit but a blood sucking leech who lives off others

and contribute nothing to the very society from which they have
voluntarily cut ties. have no intention of becoming a hermit. My
wife and dogs would not hear of it, nor am I the least bit so
inclined.

JimmyMac is an emotionally dependent slob. That is why he has dogs instead
of cats. He wouldn't last a single year as a hermit.

****ing Regards,


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




JimmyMac November 16th 08 02:19 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 12, 9:24*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 12, 7:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Unlike JimmyMac, I was never stupid enough to think computers were
important.

[...]
I'm not the one who asserted that computers were unimportant in his


life and could be lived without. *I knew you couldn't stand *by what
you said. *You often can't. *I new you couldn't pull the plug. *Like I
said before ... T O T A L * B U L L S H I T !!!!!

You ought to know by now that I will NEVER do anything that will convenience
you. If and when I do whatever I do, it will be for my convenience only. Now
go take your poor old longsuffering hound dogs for a walk and quit bothering
the honorable members of these distinguished newsgroups.


This is precisely why you cannot and will not pull the plug ...
because, despite what you indicated, it is inconvenient for you to do
so. You asserted that computers were unimportant in your life and
could be lived without which is obviously untrue. Pulling the plug
would not be a convenience to me but rather an inconvenience for you
and a godsend to the members of the newsgroups that you infest.

Regards,


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



JimmyMac November 16th 08 02:35 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 12, 9:42*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 12, 7:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

JimmyMac is a stalker - and a dumb one at that. With that goes any and all
credibility. He needs to renew his friendship with Ed Gin. Those two go
together like salt and pepper.
In his own words ... that would be the stalker Ed Dolan ... I will lie


in wait for him [Tom Sherman] like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.
There is no one I like to pound on better than Tom Sherman. No one
else is worthy of me. I am just waiting for him to say one wrong word
[on the political situation] and I will go berserk.

As long as Tom Sherman does not say "one wrong word" I leave him alone. Note
how he leaves me alone! You prove over and over again with your every post
that you are not in his league.
[...]

Please note that I added back the remainder of my post to which Dolan


was responding, but callously deleted without so much as the courtesy
of the customary snip notation, but that is par for the course.
This is the same guy who complains whenever someone responds to one of
his posts without quoting it in its entirety, but take the liberty to
break the very rules he expects others to play by. *Then again, the
sociopathic Dolan never plays fair.

Stalkers do not deserve any courtesy, let alone respect. They only deserve
contempt. You will get lots and lots of that from me from now on. I will
also continue to trim your posts when you go and on blithering like the
idiot that you are. Any long windedness will automatically be deleted
without even being read.


In your own words ... Jim McNamara, you are my perennial stalker. How
would I ever get though the week without you here to remind me of what
a jackass I am.

JimmyMac stands condemned out of his own mouth. All anyone ever has to do
is
read his idiotic posts (but no longer on mine). He is a simple minded
stalker who has no credibility and who is also a monumental bore. JimmyMac
is truly a lost soul - a worthless Chicago asshole and ****head. His wife
will have nothing to do with him and even his two poor old longsuffering
hound dogs have abandoned him. But JimmyMac will never make a good hermit.
He is a dependent type who lives off of others. In other words, a blood
sucking leech!
I For what is a hermit but a blood sucking leech who lives off others


and contribute nothing to the very society from which they have
voluntarily cut ties. *I have no intention of becoming a hermit. *My
wife and dogs would not hear of it, nor am I the least bit so
inclined.

JimmyMac is an emotionally dependent slob. That is why he has dogs instead
of cats. He wouldn't last a single year as a hermit.


You blockhead what did you not understand when I indicated that I have
no intention of becoming a societal dropout? A hermit, I will never
be. I will leave that to the dysfunctional type of Dolan's ilk. Cats
are a poor substitute for contact with one's own species. By the way,
you once again have put you ignorance on display, running your mouth
about something you know little about. I had a cat for many years,
from a kitten until it had to be put down due to disease. I just
happen to prefer dogs and that is my prerogative.

****ing Regards,


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



Edward Dolan November 16th 08 03:23 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
[...]
This is precisely why you cannot and will not pull the plug ...

because, despite what you indicated, it is inconvenient for you to do
so. You asserted that computers were unimportant in your life and
could be lived without which is obviously untrue. Pulling the plug
would not be a convenience to me but rather an inconvenience for you
and a godsend to the members of the newsgroups that you infest.

I will stay here forever just to spite you.

Regards,

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



Edward Dolan November 16th 08 03:34 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 9:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
JimmyMac is an emotionally dependent slob. That is why he has dogs instead
of cats. He wouldn't last a single year as a hermit.


You blockhead what did you not understand when I indicated that I have

no intention of becoming a societal dropout? A hermit, I will never
be. I will leave that to the dysfunctional type of Dolan's ilk. Cats
are a poor substitute for contact with one's own species. By the way,
you once again have put you ignorance on display, running your mouth
about something you know little about. I had a cat for many years,
from a kitten until it had to be put down due to disease. I just
happen to prefer dogs and that is my prerogative.

Let us say your wife left you and and took your poor old longsuffering hound
dogs with her, leaving you all alone in the world. How long would you last
on your own? I suspect you might even have to renew your friendship with Ed
Gin out of desperation. You wouldn't last a single year as a hermit whereas
I have lived the past 40 years pretty much as a hermit. That takes
Greatness!

Regards,

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



JimmyMac November 16th 08 01:55 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 15, 9:23*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
[...] This is precisely why you cannot and will not pull the plug ...

because, despite what you indicated, it is inconvenient for you to do
so. *You asserted that computers were unimportant in your life and
could be lived without which is obviously untrue. *Pulling the plug
would not be a convenience to me but rather an inconvenience for you
and a godsend to the members of the newsgroups that you infest.

I will stay here forever just to spite you.


Thanks for the frank admission and confirmation that cannot do without
your computer and the internet which, in reality, have become an
essential and significant facet of your hermetic existence. You
really need to work on this bad habit of contradicting yourself.

Regards,

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



JimmyMac November 16th 08 02:19 PM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 
On Nov 15, 9:34*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 12, 9:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

JimmyMac is an emotionally dependent slob. That is why he has dogs instead
of cats. He wouldn't last a single year as a hermit.
You blockhead what did you not understand when I indicated that I have


no intention of becoming a societal dropout? *A hermit, I will never
be. *I will leave that to the dysfunctional types of Dolan's ilk. *Cats
are a poor substitute for contact with one's own species. *By the way,
you once again have put you ignorance on display, running your mouth
about something you know little about. *I had a cat for many years,
from a kitten until it had to be put down due to disease. *I just
happen to prefer dogs and that is my prerogative.

Let us say your wife left you and and took your poor old longsuffering hound
dogs with her, leaving you all alone in the world.


Lets just say that this hypothetical scenario has a very slim chance
of ever happening.

How long would you last
on your own?


I lived on my own for some time before marrying my wife and did just
fine and didn't have dogs at the time either, BUT ,and this is a big
but, ... not having a spouse or a pet is not tatamount to being a
hermit. I was still a member of society ... unlike a hermit.

I suspect you might even have to renew your friendship with Ed
Gin out of desperation.


I suspect you are in need of a reality check ... never going to happen
in this lifetime.

You wouldn't last a single year as a hermit


Irrelevant ... since, as previously stated SEVERAL TIMES, I have no
such inclination.

whereas I have lived the past 40 years pretty much as a hermit. That takes Greatness!


Delusion is such a comfort. As is often the case, our conclusion does
not strictly follow from your premise. Do not misconstrue living a
voluntary cloistered, estranged life with fantacized greatness.

Regards,

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



Edward Dolan November 17th 08 03:41 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
[...] This is precisely why you cannot and will not pull the plug ...

because, despite what you indicated, it is inconvenient for you to do
so. You asserted that computers were unimportant in your life and
could be lived without which is obviously untrue. Pulling the plug
would not be a convenience to me but rather an inconvenience for you
and a godsend to the members of the newsgroups that you infest.

I will stay here forever just to spite you.


Thanks for the frank admission and confirmation that cannot do without

your computer and the internet which, in reality, have become an
essential and significant facet of your hermetic existence. You
really need to work on this bad habit of contradicting yourself.

Unlike you, I move on from one subject to another depending on what gets
said. It must be horrible to be stuck forever on one just subject, i.e., Ed
Dolan the Great!

Regards,

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




Edward Dolan November 17th 08 03:50 AM

The Dilemma of Tom Sherman
 

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:34 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
You wouldn't last a single year as a hermit


Irrelevant ... since, as previously stated SEVERAL TIMES, I have no

such inclination.

whereas I have lived the past 40 years pretty much as a hermit. That takes
Greatness!


Delusion is such a comfort. As is often the case, our conclusion does

not strictly follow from your premise. Do not misconstrue living a
voluntary cloistered, estranged life with fantacized greatness.

You need to give the hermit's life a chance. Leave your wife and dogs. Then
go to Montana and live in a shack in the mountains for 5 years by yourself
with little or no contact with others. If you can do that, you will have
proven to me that you can be a hermit like me. Then you can have a name like
mine too ... Jim McNamara the Great!

Regards,

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





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com