Hit gravel, broke leg

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Jeff Grippe wrote:

Ed, if you really find the format of my posts so objectionable then feel
free to put me on your bozo list. I promise not to cry.

He *likes* objecting, so he'll hardly take steps to avoid doing so.

(much). But when you actually play a race card I'm going to call you on
it.

And history suggests that it won't make any difference.

As long as you see pointing out to Ed salient features in his posts as
nothing more than typing practice then you can justify them as doing some
good, but most people give up "debate" with Ed because he has an
unparalleled track record at being unable or unwilling to participate in
it intelligently. The track record is available on Google Groups' archive
if you want to check for yourself.

The only track record Peter Clinch has is being a world class bore. Other
than that, he likes to advise others to kill file anyone with whom he
disagrees.

The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his idiotic
signature). Maybe Jeff could take a clue from that since he seems to think
highly of the UK nuts and screwballs and would never dream of saying
anything against them. That would be racist, at which point Jeff would melt
into the ground from the shame of it all.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Jeff Grippe wrote:

And history suggests that it won't make any difference.

Understood but I will always speak out against racism and ignorance. I
realize that it may be pointless at times but (I feel) that we must have a
zero tolerance policy. It isn't enough to just say "Oh that's Ed again."
I'm not saying that I'll respond to every single racist post of his but I
will respond.

It will be fun for me keeping this nerd hopping. Of course, with Jeff,
racism is a very broad category. It basically amounts to whatever he wants
it to be. Well, I will just play with him and see how riled up I can get him
on this racism obsession of his.

The interesting thing is that in his view (I think) he doesn't see himself
as racist but rather as colorful and witty. Maybe its like advertising.
You have to hear / see it 18-20 time (more in his case) before it finally
dawns on you that you are racist.

It has finally dawned on me that Jeff is truly an earnest clod. I would
advise him to look up the following expressions: "pulling your leg" and
"tongue in cheek."

By the way, I have never known or even heard of anyone in my life who was
NOT a racist. Everyone should look in the mirror and try to determine for
yourself who and what you are - besides being a primate that looks like a
baboon of course.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1119031293.ae0ca3b888c96c4ee1e8fc7a3be482f7@t eranews...
[...]
Some times, browsing ARBR (or another newsgroup)
is like riding across that pasture... Missing from the joke
is the horse, of course,

and no one can talk to a horse,
of course, unless, of course,
the horse, of course,
is the famous...

Even though the redoubtable Mr. Tom Sherman has seemingly left us (for
greener pastures let us hope), I see that his progeny is still with us. Jon
Meinecke of course had very little to say about the other Ed, the one who
destroyed this group. No, he was as silent as the grave while total havoc
was being wreaked here. But his mentor Tom was also silent as the grave.
Let's face it. They were both a couple of dead men who only come to life
when all is peaceful and quiet here on ARBR. When war is raging, they absent
themselves. Tom and Jon were both AWOL when it mattered.

But Jon is always good for a Mr. Ed thing.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

an era when scholars and gentlemen wer the only ones on line?

Aw Eddie ya shoulda been there. Believe me there were some real turkeys. The
worst was this "replacement sysop". There was a guy named Wayne that ran a
BBS where there was a lively philisophical discussion. Wayne was a pretty
high up guy in the Hare Krishna group but he tolerated a large variety of
opinion and when it his arguments were backed by his faith he would simply
say "This is what I believe". At some point they sent him on the road to
open temples or something of the sort. The person who replaced him was a
dogmatic bore. He would answer every post with "The vedas say ...." and then
quote scripture and leave no room for discussion. That BBS died very quickly
after he took over. Now that is unfair posting my friend.


Yes I post to you in what looks more like an email. Who says there are rules
here? If you want rules that must be obeyed then join some moderated groups
where there is a moderator who throws off people that don't play by the
rules. You'd better be careful, though. I suspect you'd be one of the first
to go.


There is always a germ of truth in my every generalization.

Well on this we agree. That is infact the nature of generalizations. They
are useful becuase they encapsulate quite a lot. They are also by their
nature, lies because at the level of the specific, they fall apart. For the
record I can't stand PC either although you seem to insist on it for posting
format.



Liberals are fools and idiots...

Ofcourse we are. Who else could believe that in a world populated with
people like you, that thing can actually get better.


I'm concerned about the readers...

Since when are you concerned about anyone that isn't you. Give the readers
some credit will you (oh yeah, I remember, you won't). They will be able to
sort it out for themselves. If they can't they will surely complain. No
complaints yet (except from you but you say you understand me so I don't
give your complaint any weight).


I am interested in writing for the group.

You are such a nobel fellow. How could I have so grossly misunderestimated
you (don't you just love Bushisms)? You are the ultimate humanitarian
thinking only of others! How good of you to chastise me for my selfish and
vile ways! I must absorb you teachings and recognize you as my true master
so that I too may one day put "great" after my name.


Ed Dolan - Minnesota

That there line above is quoted from your last posting. Are you no longer
great? I revoke my pronouncement that you are my master. You are a false
prophet Ed. Your greatness is fleeting or ebbing or doing whatever greatness
does when it is going away.

I, your most humble servant, who remains a foolish liberal with a song in
his heart, bid you good night.

Jeff

"Jeff Grippe" jeff@door7 wrote in message
...
an era when scholars and gentlemen were the only ones on line?

Aw Eddie ya shoulda been there. Believe me there were some real turkeys.
The worst was this "replacement sysop". There was a guy named Wayne that
ran a BBS where there was a lively philisophical discussion. Wayne was a
pretty high up guy in the Hare Krishna group but he tolerated a large
variety of opinion and when it his arguments were backed by his faith he
would simply say "This is what I believe". At some point they sent him on
the road to open temples or something of the sort. The person who replaced
him was a dogmatic bore. He would answer every post with "The vedas say
...." and then quote scripture and leave no room for discussion. That BBS
died very quickly after he took over. Now that is unfair posting my
friend.

That person was not being responsive. If you will note carefully, I am fully
responsive to whatever is being said. That is why incidentally I am NOT a
troll, even though I pretend to be one.

Still, it is my understanding that the web was developed by and for
scholars.

Yes I post to you in what looks more like an email. Who says there are
rules here? If you want rules that must be obeyed then join some moderated
groups where there is a moderator who throws off people that don't play by
the rules. You'd better be careful, though. I suspect you'd be one of the
first to go.

Newsgroups are primarily about a specific subject which is why by and large
I am not really interested in newsgroups. I am a generalist, not a
specialist. A moderator would not tolerate my being off topic as much as I
am. ARBR is a group that will tolerate a certain amount of being off topic
which I appreciate.

There is always a germ of truth in my every generalization.

Well on this we agree. That is infact the nature of generalizations. They
are useful becuase they encapsulate quite a lot. They are also by their
nature, lies because at the level of the specific, they fall apart. For
the record I can't stand PC either although you seem to insist on it for
posting format.

Jeff, I will admit that you do treat me fair even though you refuse to quote
me. You also are responsive, but I do worry that others are not picking up
on what I have said to you. They pick up just fine on what you say to me
because I include your entire message in my replies. But you do not do that.
So I ask you - from the reader's point of view - who has the advantage? I
think we both know that you do. It is quite unfair!

To edit well is a fine art and most can't do it with a darn. I am a very
good editor because I am a good reader. Trust me on this, most here on ARBR
do not know how to edit. That is why I say it is much better to include too
much than too little when quoting others.
[...]

I'm concerned about the readers...

Since when are you concerned about anyone that isn't you. Give the readers
some credit will you (oh yeah, I remember, you won't). They will be able
to sort it out for themselves. If they can't they will surely complain. No
complaints yet (except from you but you say you understand me so I don't
give your complaint any weight).

Nope! I know readers and you don't. You have got to make it easy for them or
they won't bother.

I am interested in writing for the group.

You are such a nobel fellow. How could I have so grossly misunderestimated
you (don't you just love Bushisms)? You are the ultimate humanitarian
thinking only of others! How good of you to chastise me for my selfish and
vile ways! I must absorb you teachings and recognize you as my true master
so that I too may one day put "great" after my name.

I would never post a message to a newsgroup if I thought just that one
person I was answering was going to read what I had written. I am ONLY
interested in writing to a group of people, the more the better. This has to
do with ego and has nothing to do with nobility.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

That there line above is quoted from your last posting. Are you no longer
great? I revoke my pronouncement that you are my master. You are a false
prophet Ed. Your greatness is fleeting or ebbing or doing whatever
greatness does when it is going away.

When I use the moniker " the Great," I am in my parody mode. When I don't
use it, I am being at least half way serious. Guess what I am being when I
use Saint Edward?

I, your most humble servant, who remains a foolish liberal with a song in
his heart, bid you good night.

False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
snip
A moderator could ensure fairness, but Usenet is a free for all. Hence,
the importance of the rules and the importance of observing them.

Wait, is it a free for all or are there rules? I'm confused...

It is a free for all when others choose not to observe the rules. A
moderator would enforce the rules like a dictator - which is good provided
everyone is agreed on the rules.

No moderated group I've ever seen enforced style conventions, they've
only moderated for content. FYI, Usenet has quite a few moderated
groups as well.

Furthermore the way to handle someone who posts in a form wildly
incomprehensible is for the reader to kill file them. Bitching as you
do, especially publicly, does no one any good. The only form of
Usenet life lower then a spelling nazi is a style nazi.

Well, I have finally got you posting correctly at long last. Keep up the
good work!

*You* have? Google has some seven thousand plus articles of mine
archived going back over a decade. Care to find an example where I
didn't "follow the rules"?

Your violations of the rules (conventions) is not as bad as some others I
will admit as you do give some context when you are engaged in a reply.

Huh? To what "violations" are you referring? Now this should be funny.

Nevertheless, it is far better to have the complete passage quoted in your
reply in your correspondent's own words.

If you're replying to anything of serious length, it's a waste of
expensive electrons (and a *disservice* to the reader).

Again, you need to consider the interested reader more than anyone else.
What makes it easiest for him? Reviewing a thread is a non-starter for
anyone except for types like you and me.

99% of readers are following the thread, which means they are already
familiar with the context. The rest are searching history via Google,
where context is pretty clear regardless.

The rules are actually more important by far than what is being said,
because content can be refuted if everyone is following the rules.

"Following the rules" has nothing to do with refuting anything, that's
what article retention is for.

But no one will go back and read former messages (articles). That is why
we have the rules we have.

Actually it's not, but you're pretty new to Usenet so it's
understandable that you're confused as to the rational of quoting.
Perhaps if you asked what the rational was instead of using conjecture
you'd be better informed. Remember, it was only a couple days ago that
you learned Outlook Express isn't Usenet.

PS, top posting has its, pragmatic, place. You yourself have even top
posted a few times in the last couple days.

I only top post when I am engaged in a criticism of someone else's top
posting in order to call it to the attention of the reader. I will ALWAYS
include the relevant previous message to which I am responding. It is only
elementary courtesy to do this and quite rude (and unfair) not to do it.

I still don't grasp the "unfair" claim. It puts the *followup* author
at a disadvantage, not the first author. How is it unfair to put
yourself at a disadvantage? Dumb maybe, but unfair?

Quoting is a friendly courtesy to the reader and aid to the followup
author, nothing more nothing less.

A scholar would not only bottom post including the relevant passages, but
would also include the complete previous message at the very bottom of his
post.

Actually a scholar would reference it as a foot note and leave it at
that, most especially when following such a reference is so trivial.

Or would you like to show me what scholarly article or book includes the
complete work of everything it happends to reference?

That is a bit much for Usenet, but it is absolutely the most correct way
to be fair to someone else. Discourse that is not honest is not worth
bothering with.

You seem to believe the entire article history of a thread is deleted as
soon as a follow up article is posted. That is simply not the case.

Including quoted context is only useful as a reminder of the sub-topic
at hand. If such a reminder is not going to be useful, then they
conventional curtesy actually call for excluding it. Oh, and
convention also says it's actually better to quote too little then too
much (because the thread is intact and the article being followed up
available for review if needed). This is in contrast to email form
convention. The reason being email is commonly deleted quickly, where
newsgroup articles are retained at least for a week or three.

You have got it all backwards. Everything you say in the above paragraph
is either wrongheaded and/or irrelevant.

I like to believe I'm rather familiar with the ins and outs of Usenet,
considering I've been both an avid user and news server administrator
for a considerable amount of time.

You discovered Usenet in 2003 it looks like, yes?

-Zenin

In article , Edward Dolan
wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1119031293.ae0ca3b888c96c4ee1e8fc7a3be482f7@t eranews...
[...]
Some times, browsing ARBR (or another newsgroup)
is like riding across that pasture... Missing from the joke
is the horse, of course,

and no one can talk to a horse,
of course, unless, of course,
the horse, of course,
is the famous...

Even though the redoubtable Mr. Tom Sherman has seemingly left us (for
greener pastures let us hope), I see that his progeny is still with us. Jon
Meinecke of course had very little to say about the other Ed, the one who
destroyed this group. No, he was as silent as the grave while total havoc
was being wreaked here. But his mentor Tom was also silent as the grave.
Let's face it. They were both a couple of dead men who only come to life
when all is peaceful and quiet here on ARBR. When war is raging, they absent
themselves. Tom and Jon were both AWOL when it mattered.

But Jon is always good for a Mr. Ed thing.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota


Troll bait for anyone hungry enough. burp.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

False humility is many times worse than presumed Greatness.

Well I've always been a fan of Uriah Heep (and I don't mean the rock band.
If I've heard any of their music then I certainly don't know it by name).
Please tell me if the reference eludes you. If it does then you are missing
one of the world's greatest books. Y'know it might be time to re-read it.
I'll bet I've forgotten so much. Ain't age grand? "I'm so very humble Mr.
Dolan."


Speaking of quotes here's one from the Ed Dolan hit list earlier in this
thread.

UK cyclists are in a class by themselves. They are pigheaded and cannot
brook disagreement. They are the first to become unpleasant and then cry
like babies when you become unpleasant back at them. The only groups worse
than the UK are the Canadians and the Australians The latter is especially
the pits. They are into nothing but obscenities and when you are obscene
back at them they take a holier than thou attitude and cry foul, i.e., if
they are not otherwise acting like criminals.

Newsgroups are full of idiots and scoundrels. ARBR is no exception, but not
as bad as some others. I attribute this to our being an older age group.
Many on this group are ready for the grave. And thank God we do not have
any stupid women cluttering up this group like some others. We are
fortunate indeed!

Ed, you say this kind of thing just a little too often to simply call it
being witty. If you are just doing it to get a raise out of me or Buck or
Peter or someone else, why bother? You already know that this kind of talk
is going to set me off. It can't be that interesting to do it again and
again. At some point Pavlov but down his bell and called the experiment
done.

You know how to push some of my buttons. Good for you! Is it really that
interesting to do so? You've played this card a time or ten and we all
reacted as you know we would. Move on. I'll publicly confirm what you
already know. It is very easy to get me going with comments like these. I
don't fnd them funny or witty. I do find them objectionable. You will get a
predictable knee jerk response from me when you post them. But you've seen
my knee jerk a bunch. How much fun could it be?

I think you have some interesting things to say but they get a bit lost in
this game you play. I think you have some interesting opinions and some
boneheaded ones. But that is probably what you think of me and that would
mean that things are as they should be.

So I said many message ago that we were done with the Ed Dolan topic. Then I
continued the topic (I did call myself a liar, however). So now I say once
again that we are done with it. I caution you, however, that it wouldn't
take much to keep it going as I am and have always been quite predictable.
That has got to lose its appeal once we all know it, however.

g'night again

Jeff

PS really do let me know if you don't understand the Uriah Heep reference.
If you don't you are missing one of the greatest books ever written and it
would be my pleasure to share it with you. I sense that you are someone who
enjoys reading and this book is just about as good as it gets. It is always
my answer to "What is your favorite novel?"

Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
The one thing Clinch does do right is post properly (other than his
idiotic signature).

Er, Peter's .Sig is textbook perfect*. ASCII, max 4 lines, max 80 char
width, with the correct prefix/delimiter ("-- \n").

Edward, you've got a lot to learn about Usenet... You might try doing so
before you go around preaching to others about it.

*The signature delimiter and format is not part of RFC822, the standard
which governs the format of Usenet messages, but rather it is a well and
long recognized (by both human and machine) convention.

-Zenin

Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
I understand you perfectly, but I am concerned about the readers.

Readers have been taking care of themselves long before you got here in
'03 and will be just fine long after you've turned to dust. If readers
can't grasp Jeff's posts that's Jeff's problem, not yours. If a reader
is sick of Jeff's posts the Usenet Way(tm) is for the reader to simply
killfile him.

You do not have an inkling about Usenet.

And you are projecting.

Funny how you do not know what Usenet is all about.

Funny how those that know the least preach the most.

The quoting thing has its place and I use it when I feel it helps make my
content clearer. When it does not, I discard it. If that make me a
scoundral then I'm guilty as charged. But I'm here and your either going
to have to but me on your bozo list or tolerate my posting style.

Your posting style is fine for email, but it is not fine for Usenet. You
are wrong and you are dishonest not to play the game of Usenet by the
rules. I wil never accept the way you post and I will reprimand you about
it until Hell freezes over. Get use to it because I am not going to go
away either.

Getting you to go away is trivial, a single keystroke away. If you knew
much about Usenet you'd know that.

On the first day god created the Internet, and it was good.

On the second day god created Usenet, and it was good.

On the third day god created kill files, and Usenet was oh, so much
better.

Ed, the only reason I haven't kill filed you yet is because you amuse
me. The moment you are no longer an amusement, *poof*, you will vanish
from the Usenet earth.

-Zenin