Hit gravel, broke leg

Re Posting Style:

Ed, I'm not going to edit you. Our outlook on things is almost 180 degrees.
There is no way for my bias not to creep in. If you think you can edit
without bias then feel free to do so. I know you can't. People (warning,
whopping generalization coming...whoop whoop whoop) can't do anything
without bias.

You say that people aren't going to go through the thread to pickup the
conversation? Then they will have limited understanding and if that is what
they want then it is ok with me.



Kill filing you and encouraging other to do the same.

I don't like this behavior either. I don't have a problem with someone
deciding that they don't want to read you and using technology to keep you
away. But if they do that then they should actually stay away. The type of
behavior that you describe is that of an intellectual coward.

Me personally, I think you deserve your voice. I don't have to read it if I
don't want to. Anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to.

You and I have the strangest points where we agree but I would say on many
issues we are 180 degrees. Even so I welcome your voice. I don't believe
that only people who think like me should be heard from. That would be
boring.

What could be happening to those who kill you but still jump in is that they
are responding to me, who has not been kill filed, but really talking to
you. Well if they are going to do that then they will almost certainly get
you wrong. I think people should hear all voices. If you only want to hear
the people that agree with you then go someplace where everyone agrees with
you. Public forums, by definition, are not going to be such places.



Politics, Interational Affairs, etc.

Its pretty clear that this is one of those areas where we are 180.



Liberterianism

I sort of like the idea but I feel the same way about it that I do about
communisim. They are both interesting ideas that will never work. I do feel
that personal liberty and freedom should be a lot less restricted than they
are now but I don't really think that will ever happen. I also recognize
that there must be incentive and large rewards to innovate and succeed. I
would like to see the lowest of the low taken care of but I also think that
everyone deserves the chance to "play for the big money". You can't do that
unless there is big money to play for. So I recognize my various utopian
dreams are just that, dreams, and I seek to make things better (by my
definiation which is very different from yours) within the current system.



Books, etc.

You know I didn't respond to that the first time because I thought you were
just trying to provke a response. Ofcourse people read books. They may not
read as much as they did when books were the only entertainment available
but literaure is far from dead. Maybe you don't read novels but a lot of
people do. But Ed you are too smart not to know this alerady. So is this the
response you were trying to provoke. I told you it was easy to do.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They
are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and
their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.

It's rather ironic really...

The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the
extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely
about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence
by others.

What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is
never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required
to read anything you do not want to read.

What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are
nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads, or
topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but the
same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if it can
also apply in the inverse.

By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are
libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not allowed
to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself.

That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. :-)

I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill
filers are liberals.They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that
they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children. There
are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and
they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to
disagreements, however impolite.

Me thinks you completely misunderstand the way kill files function.

Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict set
of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered
left-wing.

The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could
have a much better newsgroup.

Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups and
can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you
please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path?

-Zenin

*There are left-wing libertarians, ala libertarian socialists. All around
a much more practical and kind hearted bread then their right-wing
relatives.

"Mike Rice" wrote in message
...

Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda
could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible
profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world
reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us.


For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it with
beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view.

Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a similar
opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it had been
longer I would have done something like " War on Terror"

"Mike Rice" wrote in message
...
Can't believe I'm responding to a troll, but Ed the Meek has crossed
the line.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:
[...]
I maintain that no one but no one reads novels anymore. I stopped reading
novels by the age of 30 as I could no longer identify with the main
characters. They were invariably young and making their way in the world,
especially romantically. I will give Dickens credit for giving every
character his due. He is like an opera composer that way - every character
has his moment in the limelight, not just the protagonist.

I guess since you quit reading that *no one* still does?

But I was a great reader. I wasted my youth reading books. I was what was
known as a book worm. But I stopped reading novels by the age of 30 for the
reasons stated above. I do not believe older folks read novels. But more
than that, I do not believe even young people read novels anymore, at least
not like how I used to.

Of course we old men still read books, but we do not read novels. You have
to be young and a Romantic in order to enjoy novels. Who ever heard of an
old man being a Romantic? By the way, an old man is anyone over the age of
30. You should be done with Romance by age 30 and have begun contemplating
your mortality. Here is your epitaph:

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

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

PS. Now you know why I call myself the Great.

"Jeff Grippe" jeff@door7 wrote in message
...

"Mike Rice" wrote in message
...

Our 'War On Terror' is an embarrassment. We were lied to so an agenda
could be follwed, and the source and his buddies are making incredible
profits while bankrupting the country, and giviing much of the world
reason to distrust (if not outright hate) us.

Mike should read Miller's "Death of a Salesman" where some comments are made
about war profiteering. It was nuts then and it is nuts now.

For the record, I agree with you but thought it best to not get into it
with beyond saying that we are 180 different in our view.

Note to Ed, I didn't quote Mike "properly" because he and I share a
similar opinion but rather because the paragraph involved was short. If it
had been longer I would have done something like " War on Terror"

No, you did it exactly right. Forget about the "" business. It is fine
for email, but it does not work for Usenet. The readers want to know
specifically to what you are responding. Mike has made a statement about the
War on Terrorism and you have responded to it as have I. Now others can chip
in too if they want without writing an essay on the subject. They can either
add or subtract from what has already been said without slighting anyone. It
is the only way for Usenet, of that I am convinced.

Your " War on Terror" would only be appropriate for a new subject thread
of which you would be the author. Even though I do not like what Mike has to
say about the War on Terrorism, I want to be fair to him and to let him have
his say. This can only be done with the proper quotation. As far as I know,
no one has ever accused me of being unfair. I can take as well as I can
give, so I let others have their full say in my replies.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
Politically correct liberal idiots are the greatest kill filers. They
are like ostriches, but I don't mind. With their heads in the sand and
their asses in the air, they make very tempting targets.

It's rather ironic really...

The killfile system, politically, is very libertarian (considered the
extreme right-wing). It is not at all left-wing. It is completely
about the rights and freedoms of the individual, free from influence
by others.

What influence? Simply do not read those who annoy or irritate you. It is
never necessary to kill file anyone on Usenet since you are not required
to read anything you do not want to read.

What do you think kill files are? In their basic form kill files are
nothing more then an automatic way to not read those people, threads,
or
topics which annoy you. -Weighted kill files are more complex, but the
same basic idea still applies albeit with the addition that it if it
can
also apply in the inverse.

I may want to read someone on one subject but not on another subject. If I
kill file that person, then I am prevented from reading him on any subject.
My objection to kill files remains - they are not necessary.

However, the turth of the matter is that no one ever annoys me, at least not
in writing. Plenty of people annoy me in the flesh, but words can never hurt
me. But of course criminality via Usenet is another matter altogether.

By the way, the only class of people I hate worse than liberals are
libertarians! The ought to be taken out and shot - or at least not
allowed
to live in society. I would exile them to Antarctica myself.

That's convenient, since right-wing* libertarians are anti-society. :-)

We conservatives are very pro-society! But we know what works and what
doesn't work, which is why we are not much in favor of social
experimentation.

I am speaking from long experience when I say that the greatest kill
filers are liberals.They ruled the roost for most of my life and now that
they are no longer ruling the roost, they act like spoiled children.
There
are only a very few good reasons for kill filing someone on Usenet and
they are all related to criminal behavior and none of them are related to
disagreements, however impolite.

Me thinks you completely misunderstand the way kill files function.

Your wish for "group think" where everyone must follow some strict
set
of lowest common denominator rules is actually what is considered
left-wing.

The Google rules just make sense and if everyone played by them we could
have a much better newsgroup.

Got a link? I've looked through what I could find on Google Groups and
can't seem to find any mention of the rules you preach. Would you
please humble me with your greatness and illuminate my path?

Sigh! I MAY get back to you on this at a later date. I just hate to look up
anything. It comes from my being a former college librarian.

*There are left-wing libertarians, ala libertarian socialists. All around
a much more practical and kind hearted bread then their right-wing
relatives.

I have only read libertarians briefly as I just can't stand their confounded
ideology. In any event, it is all hopelessly utopian.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Jeff Grippe wrote:

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.

That's fair, though I've come around to the feeling that the only reason
Ed hasn't been hanged is he's still feverishly paying out rope for
himself. He's so clearly an intolerant numpty that there's little point
in me saying so, he's saying it himself, and he's showing what a vacuous
way to be it is by providing an ongoing example. Anyone but Ed want to
be like Ed?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Jeff Grippe" jeff@door7 wrote in message
...
Re Posting Style:

Ed, I'm not going to edit you. Our outlook on things is almost 180
degrees. There is no way for my bias not to creep in. If you think you can
edit without bias then feel free to do so. I know you can't. People
(warning, whopping generalization coming...whoop whoop whoop) can't do
anything without bias.

I can edit anyone perfectly without any bias whatsoever. I will simply
include all of the relevant post and only eliminate that which is irrelevant
to what I am responding to. This is not difficult at all for anyone with a
college education. Even smart high schoolers can be very good at this.
However, in the absence of any education at all, simply include the entire
preceding post and forget about relevancy. Your objections to proper posting
do not make any sense to me.

You say that people aren't going to go through the thread to pickup the
conversation? Then they will have limited understanding and if that is
what they want then it is ok with me.

But I am not as selfish as you are. I want others to benefit from my wisdom
and so I want to make it easy for them to read what I have written and what
others have written. It must be the educator in me. I do not understand why
you do not follow my example since it is not only correct but easy to do.

Kill filing you and encouraging other to do the same.

Most others will not know to what you are referring, whereas if you had
included my message in quotation it would be immediately apparent. Even I
had to recollect what I had said. You must have other reasons why you do not
quote me. I am beginning to suspect your motivations!
[...]

Liberterianism

I sort of like the idea but I feel the same way about it that I do about
communisim. They are both interesting ideas that will never work. I do
feel that personal liberty and freedom should be a lot less restricted
than they are now but I don't really think that will ever happen. I also
recognize that there must be incentive and large rewards to innovate and
succeed. I would like to see the lowest of the low taken care of but I
also think that everyone deserves the chance to "play for the big money".
You can't do that unless there is big money to play for. So I recognize my
various utopian dreams are just that, dreams, and I seek to make things
better (by my definiation which is very different from yours) within the
current system.

Liberals, socialists and communists hate libertarians the same as we
conservatives.

Books, etc.

You know I didn't respond to that the first time because I thought you
were just trying to provke a response. Ofcourse people read books. They
may not read as much as they did when books were the only entertainment
available but literaure is far from dead. Maybe you don't read novels but
a lot of people do. But Ed you are too smart not to know this alerady. So
is this the response you were trying to provoke. I told you it was easy to
do.

Novels are hardly even being written any more so few people are reading
them. According to Gore Vidal, the novel is now as dead as the Dodo Bird. It
died a couple of generations ago.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to kill
file you. Zenin came right out and said it. He is devious like a fox, but he
is truthful too. I cannot give your messages the time and effort they
deserve if you do not quote me in your messages.

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

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.

That's fair, though I've come around to the feeling that the only reason
Ed hasn't been hanged is he's still feverishly paying out rope for
himself. He's so clearly an intolerant numpty that there's little point
in me saying so, he's saying it himself, and he's showing what a vacuous
way to be it is by providing an ongoing example. Anyone but Ed want to be
like Ed?

Hey Jeff ... with friends like this you do not need any enemies. By the way,
all these UK cyclists are nothing if not PC (politically correct). Regular
knee jerks - all of them!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I am trying to figure out if this Medical Physics IT Officer by the name of
Peter Clinch of the University of Dundee, Scotland has kill filed me or not.
It would seem not as he continues to see fit to comment on my posts (or is
it just little old me regardless of my posts). Well, he has always been a
scoundrel and a coward who refuses to confront anyone directly. He only
knows how to weasel indirectly via another's post. He is the Cletus Lee of
the UK. Anyone here really want to be like Peetah!

Clinch took a big time powder when the criminal vandal troll was here
wrecking ARBR a few months ago. But it is always good to know who you can
depend upon to be a scoundrel and a coward when the going gets rough. Clinch
is no good in a clinch despite his name.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
snip
I can edit anyone perfectly without any bias whatsoever. I will simply
include all of the relevant post and only eliminate that which is
irrelevant to what I am responding to.

I did exactly this with your post and you called it biased because I
didn't include the full paragraph(s). In that example (as in this one),
I was responding to a point made within a paragraph that consisted of
many sub-points as well as the over-all point. When such situations
occur one is required to split the quote to display correct context for
the reply (eg, this reply). Perhaps if your paragraphs were not so
long-winded this type of edit would not be so often required.

PS. I believe you are not quoting me because you do not want others to
kill file you.

Or he could simply be respecting the wishes of those who have chosen to
avoid your ramblings. Or he could not care about any of it (the most
likely case).

Zenin came right out and said it.

Said what? I did suggest that your real intent in promoting the
complete and unedited quoting of your messages was to circumvent kill
files, but I never suggested Jeff had thought at all about kill files.

I cannot give your messages the time and effort they deserve if you do not
quote me in your messages.

You've already said your piece; demanding others recite you again is
simply being obnoxious.

-Zenin