Hit gravel, broke leg

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
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.

This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were
created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much lower
user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might find
them to your liking.

You can also give things a positive score in such systems. For example
I could give "Edward Dolan" a +1000 score, basically guaranteeing that
reguardless of any other rules I'd see your posts. So even in a thread
that I'd scored -100 ("I don't care about this topic"), if you happened
to find the topic worthy of attention it would show up anyway (-100 +
1000 0).

All of that is way too much work and I would never even think of doing it.
It is just so much simpler to decide at the moment whether I care to read
someone or not. I do not believe in creating complication when it is not
necessary.

The real question however is why anyone would ever want to kill file dear
lovable Ed Dolan, the greatest charmer ARBR has ever known.

My objection to kill files remains - they are not necessary.

And the great thing about Usenet is that objection is perfectly fine,
for you. Everyone is free to use or not use any filtering systems they
personally find useful, without any imposition on anyone else.

I do not care in the slightest if some dumbbell wants to kill file me. Hells
Bells! It is his loss, not mine!

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.

You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing
libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term
"conservative" into the topic here where it was not before. Right-wing
conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very different
beasts.

I distinguish conservative entirely from libertarian, of whatever stripe. I
have never mixed the term conservative with libertarian. I believe you did
that.

snip
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.

Well, that might explain your odd distain for the inherent article
retention and threading systems of Usenet and subsequent love of
extraneous quoting.

Yes, looking things up is for moles, whether scholars or librarians. Such
low types may be necessary, but I sure as hell am not suited to be a mole. I
leave that to my inferiors. You get the facts for me and I will tell you
what to think about them.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Zenin" wrote in message
...
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.

It is not proper to pull a single sentence out of a paragraph. I never write
that badly that it can be done. My paragraphs are of a very reasonable
length and they hang together. I generally only devote one thought to one
paragraph with maybe a trailing comment at the end as a sort of zinger.

But the truth is there are very few who know how to edit. It is both a skill
and an art. A good writer, such as myself, requires very little editing if
any. You will always be on safe ground if you include my every word in a
paragraph to which you are responding. Only bad writers need to be edited

Note how I have included all of your paragraph because I am responding to
all of your paragraph. I could have easily excluded your last sentence
because it makes me look bad, but I chose not to because I want the reader
to grasp your personality and then my reaction to it. Calling me long-winded
tells the reader more about you than it does me. It is the essence of being
fair which the reader will appreciate and perhaps enjoy at the same time.

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).

No, Jeff is reading me whole, but he wants to paraphrase what I say in a
very minimalist way. I believe I am quite correct in my assessment of why he
is doing what he is doing - he does not want others to kill file him. It is
sad in a way that he should care about such matters. I outgrew all of that
sort of thing by the time I was out of my teens.

Zenin came right out and said it.


Said what?

Who the hell even knows what you are talking about at this point? Here is
the complete thought which is what you should have presented to the reader:

"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 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.

Right! I said that you said it. And then I added the thought that that may
be why Jeff was not quoting me. But you were the one that brought up the
evil thought in the first place, not me and not Jeff. Also, look up the word
devious in a dictionary if you want to see yourself as others see you.

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.

I told Jeff something that he needs to know if he continues to post in the
manner that he does. I had not previously told him that.

The question arises at this point of how well do you read? Your editing is
just so-so. You have not persuaded me of a single thing so far. You do know
one or two things about the Internet and Usenet, but that is of only slight
interest to me.

Bottom line, you write about what you want to write about and say it how you
please and I will do the same. However, as with Jeff, if I think you are
being unfair in your editing, I will make short work of you. I can't be
bothered wasting time with those who refuse to follow the rules and extend
the elementary courtesies of proper posting form.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:48:51 GMT, Mike Rice wrote:

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.

Actually, it's more like 'yet more proof that we were right to
distrust you'. HTH.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

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!


If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name
calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes without
saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. That is not
an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. It is hugely
different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your pick of groups
that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is nuts."

Now I know that making these petty distinctions smacks of PC which is
probably why you have stuck me with the label. But the harsh words escalate
and the entire discussion becomes:

"You're an idiot"

"No you're an idiot"

"You and everyone like you is an idiot"

"No you and everyone like you is an idiot"

And burried in this back and forth I eventually find something having to do
with recumbents or cycling.

You must be tired of saying things that just lead to predictable reactions
from others (including me). Then again maybe you aren't.

But you've got to admit you are properly quoted this time...

Jeff

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

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.


Ed, I've already explained my posting style and it really isn't more
complicated than that. I don't care who kill files me or why. I'm sure that
my saying the same things to you over and over has to be boring to some
people and who can blame them.

My motives are straightforward and relatively simple. I write what I believe
to be the way things are as I understand them. So in a nutshell:

1. I'd like you and others to lay off the insults. It is perfectly fine to
disagree but you don't have to be disagreeable.

2. I'll post any damn way I want to. I'll quote if I feel like it or not. If
that is a problem for you then don't read my posts. It isn't going to have a
profound impact on my life if you choose not to read and respond to
something because you don't like the way it is posted.

3. Everyone deserves a voice here. Clearly there are ways to be so obnoxious
as to really destroy the experience for everyone. I don't think you've
crossed that line. You usually begin your responses to a topic "on topic"
and only sometimes do things degrade into a shouting match. But it takes two
or more to do that so no individual (such as you) can be held to blame. If
people don't want the hostile conversations to continue then they can simply
not respond and the topic dies.

4. People read books and write books dispite what Gore Vidal may have said
and dispite what you have come to believe. But these days people also watch
TV, DVD's, Movies, etc. and the novel is clearly not what it once was.
Nothing can replace it, however. All of these things are different and books
will always have a place.

Ed, you may enjoy playing cute games and getting people to respond to all
sorts of things. Fine. That makes me your patsy. I'm the sucker who will
fall for it every time. That is fine with me. As for who I am, I think your
earlier description of me as an "ernest clod" works well. Since my life's
purpose is not seeking your approval I don't mind whatever label you decide
to stick me with.

As always I sincerely wish you all the best on and off the bike.

Jeff

On 06/20/2005 18:31:49 "Jeff Grippe" wrote:

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

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!

If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name
calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes
without saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts.
That is not an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to.
It is hugely different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your
pick of groups that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is
nuts."

It's ok Jeff, Ed is not Irish.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Zenin" wrote:
This type of situation is what weighted kill files (aka scoring) were
created for. They allow this type of granularity...but with much
lower user overhead to manage then you'd initially expect. You might
find them to your liking.

All of that is way too much work and I would never even think of doing it.
It is just so much simpler to decide at the moment whether I care to read
someone or not. I do not believe in creating complication when it is not
necessary.

Well, you only follow this group one group with any frequency.

When one follows many groups, killfiles/scoring drastically reduce the
effort required. It means the difference between making ten decisions
"at the moment" and hundreds. They really are the only effective way to
follow a large number of groups (even if you never kill file individual
people).

The real question however is why anyone would ever want to kill file dear
lovable Ed Dolan, the greatest charmer ARBR has ever known.

Because you are an ignorant, arrogant, OT loving, noise posting, troll.

Hey, you said you valued honesty.

I was keeping you around because you amused me, much like the tiny
basketball hoop in my office; something I can toy with that doesn't
require much brain power, leaving my mind free to do my real work.

BTW, it's completely possible Peter kill filed you. But it's just as
likely he kill filed this thread, not individual people. So "the real
question" is why do you jump to the conclusion that it's all about you?
Why are you so paranoid?

BTW, I too think I'm done with this thread...it is no longer amusing me.
I'm only giving you a -50 however...you still might amuse on another
topic.

You can't be right-wing libertarian and be pro-society as right-wing
libertarian is basically anarchy. But then you're mixing up the term
"conservative" into the topic here where it was not before.
Right-wing conservative and right-wing libertarian are two very, very
different beasts.

I distinguish conservative entirely from libertarian, of whatever stripe. I
have never mixed the term conservative with libertarian. I believe you did
that.

Review the thread, Ed.

You compared the kill file functionality with liberalism. I countered
with the observation that the system was really far more right-wing
libertarian in nature. You're the one that then came back and confused
the term right-wing libertarian with conservative.

-Zenin

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

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!


If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name
calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes without
saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts. That is not
an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to. It is hugely
different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your pick of groups
that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is nuts."

Now I know that making these petty distinctions smacks of PC which is
probably why you have stuck me with the label.
[...]

But you've got to admit you are properly quoted this time...

Jeff

Yes, you quoted me right but you left out your message and Peter's message
which provided the context for my message.

Here is how you should have done it:

"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?

Edward Dolan wrote:

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!

The above could then be followed by your message to which I am now
responding.

What did you save by truncating the previous message? You only provided a
bit of confusion and muddle headedness to no purpose. You must provide the
FULL CONTEXT in every message so as to leave no doubt as to what has been
previously said. What I said above makes no sense if what led up to it is
not included.

Very few folks know how to edit for clarity. Most folks only know how to
edit to make themselves look good.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Buck" wrote in message
...


On 06/20/2005 18:31:49 "Jeff Grippe" wrote:

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

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!

If you say so Ed. All I'm saying is that I don't need to resort to name
calling and insults merely because I don't agree with you. It goes
without saying that I think some of your opinions are completely nuts.
That is not an insult, however, it is my opinion which I am entitled to.
It is hugely different from saying "You and everyone like you (take your
pick of groups that you belong to Irish, Minnesotan, Conservative) is
nuts."

It's ok Jeff, Ed is not Irish.

Anyone with the name Dolan is of Irish ancestry. That is all I have ever
said about myself. I am as American as it is possible to get.

Jeff Grippe tells me that he is of Polish ancestry. Does Grippe sound Polish
to you?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:48:51 GMT, Mike Rice wrote:

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.

Actually, it's more like 'yet more proof that we were right to
distrust you'. HTH.

regards, Ian SMith

The only proof that can be read into the above statement is that the Brits
deserved to have their empire wrested away from them. They were no longer
fit to rule others. Hells Bells! They can just barely rule themselves these
days. Ah, for the good old days of Queen Victoria!

However, the Brits did manage to bestir themselves long enough to hang onto
their pitiful Falkland Islands under PM Thatcher. Apparently, they are not
yet completely feckless.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota