Does God have a wife?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
time. My girlfriend is away, which makes me think what would be of
Adam without Eve)
In my long years of hearing about God, I've never heard of him having
a wife or at least a lover... WHY?
He saw the need of giving Adam a partner, and though it came out
wrong, nobody denies we still need a wife or lover. Actually I think a
lover is better than a wife, but that's just me. I'd assume God would
have a real wife according to his dignified post as head of the
Christians or whatever religion he is.
Moreover people of his dignity can have a wife and lovers at the same
time. The lovers don't have to be official either, as they can be
aids, secretaries, etc. Of course, I'm not insinuating anything, just
reflecting the fact that we really don't know.
The option that he is single would give rise to rumors and gossips.
Who would elect a president that is single other than the perverted
French? We in America choose candidates with a pretty family, and even
a pretty dog. Then the big question arises one more time: DOES GOD
HAVE A DOG?
Please, let's settle this once and for all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you lost hope...
Edward Dolan
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b22bc0b4-b6cb-4bf4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> (I want to emphasize that in no way I'm bored and looking to kill
> time. My girlfriend is away, which makes me think what would be of
> Adam without Eve)
>
> In my long years of hearing about God, I've never heard of him having
> a wife or at least a lover... WHY?
>
> He saw the need of giving Adam a partner, and though it came out
> wrong, nobody denies we still need a wife or lover. Actually I think a
> lover is better than a wife, but that's just me. I'd assume God would
> have a real wife according to his dignified post as head of the
> Christians or whatever religion he is.
>
> Moreover people of his dignity can have a wife and lovers at the same
> time. The lovers don't have to be official either, as they can be
> aids, secretaries, etc. Of course, I'm not insinuating anything, just
> reflecting the fact that we really don't know.
>
> The option that he is single would give rise to rumors and gossips.
> Who would elect a president that is single other than the perverted
> French? We in America choose candidates with a pretty family, and even
> a pretty dog. Then the big question arises one more time: DOES GOD
> HAVE A DOG?
>
> Please, let's settle this once and for all.
Listen up, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point in
originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.
If you continue to originate threads which have no new interest, I will
continue to step on your posts and make you out to be the poor dumb bastard
that you are. I will only do copy and paste since you are not worthy of any
kind of thought on my part.
You are the village idiot, but at least if you have the grace to keep your
god damn fucking shit on a single thread, I will not bother you. Otherwise I
will bother you no end and I do not care if I take down the entire
newsgroup. You are one of the supreme assholes of all time and you have no
business being here at all.
Find something else to do. Why not fuck all those monkeys you are constantly
referencing. That ought to keep you busy for a few years at least.
Fucking Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
>
> We do sometimes wonder whether any such thing might exist. but find no
> objective or unequivocal evidence supporting any such conjecture, so
> regard it as a matter of no consequence..
You have failed to notice this subject is of cosmic importance. Why
the Christians have been hiding that fact of God? Even the Mary
Magdalene affair pales in comparison to this.
You can't have a good dramatic play without a heroine or at least a
bitch. There's no life in God without one. Sorry to say... He's dead!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
<"WheresMyCheck"@UncleSamLoves.Mee> wrote:
> universe while the little lady was cooking supper.
> You are still thinking within the bounds of human thinking. You need to
> get spiritual. Try to think in terms outside the human mind which is
> impossible but we can try. If there is eternal life what would that be
> like? If we think in terms of human thinking we would have forever to
> learn every song and music piece ever thought of and then hear them
> again and again until we were as sick of them as hearing one child's
> tune over and over for eternity. We'd have plenty of time to learn all
> the mathematical laws and the toughest equations and then what would we
> do for entertainment?
> Anyway it's time for you to go get a job. Surprise your girlfriend
> when she gets back and have a job, that's assuming she comes back,
> she's probably out looking for someone that can support her.
> Better go get a job. You can major in philosophy while flipping
> burgers. It's time for you to earn your space here on earth.
> Go get a job.
You forget THE WISDOM OF THE JUNGLE allows you to survive in adverse
conditions. I don't like scarcity like in COMMUNISM or waste like in
CAPITALISM but a surplus is created . In other words, there's
abundance in the jungle to allow monkeys to philosophize. This wasn't
possible until primitive men freed themselves from hunting-gathering
and ask, "Who's God, and do we really need him?" They settled down in
civilization and advised the Pharaohs that it was in their interest to
declare a god and the rest is history.
God is more of a capitalist in the sense he wasted so much raw
material in the Universe to house us in this little green planet. But
he really got a communist system ready for us when we die. Nothing
like SUVs or Gated Communities. We are issued a pair of wings, and
that's about it.
The Pharaohs wanted to reach Eternity and in the process drained the
resources of the Kingdom. In fact we still have the Pyramids, which
means they are a pretty good shot at Eternity. The corpses of the
Pharaohs are all decomposed and rotten, but it doesn't mean their
souls are not in the company of Ra.
Deep stuff, huh?
Edward Dolan
news:2f741cbf-ba22-425e...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I am fed up with your animal metaphors. How about I liken you to your god
damn fucking monkeys myself? Yea, I think you are really into monkeys. What
is there about them makes you want to fornicate with them? I think the rest
of us would like to know about the depths of your depravity.
And your attacks on Christianity are truly mind boggling. How would an idiot
like you know anything about anything so abstract as religion. You are
strictly a concrete knower, one who knows about monkey asses and penises and
not much else.
If there is a God, let us hope that He will consign you to Hell from whence
you came. Yea, I pray every day that some motorist there in Florida will
take you out of your misery. And the sooner the better!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> I think God made huge mistake when he took Adams rib and made him a woman.
> He should have taken a hair and made Adam is own pussy!
>
> Think about it, if Adam had his own pussy man would not have had to spend so
> much energy, time and money trying to get some. If he had his own pussy
> man would by now be advanced hundred of time greater than he is today. ;)
Yours is the most creative answer, surely NOT coming from a Christian
(Christians are not very creative).
It's a brilliant idea, but the implications are enormous: What if all
of a sudden half the population of the world is redundant! I mean we
could all live in abundance. On the other hand... WHO WOULD COOK?
Edward Dolan
news:d59415e2-fe19-4a60...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
another poor crazy Usenet bastard!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d59415e2-fe19-4a60...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 11:58 am, "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> I think God made huge mistake when he took Adams rib and made him a
> >> woman.
> >> He should have taken a hair and made Adam is own pussy!
>
> >> Think about it, if Adam had his own pussy man would not have had to spend
> >> so
> >> much energy, time and money trying to get some. If he had his own pussy
> >> man would by now be advanced hundred of time greater than he is today.
> >> ;)
>
> > Yours is the most creative answer, surely NOT coming from a Christian
> > (Christians are not very creative).
>
> > It's a brilliant idea, but the implications are enormous: What if all
> > of a sudden half the population of the world is redundant! I mean we
> > could all live in abundance. On the other hand... WHO WOULD COOK?
>
> No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
> He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
> them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
> another poor crazy Usenet bastard!
If he does, she leaves him with the computer to keep him away.
If he doesn't, that explains his frustration.
Edward Dolan
news:284bf4a7-aee0-47c9...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...[...]
> No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
> He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
> them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
> another poor crazy Usenet bastard!
>> If he does, she leaves him with the computer to keep him away.
>> If he doesn't, that explains his frustration.
I don't believe I have ever read a single message by TM that didn't cause me
to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:284bf4a7-aee0-47c9...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> [...]
>
> > No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
> > He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
> > them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
> > another poor crazy Usenet bastard!
> >> If he does, she leaves him with the computer to keep him away.
> >> If he doesn't, that explains his frustration.
>
> to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
No way you could have a wife.
Mrs Irish Mike
the Jungle" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
God is omnipotent. God is everything. So God is his own wife. He is
the husband also. If he wants, he can be his own dog. God by
definition is everything. If you must think of God in sexual terms,
you could say he is auto-erotic. That's what happens when you're
everything.
Now the reason you are concerned with God's wife and dog is because
you can only think in terms of God as human, when in actuality God is
everything. IF God were to speak to a human that human's mind would
blow a gasket. People can't think in omnipotent terms, so they create
God to look at like what they can almost understand-- like a galactic
magician.
So, what you are doing is trying to understand the unknowable. Your
energy would be better served trying to better understand yourself.
That way you might never understand God, but you'll at least
understand a part of God.
Peace Out and OMMMmmmmmm...
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Oct 16, 8:02 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
> the Jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> God is omnipotent.[...]
Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Don Klipstein
>(I want to emphasize that in no way I'm bored and looking to kill
>time. My girlfriend is away, which makes me think what would be of
>Adam without Eve)
>
>In my long years of hearing about God, I've never heard of him having
>a wife or at least a lover... WHY?
<I SNIP from here ro edit for space>
According to a joke at least 20 years old, God is...
The joke is about a preacher in a church describing God...
"God is both male and female, but also neither."
"God is both black and white, but also neither."
"God is both straight and gay, but also neither".
According to the joke, some young kiddie tells family upon coming home
from church his take from the above what God is.
Accordingly, "God is Michael Jackson".
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
><nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b22bc0b4-b6cb-4bf4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
<Snip to what E.D. has to say)
>Listen up, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point in
>originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
>subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
>you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.
<Snip from here>
Although there is sense of confinement of one topic to one thread, I
still see "Monkey" being much more entertaining than E.D. is. I see that
E.D.'s "chosen mission" appears to me to be basically being an opponent
to an offendor less-offensive than E.D. is.
Don Klipstein
"The King is dead - Long Live The King!"
According to the "Holy Bible", the self-proclaimed "King of the Jews"
lives again after being murdered, and tells how everybody "can live
again" after death.
The same says that the same self-proclaimed king of some to maybe all
also teaches the "Golden Rule"...
"Do Unto Others What You want them to Do Unto You". (Best-I-remember)
I would very heavily carry this onto the road - I yield right-of-way to
everyone and everything in sight in ways that I want these to yield to me
when "rules of the road" are "in my favor".
I stop for red lights when cross-traffic vehicles and pedestrians have
green light in conflict with me - I yield to those that I must yield to
according to "Rules Of The Road".
("Usual law", legally enforceable upon penalty, is that I have to not
run red lights even when I am not in conflict with a pedestrian or a
vehicle that sees a green light. I violate such law at my own risk of
enforcement penalties, but only when I am not in conflict with others that
"Rules Of The Road" requires me to yield to.)
Edward Dolan
news:slrnibmp1...@manx.misty.com...
I am not here to entertain, but to kick ass. I do it better than anyone else
on Usenet.
TM is good natured and does not easily take offense, but his prolific
posting is designed to do only one thing, and that is to destroy a small
newsgroup like RBS. I only monitor RBS, so he can get off this newsgroup
anytime he wants and that will be the end of it for me.
By the way, TM is only entertaining if you were born yesterday. He is a god
damn fucking idiot and a god damn stupid son of a bitch besides. In short,
he is a nut and a screwball. No one on these newsgroups pays the slightest
attention to him except for a few fellow idiots like yourself. I suggest you
get a life instead of wasting your time defending an asshole like TM. He is
a simpleton and the village idiot.
Edward Dolan
news:i9flpg$va1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 10/17/2010 2:57 PM, Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
Who is Mrs. Irish Mike?
>> On Oct 16, 8:02 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>> the Jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> God is omnipotent.[...]
>
> Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Only a Great Saint like Saint Edward the Great can answer those kind of
questions.
All TM knows is how to fuck his monkeys, which I believe he does at least
twice a day. Let us hope he gets HIV and croaks like the dumb bastard he is!
Don Klipstein
The "communist ideal" requires honesty and "fair play". History teaches
that historically on this planet, a "communist society" has greedy
violators taking from others upspringing due to such a society having
lower law enforcement against some of such thieves.
> Nothing like SUVs or Gated Communities. We are issued a pair of wings,
> and that's about it.
I have nothing against people being "Free Birds" with a pair of wings,
or a pair of wheels, plus a pair of pedals and a chain and a couple
sprockets, plus a handlebar.
What I have a problem with is "Top Dogs" claiming special privelege to
make the rules (and especially when largely disobeying rules that they
want enforced), and non-subservient wolf-like dogs being takers more than
givers (such as "stars" on Wall St).
"Rules Of The Road" are easier for me - I have a very high rate of
agreeance with what those are generally said to be.
I only disobey such when I am not in conflict with others on the road
that such rules require me to yield to. I only run red lights when I am
not impeding or in conflict with someone who has a green light. At my own
risk of violating laws that I agree with, when I can't see anyone that I
am violating against... I "go full steam ahead" if I would not bitch-out
a car-driver ("cager") for doing the same.
It appears to me that desire to make the rules requires obedience and
fair play. Furthermore, "Rules Of The Road" are established to an extent
such that a "Lone Wolf" has little ability to outright rewrite such. The
"honest lone wolf" merely gets away with what modern law enforcement
practice "allows", while doing unto others only what such wolf would let
others do unto such wolf when the table is turned.
(Maybe someday I will have to eat a $109.50 ticket with 3 points against
my license to drive vehicles with motors sometime when I fail to reduce my
speed to zero.0000 MPH at a stop sign while I was stopping at least as
much as I would want car-drivers / "cagers" to stop for me.)
Don Klipstein
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>On Oct 16, 8:02�pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
>the Jungle" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Whatever the wise monkey said)
> God is omnipotent. God is everything. So God is his own wife. He is
>the husband also. If he wants, he can be his own dog. God by
>definition is everything. If you must think of God in sexual terms,
>you could say he is auto-erotic. That's what happens when you're
>everything.
I have a liking for myself to be my own dog.
As a result, I like "rules of theb road", and I only disobey such
when such disobedience does not put me in conflict with others
according to such rules that I ageree with but sometimes violate anyway.
And, God appears to me to be all of gay, straight, bisexual and asexual,
as well as having both both and neither of the genders of the earthly life
forms that reproduce sexually from 2 individuals of different genders.
(As well as gender or lack thereof of life forms reproducing asexually,
and also genders of life forms not yet known known on this planet to have
more than 2 genders.)
> Now the reason you are concerned with God's wife and dog is because
>you can only think in terms of God as human, when in actuality God is
>everything. IF God were to speak to a human that human's mind would
>blow a gasket. People can't think in omnipotent terms, so they create
>God to look at like what they can almost understand-- like a galactic
>magician.
>
> So, what you are doing is trying to understand the unknowable. Your
>energy would be better served trying to better understand yourself.
>That way you might never understand God, but you'll at least
>understand a part of God.
>
> Peace Out and OMMMmmmmmm...
Not as much as I try to understand what God is, I do ride on roads
according to the "usual rules", only violating such when I am not
violating against anyone that I need to yield to according to such rules
(which I agree with).
So, I am not too concerned with who is God's wife, who is my wife, or
who I am a wife of. (Probably helps to support such statement the fact
that I am "one of those" sexually attracted to my own gender rather than
to a different gender. Given high worldwide birth rate, I see lack of
responsibility of every human individual to produce offspring.)
Mrs Irish Mike
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 2:57 PM, Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>
>
> > God is omnipotent.[...]
>
> Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
>
> --
would be the rock. Undoubtly he could create a rock so big he would
have difficulty moving it.
That question is a quest to know the unknowable. Best to spend the
time knowing fully who you are. From there you would have an inkling
of understanding of who God is. If you can't know yourself, then you
certainly can not know God.
Hari Hari
tmclone
Mrs Irish Mike
> There is no God. Period. Full. Stop. Move along and get a life.
If you don't look for God, you will never find it.
Edward Dolan
news:544a661e-872f-4bf9...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> There is no God. Period. Full. Stop. Move along and get a life.
Even a Great Saint like Saint Edward the Great agrees fully with the above.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
You freaked me out. So there's nobody stopping him from blowing up our
mind and twisting any logic we may try. And he's so erratic in the
Bible that we never know what's next. That god is so powerful he can
make a wife bark like a dog, and the dog act like a wife.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 2:57 PM, Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 8:02 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
> > the Jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > God is omnipotent.[...]
>
> Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
He created the human race and then couldn't handle it, right?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> In article <1a227$4cba7892$d8106f5c$28...@KNOLOGY.NET>, Edward Dolan wrote:
> >"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
> >news:b22bc0b4-b6cb-4bf4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> <Snip to what E.D. has to say)
>
> >Listen up, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point in
> >originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
> >subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
> >you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.
>
> <Snip from here>
>
> Although there is sense of confinement of one topic to one thread, I
> still see "Monkey" being much more entertaining than E.D. is. I see that
> E.D.'s "chosen mission" appears to me to be basically being an opponent
> to an offendor less-offensive than E.D. is.
> --
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
I hate to say this, but Ed has chosen the path of the Devil.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> In <ba612d45-1185-4829-bd9a-b7a3c92bf...@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Many Christians perhaps interpret human life as transitory and killing
a cyclist is just the will of God ("He's now with God"). Perhaps they
don't think at all and drive recklessly.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> In <f9bbdca1-95ba-4417-9cab-54365d6cf...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
This is meant to represent our tendency to vote for candidates with
"pretty families." Who the fuck cares? The day YOU run for president
and can change our PREDATORY RULES OF THE ROADS, you'll have my full
support.
In the meantime, God gets an F.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
This is meant to represent our tendency to vote for candidates with
tmclone
THERE IS NO "GOD". My doG but you're a tool. PLONK!
Edward Dolan
news:30446297-607e-468c...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[...]
> >Listen up, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point
> >in
> >originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
> >subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
> >you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in
> >peace.
>>> I hate to say this, but Ed has chosen the path of the Devil.
I hate to say this, but TM has chosen the path of the Idiot.
Fucking Regards,
Edward Dolan
news:0cdb7705-f92c-492c...@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Many Christians perhaps interpret human life as transitory and killing
a cyclist is just the will of God ("He's now with God"). Perhaps they
don't think at all and drive recklessly.
What everybody knows is that you are one fucking idiot. A bullet though your
addled brain is an end devoutly to be wished for. Or pray god, some motorist
will take you out!
Edward Dolan
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He sure as hell did not create you. You are a creation of the Devil. Ride
your bike more (and post less) so some Florida motorist can kill you! Then
you can return to Hell and fuck your g.d. monkeys!
Edward Dolan
news:736b22f0-e21f-4ed4...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> You freaked me out. So there's nobody stopping him from blowing up our
mind and twisting any logic we may try. And he's so erratic in the
Bible that we never know what's next. That god is so powerful he can
make a wife bark like a dog, and the dog act like a wife.
When referring to God in whatever person, the pronoun should be capitalized,
you g.d. fucking idiot! I only regret that the Devil, when he made you, did
not give you a brain!
Don Klipstein
>On 10/17/2010 2:57 PM, Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 8:02 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>> the Jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> God is omnipotent.[...]
>
>Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Usually, this is stated as questioning whether or not God can create a
rock so big that God cannot destroy it.
As a result, this gets used against God by proving that according to
Earthly rules there is no such thing as a "god" that is so supremely
powerful to extent of both being able to destroy everything that such a
"god" creates, as well as being able to create something that such a "god"
cannot destroy. As in proving an impossibility that by Earthly logic
even God cannot overcome, is supposed to be proof that God does not exist.
However, I see how even God exists despite inability to overcome an
obstacle that according to "Earthling logic" not even the most supreme
combination of beings in the universe can overcome.
For that matter, Isaac Asimov (I hope I spelled that correctly) is a
fravored theologian of mine, due to writing a "short story" describing God
(as I see this) as something weaker. The "short story" here is "The Last
Question".
According to this "short story", the "Last Question" is, "How does one
reverse entropy?". In this story, the advancement of computers fails to
answer this question, even when the Sun burns out, even when all other
stars in the universe burn out.
So, when all the stars in the universe supporting inhabitable
planets burn out, all the souls of deceased "intelligent" life forms
coalesce into a club, becoming realizing that the collective "knows
everything".
And, a latecomer "smart-aleck" soul approaches the "collective" and
asks,
"If you Know Everything - answer this one! How to reverse entropy?"
Then, the soft-"neon"-glowing collective of souls invites the latecomer
"smart-aleck" in. A voice from the collective says, "We need you", or
something to effect of needing all including the latecoming "smart-aleck".
After that, the "neon-glowing" collective throbs and pulsates and has
white-hot waves rippling through it, in effort to answer "The Last
Question".
The latecomer soul allows to be merged into the collective as the
collective pulsates etc. to answer the "recurring question" by the
latecomer "smart-aleck" soul...
As a result, the collective including "the last latecomer soul" as a
colective says, with a great big booming voice, "This Is Best Answered
By Demonstration - LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
And KABOOM - plenty of photons, mostly high temperature, and
multimegagigatonnage of matter for that matter!
Edward Dolan
news:08e82677-29dc-4d1c...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> This is meant to represent our tendency to vote for candidates with
"pretty families." Who the fuck cares? The day YOU run for president
and can change our PREDATORY RULES OF THE ROADS, you'll have my full
support.
> In the meantime, God gets an F.
I charge TM with being the greatest asshole bore ever to infest Usenet. But
I can't help feeling sorry for the poor crazy bastard. After all, he doesn't
know any better, being the imbecile that he is. Folks, you cannot learn to
be this stupid, you have to be born to it.
TM needs to confine himself to just a couple of threads at most since all he
ever does is just post the same old shit over and over. It is also
incredibly stupid of him to think that anyone in this day and age is going
to relate to his animal metaphors. Where does such stupidity come from?
The most absurd of all his posts are his religious rants. My God, this poor
benighted moron is way too stupid to ever grasp anything as abstract as
religion. I think he might be able to grasp a monkey's ass and/or cock, but
surely that is it.
TM is nothing but a poor crazy bastard and if anyone wants to put him out of
his misery, he will have my blessing. But surely there is some motorist in
Florida who will accommodate us. And the sooner the better!
Edward Dolan
Way too long a post, Don. Keep your posts short and to the point. No one
here will read a post more than a few short paragraphs.
Asimov was a science fiction writer and that is all he was. If you would
like to read something serious about the weakness of God, I suggest the
novelist who described God as a carpenter, but not a perfect carpenter.
Unfortunately, I cannot think of the name of the novelist (I think he was a
Scandinavian though) nor the name of the novel, but I do remember that it
impressed the hell out of me when I was a college student in another
lifetime. Alzheimer's anyone?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> "Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnibn9l...@manx.misty.com...
>
>
>
I'll help you in in old age, Ed. All you got to say is,
"Jesus was a carpenter that couldn't hit the nail"
and we all the get point. I'll tell you more: Jesus made his own
casket so he could escape.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> Well, a very interesting question.
> I could give you the answer but that would be cheating you out
> of a great learning experience. You see, all this information
> you seek can readily be found in the Christian Bibles, that is
> the Old and New testaments.
>
> Some say he gave Adam a partner so he could watch real live porn
> - a perv?
Wow, I see the Wisdom of the Jungle (ie. reality) in your thoughts...
So he enjoyed that porno and saw it was good, and made a wife for
himself.
I guess many of us would have done the same thing. ;)
>
> Does he have a wife - yes of course, Mrs. God - an old battle axe.
>
> He made sure that all preachers are queer and screw little boys,
> that why the Churches don't like to admit woman preachers to their
> ranks, because the woman want to screw the big boys.
So the women rather practice MAKE LOVE NOT WAR. I follow you so far...
>
> I don't think he's a dog person - he's too mean, just look at
> all the disasters and misery he creates on an hourly basis.
>
> Go read and find out for yourself.
Well, there are many types of dogs. I don't say this in his defense
since I don't have a dog. There are big dogs, little dogs and mean
dogs...
Edward Dolan
news:2f8e21d6-5708-402f...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Well, there are many types of dogs. I don't say this in his defense
> since I don't have a dog. There are big dogs, little dogs and mean
> dogs...
There are many types of humans. Unfortunately, you do not qualify in any
manner, shape or form. Now go fuck your monkeys and stop posting drivel on
Usenet or I will sic Jim McNamara on you!
Fucking Regards,
Edward Dolan
<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Way too long a post, Don. Keep your posts short and to the point. No one
> here will read a post more than a few short paragraphs.
>
> Asimov was a science fiction writer and that is all he was. If you would
> like to read something serious about the weakness of God, I suggest the
> novelist who described God as a carpenter, but not a perfect carpenter.
> Unfortunately, I cannot think of the name of the novelist (I think he was
> a
> impressed the hell out of me when I was a college student in another
> lifetime. Alzheimer's anyone?
>> I'll help you in in old age, Ed. All you got to say is,
>> "Jesus was a carpenter that couldn't hit the nail"
>> and we all the get point. I'll tell you more: Jesus made his own
casket so he could escape.
I did a Google search under "god carpenter novel swede" and could not come
up with anything. In the old days when Usenet had a few intellectuals around
someone would have come up with the author I was referencing based on the
information I supplied, but now we have no one but idiots here like TM.
Jeff Thies
>>> <nolionn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b22bc0b4-b6cb-4bf4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <Snip to what E.D. has to say)
>>
>>> in
>>> originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
>>> subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
>>> you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in
>>> peace.
>>
>>
>> Although there is sense of confinement of one topic to one thread, I
>> still see "Monkey" being much more entertaining than E.D. is. I see that
>> E.D.'s "chosen mission" appears to me to be basically being an opponent
>> to an offendor less-offensive than E.D. is.
>
> on Usenet.
>
And a poor job of kicking ass it is. What harm do you do to the Monkey?
It is after all, just bluster and empty words.
> TM is good natured and does not easily take offense, but his prolific
> posting is designed to do only one thing, and that is to destroy a small
> newsgroup like RBS. I only monitor RBS, so he can get off this newsgroup
> anytime he wants and that will be the end of it for me.
Any sane person would just put him in the killfile. I generally ignore
him, put since you have chosen to follow him around, I am more apt to
read him. Not less. In fact, you perpetuate his threads. A moron, and
there are no shortages of them in usenet, would trim away the post. Or
just not respond.
>
> By the way, TM is only entertaining if you were born yesterday. He is a god
> damn fucking idiot and a god damn stupid son of a bitch besides.
The same could be said for you. And mean spirited as well.
In short,
> he is a nut and a screwball. No one on these newsgroups pays the slightest
> attention to him except for a few fellow idiots like yourself. I suggest you
> get a life instead of wasting your time defending an asshole like TM. He is
> a simpleton and the village idiot.
So, you would rather read the continuing travails of the Ohio Guy.
Seriously, get a life.
Jeff
Jeff Thies
> In<b22bc0b4-b6cb-4bf4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of the Jungle wrote:
>
>> (I want to emphasize that in no way I'm bored and looking to kill
>> time. My girlfriend is away, which makes me think what would be of
>> Adam without Eve)
>>
>> In my long years of hearing about God, I've never heard of him having
>> a wife or at least a lover... WHY?
>
>
> According to a joke at least 20 years old, God is...
>
> The joke is about a preacher in a church describing God...
>
> "God is both male and female, but also neither."
> "God is both black and white, but also neither."
> "God is both straight and gay, but also neither".
>
> According to the joke, some young kiddie tells family upon coming home
> from church his take from the above what God is.
>
> Accordingly, "God is Michael Jackson".
>
Not bad!
In my younger days I was interested in such things as God and had a
teacher who taught me much.
One day he told me of meeting God. He had taken a controlled dosage
of strychnine. He did meet God and what he told me about him explains
everything. God, as it turns out, is a raving lunatic.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
news:i9hgt2$l8i$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 10/17/2010 5:27 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
>> I am not here to entertain, but to kick ass. I do it better than anyone
>> else
>> on Usenet.
>
> And a poor job of kicking ass it is. What harm do you do to the Monkey? It
> is after all, just bluster and empty words.
If TM wasn't such a dumb ass, he would take offense and wise up, but he is
truly an idiot.
Those who ignore TM are doing as much to destroy the newsgroup as he is. A
prolific poster soon comes to dominate a newsgroup by scaring off newbies.
After all, who wants to read a a lot of dumb shit about God and Monkeys!
>> TM is good natured and does not easily take offense, but his prolific
>> posting is designed to do only one thing, and that is to destroy a small
>> newsgroup like RBS. I only monitor RBS, so he can get off this newsgroup
>> anytime he wants and that will be the end of it for me.
>
> Any sane person would just put him in the killfile. I generally ignore
> him, put since you have chosen to follow him around, I am more apt to read
> him. Not less. In fact, you perpetuate his threads. A moron, and there are
> no shortages of them in usenet, would trim away the post. Or just not
> respond.
That would be easy to do all right, but I am concerned with the overall
health of the newsgroup, not just my posts. I will almost never respond to
TM with anything but a copy and past insult, so do not read them, but if he
can get off his hobby horse, he will find a reasonable correspondent. The
main thing I object to with him is the multiplying of original posts which
are not original at all. It is just the same old shit recycled over and
over. It is in fact personal spam and it is the one thing that can easily
destroy a newsgroup. Even trolls and stalkers, with whom I have also had
much personal experience, are not nearly so deadly. I expect soon to see
nothing but advertising spam on RBS once TM has gotten rid of anyone who is
a normal person.
>> By the way, TM is only entertaining if you were born yesterday. He is a
>> god
>> damn fucking idiot and a god damn stupid son of a bitch besides.
>
> The same could be said for you. And mean spirited as well.
The is how I get to the morons and assholes, by being mean spirited. I know
what I am doing even if you don't.
> In short,
>> he is a nut and a screwball. No one on these newsgroups pays the
>> slightest
>> attention to him except for a few fellow idiots like yourself. I suggest
>> you
>> get a life instead of wasting your time defending an asshole like TM. He
>> is
>> a simpleton and the village idiot.
>
> So, you would rather read the continuing travails of the Ohio Guy.
??? I only monitor RBS.
> Seriously, get a life.
It only takes me a few minutes a day to kick ass that needs to be kicked. If
I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't be doing it. Just ask Tom Sherman.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> "Jeff Thies" <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote in message
You provide the perfect target for my attacks, big and slow.
Believe it or not, my parakeets attack the bigger birds for the fun of
it. That's my Wisdom of the Jungle. It's like cyclists teasing drivers
sitting in rush hour and squeezing by and laughing at them...
Now, do you have a dog or not? He'd would probably think you are a
great master. Just give him food and water. Check Dog Whisperer if YOU
need to be trained.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
comfortable with a masturbating goddess?)
On Oct 18, 12:06 pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > > (she-wankers are never boring)
> > > Actually, it has been positively determined that if there is a god at
> > > all, then it isn't a woman. Because if this mythical god were a
> > > woman, then she would have put men's dicks on their chin.
> > Sorry you are uncomfortable with a goddess masturbating in Heaven, but
> > then it's your loss.
> > We are only here for the genes.
> I can as easily not believe in a masturbating goddess as I can any
> other deity. Easy peasy.
You don't believe in fantasies? Do you deny their role in human
sexuality?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:01:05 -0700, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the
> Spirits of the Jungle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 12:32 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 18, 12:19 pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 18, 12:13 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
>
> >> > the Jungle" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Oct 18, 12:06 pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Spirits of
>
> >> > > > the Jungle" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > On Oct 18, 10:29 am, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > On Oct 17, 12:26 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the
> >> > > > > > Spirits of
>
> >> > > > > > the Jungle" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Oct 17, 12:14 pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Oct 16, 11:00 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey &
> >> > > > > > > > the Spirits ofthe Jungle" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > (I want to emphasize that in no way I'm bored and
> >> > > > > > > > > looking to kill time. My girlfriend is away, which
> >> > > > > > > > > makes me think what would be of Adam without Eve)
>
> >> > > > > > > > > In my long years of hearing about God, I've never heard
> >> > > > > > > > > of him having a wife or at least a lover... WHY?
>
> >> > > > > > > > raped jesus' mother. Maybe this so-called god is just a
> >> > > > > > > > perverted rapist.
>
> >> > > > > > > Sorry, but have you considered the possibility that you may
> >> > > > > > > be all wrong and God is a she?
>
> >> > > > > > > Sorry, God is a she...
>
> >> > > > > > > (she-wankers are never boring)
>
> >> > > > > > Actually, it has been positively determined that if there is
> >> > > > > > a god at all, then it isn't a woman. Because if this
> >> > > > > > mythical god were a woman, then she would have put men's
> >> > > > > > dicks on their chin.
>
> >> > > > > Sorry you are uncomfortable with a goddess masturbating in
> >> > > > > Heaven, but then it's your loss.
>
> >> > > > > We are only here for the genes.
>
> >> > > > I can as easily not believe in a masturbating goddess as I can
> >> > > > any other deity. Easy peasy.
>
> >> > > You don't believe in fantasies? Do you deny their role in human
> >> > > sexuality?
>
> >> > an old bearded man on a throne, even if she is a more enticing
> >> > fantasy.
>
> >> What about a bearded goddess on a throne, who only masturbates on
> >> Sundays?
>
> > Sorry, that's not my type. I was thinking along the lines of...
>
> >http://0.tqn.com/d/ancienthistory/1/0/s/c/2/VenusdeMilo.jpg
>
> > Why you think they took off her arms...? Get the point. ;)
>
> Man, I've gotta show that slide in an art history class tomorrow. Now
> what do you think'll be going through my head.
The Greek men were dating other men, so the wives had to masturbate.
This took place in the Masturbatorium.
Later the Christians hated all the classics in revenge and erased any
evidence of the Masturbatorium.
All corruption went underground.
Edward Dolan
news:d122dd54-fc49-47f9...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> The Greek men were dating other men, so the wives had to masturbate.
>
> This took place in the Masturbatorium.
>
> Later the Christians hated all the classics in revenge and erased any
> evidence of the Masturbatorium.
>
> All corruption went underground.
You would be better off masturbating than fucking those g.d. monkeys! The
sooner you get HIV from those monkeys, the better off the world will be.
Fucking Regards,
JimmyMac
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f8e21d6-5708-402f...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > Well, there are many types of dogs. I don't say this in his defense
> > since I don't have a dog. There are big dogs, little dogs and mean
> > dogs...
>
> There are many types of humans. Unfortunately, you do not qualify in any
> manner, shape or form. Now go fuck your monkeys and stop posting drivel on
> Usenet or I will sic Jim McNamara on you!
You will, will you??? I'll take that as a left-handed compliment of
sorts, but good luck with that. For one thing, I told you I am not
interested. For another, I told you I do not dance to your music.
Besides, why do you need me to assist? Is it that because your
efforts have failed to achieve your objective.
Edward Dolan
news:319b8d7f-8378-439d...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 7:54 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the
> Jungle"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Well, there are many types of dogs. I don't say this in his defense
> > since I don't have a dog. There are big dogs, little dogs and mean
> > dogs...
>
> There are many types of humans. Unfortunately, you do not qualify in any
> manner, shape or form. Now go fuck your monkeys and stop posting drivel on
> Usenet or I will sic Jim McNamara on you!
>>> You will, will you??? I'll take that as a left-handed compliment of
sorts, but good luck with that. For one thing, I told you I am not
interested. For another, I told you I do not dance to your music.
Besides, why do you need me to assist? Is it that because your
efforts have failed to achieve your objective.
You and TM deserve one another. He is a brainless spammer and you are an
indefatigable stalker. It is a match made in Heaven.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:319b8d7f-8378-439d...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 18, 7:54 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the
> > Jungle"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
>
> > > Well, there are many types of dogs. I don't say this in his defense
> > > since I don't have a dog. There are big dogs, little dogs and mean
> > > dogs...
>
> > There are many types of humans. Unfortunately, you do not qualify in any
> > manner, shape or form. Now go fuck your monkeys and stop posting drivel on
> > Usenet or I will sic Jim McNamara on you!
> >>> You will, will you??? I'll take that as a left-handed compliment of
>
> sorts, but good luck with that. For one thing, I told you I am not
> interested. For another, I told you I do not dance to your music.
> Besides, why do you need me to assist? Is it that because your
> efforts have failed to achieve your objective.
>
> You and TM deserve one another. He is a brainless spammer and you are an
> indefatigable stalker. It is a match made in Heaven.
AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll from
Worthington and the lunatic, criminal Mike Vandeman are birds of a
feather ... a match unmatched!
Edward Dolan
> You and TM deserve one another. He is a brainless spammer and you are an
> indefatigable stalker. It is a match made in Heaven.
>> AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll from
Worthington and the lunatic, criminal Mike Vandeman are birds of a
feather ... a match unmatched!
You will appreciate TM the same way you appreciated Ed Gin. Obviously, your
wife is not a sufficient fuckee for you. Fuckers like you need more. I give
you TM with my blessing.
> Fucking Regards,
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:784aac6d-8fe0-44bb...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 9:30 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You and TM deserve one another. He is a brainless spammer and you are an
> > indefatigable stalker. It is a match made in Heaven.
> >> AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll from
>
> Worthington and the lunatic, criminal Mike Vandeman are birds of a
> feather ... a match unmatched!
>
> You will appreciate TM the same way you appreciated Ed Gin. Obviously, your
> wife is not a sufficient fuckee for you. Fuckers like you need more. I give
> you TM with my blessing.
Lots of assumptions made here ... none even vaguely close to reality,
but that's to be expected.
Edward Dolan
> You will appreciate TM the same way you appreciated Ed Gin. Obviously,
> your
> wife is not a sufficient fuckee for you. Fuckers like you need more. I
> give
> you TM with my blessing.
>> Lots of assumptions made here ... none even vaguely close to reality,
but that's to be expected.
You bring up sexual allusions at your peril. Remember, words can't hurt me
but they can hurt you. We both know that to be true, so mind your manners.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c4643650-ccd1-4d41...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 4:36 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You will appreciate TM the same way you appreciated Ed Gin. Obviously,
> > your
> > wife is not a sufficient fuckee for you. Fuckers like you need more. I
> > give
> > you TM with my blessing.
> >> Lots of assumptions made here ... none even vaguely close to reality,
>
> but that's to be expected.
>
> You bring up sexual allusions at your peril. Remember, words can't hurt me
> but they can hurt you. We both know that to be true, so mind your manners.
One who has no manners should not lecture. Oh, and words do not
define who and what I am.
JimmyMac
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 1:42 PM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
>
> Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
Ed ... more than enough in cyberspace and Mike, other than a few
insults, nothing, then again I've not encountered him on a hiking
trail while riding a mountain bike. I understand he is auditioning
for the next SAW movie.
Edward Dolan
> You bring up sexual allusions at your peril. Remember, words can't hurt me
> but they can hurt you. We both know that to be true, so mind your manners.
>> One who has no manners should not lecture. Oh, and words do not
define who and what I am.
You cannot take insult. Your reaction to Ed Gin and to me prove that over
and over. The reason words can hurt you is that you care what others think
of you. I don't. Fuck one and fuck all!
Edward Dolan
On Oct 22, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 1:42 PM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
>
> Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
>>> Ed ... more than enough in cyberspace and Mike, other than a few
insults, nothing, then again I've not encountered him on a hiking
trail while riding a mountain bike. I understand he is auditioning
for the next SAW movie.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Oct 22, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 1:42 PM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
>>
>> Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
>
> Ed ... more than enough in cyberspace and Mike, other than a few
> insults, nothing, then again I've not encountered him on a hiking
> trail while riding a mountain bike. I understand he is auditioning
> for the next SAW movie.
>
Mr. Ed Dolan the Grate was unfair to them.
Edward Dolan
news:ia253q$rpu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> What I meant was that the troglodyte trolls thought being compared to Mr.
My every post is scintillating with a penetrating intelligence. That can
never be said of the troglodytes.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ba7b5a86-ffbc-44b0...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 11:54 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You bring up sexual allusions at your peril. Remember, words can't hurt me
> > but they can hurt you. We both know that to be true, so mind your manners.
> >> One who has no manners should not lecture. Oh, and words do not
>
> define who and what I am.
>
> You cannot take insult. Your reaction to Ed Gin and to me prove that over
> and over. The reason words can hurt you is that you care what others think
> of you. I don't. Fuck one and fuck all!
I merely stated that what you say does not define what and who I am.
What did you not understand about that dunderhead? You should not
have misconstrued that to mean that I cannot take an insult. Your
words can't hurt me specifically because I don't care what you think.
Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp? DUH!!!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:859cff24-ea59-44ef...@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
>
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 1:42 PM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
>
> > Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
> >>> Ed ... more than enough in cyberspace and Mike, other than a few
>
> insults, nothing, then again I've not encountered him on a hiking
> trail while riding a mountain bike. I understand he is auditioning
> for the next SAW movie.
>
> If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I rather enjoy taking on nut cases like you and your buddy ... wacko
Mike.
JimmyMac
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 9:07 AM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:> On Oct 22, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2010 1:42 PM, JimmyMac aka Jim McNamara wrote:
>
> >>> [...]
> >>> AND, you two closet queens... HEAD Dolan the troglodyte troll [...]
>
> >> Hey now, what did the troglodyte trolls do to you, anyhow?
>
> > Ed ... more than enough in cyberspace and Mike, other than a few
> > insults, nothing, then again I've not encountered him on a hiking
> > trail while riding a mountain bike. I understand he is auditioning
> > for the next SAW movie.
>
> What I meant was that the troglodyte trolls thought being compared to
> Mr. Ed Dolan the Grate was unfair to them.
I was only referring to Dolan, but If my message was taken in that
matter, then I apologize to all troglodyte trolls for lumping them
into the same category as the lamentably unique weirdo ... Dolan.
JimmyMac
> "Tom Sherman °_°" <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in messagenews:ia253q$rpu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [...]
>
> > What I meant was that the troglodyte trolls thought being compared to Mr.
> > Ed Dolan the Grate [Ed Dolan the Great] was unfair to them.
>
> My every post is scintillating with a penetrating intelligence. That can
> never be said of the troglodytes.
TRANSLATION ... A self-professed troglodyte, It appears that Ed has
just indicated that he lacks in penetrating intelligence ... no news
there.
Edward Dolan
> You cannot take insult. Your reaction to Ed Gin and to me prove that over
> and over. The reason words can hurt you is that you care what others think
> of you. I don't. Fuck one and fuck all!
>> I merely stated that what you say does not define what and who I am.
What did you not understand about that dunderhead? You should not
have misconstrued that to mean that I cannot take an insult. Your
words can't hurt me specifically because I don't care what you think.
Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp? DUH!!!
You care about what OTHERS think of you which I am in a position to
influence by putting you down in a public forum just like Ed Gin did. You
are the one who needs to wise up and get out of the kitchen since you can't
take the heat. If you could take the heat, it would never even occur to you
to stalk anyone. Very funny that you do not realize just how pitiful you
are.
Tom Sherman at least had the good sense not to confront me directly after
our first go-around.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> I was only referring to Dolan, but If my message was taken in that
matter, then I apologize to all troglodyte trolls for lumping them
into the same category as the lamentably unique weirdo ... Dolan.
"Never apologize son, it's a sign of weakness." - John Wayne
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5eb6cf4b-9287-4f63...@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 1:31 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You cannot take insult. Your reaction to Ed Gin and to me prove that over
> > and over. The reason words can hurt you is that you care what others think
> > of you. I don't. Fuck one and fuck all!
> >> I merely stated that what you say does not define what and who I am.
>
> What did you not understand about that dunderhead? You should not
> have misconstrued that to mean that I cannot take an insult. Your
> words can't hurt me specifically because I don't care what you think.
> Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp? DUH!!!
>
> You care about what OTHERS think of you which I am in a position to
> influence by putting you down in a public forum just like Ed Gin did.
I repeat ... saying something it so does not make it so, no matter who
says it and that particularly applicable to you. OK, I was right.
The concept, although elementary and expressed in the simplest of
terms, still managed to elude your grasp. You sure are dense. You
actually think that you are in a position to influence public
opinion? You have an entirely too high an opinion of your relevance.
I have neither the time nor the inclination today to make a sincere
effort to do the impossible, that is enlighten an arrogant, self-
indulgent, simpleton who is contentedly ensconced in a cocoon of
delusion and ignorance. You'll just have to brave you demons alone.
> You are the one who needs to wise up and get out of the kitchen since you can't
> take the heat. If you could take the heat, it would never even occur to you
> to stalk anyone.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise and, as such is
illogical in the extreme (non sequitor). Seems to me that the one
suffering from the heat is the one being stalked and constantly crying
about it.
> Very funny that you do not realize just how pitiful you are.
And, this from one who is intimately familiar with what being pitiful
is all about .... first hand. The conundrum continues
> Tom Sherman at least had the good sense not to confront me directly after
> our first go-around.
I guess it takes me longer to work up a tremble? I sincerely doubt
that Tom Sherman fears a windbag coward like you. He probably lost
interest in you and your crap from sheer boredom. It just must really
suck to be you.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c0aabee-b48d-440f...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> [...]> I was only referring to Dolan, but If my message was taken in that
>
> matter, then I apologize to all troglodyte trolls for lumping them
> into the same category as the lamentably unique weirdo ... Dolan.
>
> "Never apologize son, it's a sign of weakness." - John Wayne
An actors line you somehow find profound? Your inability to offer any
form of concession is a sign of weakness That's what's known as a
character flaw.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUWeV0f8TaM
It may be a different one, so keep an eye.
Edward Dolan
> You care about what OTHERS think of you which I am in a position to
> influence by putting you down in a public forum just like Ed Gin did.
>> I repeat ... saying something it so does not make it so, no matter who
says it and that particularly applicable to you. OK, I was right.
The concept, although elementary and expressed in the simplest of
terms, still managed to elude your grasp. You sure are dense. You
actually think that you are in a position to influence public
opinion? You have an entirely too high an opinion of your relevance.
I have neither the time nor the inclination today to make a sincere
effort to do the impossible, that is enlighten an arrogant, self-
indulgent, simpleton who is contentedly ensconced in a cocoon of
delusion and ignorance. You'll just have to brave you demons alone.
You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have a
right to assume that you are crazy.
> You are the one who needs to wise up and get out of the kitchen since you
> can't
> take the heat. If you could take the heat, it would never even occur to
> you
> to stalk anyone.
>> The conclusion does not follow from the premise and, as such is
illogical in the extreme (non sequitor). Seems to me that the one
suffering from the heat is the one being stalked and constantly crying
about it.
"You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have a
right to assume that you are crazy." - Ed Dolan
[...]
> Tom Sherman at least had the good sense not to confront me directly after
> our first go-around.
>> I guess it takes me longer to work up a tremble? I sincerely doubt
that Tom Sherman fears a windbag coward like you. He probably lost
interest in you and your crap from sheer boredom. It just must really
suck to be you.
Tom Sherman is still gainfully employed in the work force. Therefore he is
vulnerable. You and I are retired and can say any damn thing we want. That
is the difference - you numbskull!
Why not run your posts pass your wife and then tell us all what she thinks
of you. Women understand stalkers. She could either take mercy on you or
else kick your dumb ass.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8bcadc12-6aec-4739...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 4:23 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You care about what OTHERS think of you which I am in a position to
> > influence by putting you down in a public forum just like Ed Gin did.
> >> I repeat ... saying something it so does not make it so, no matter who
>
> says it and that particularly applicable to you. OK, I was right.
> The concept, although elementary and expressed in the simplest of
> terms, still managed to elude your grasp. You sure are dense. You
> actually think that you are in a position to influence public
> opinion? You have an entirely too high an opinion of your relevance.
> I have neither the time nor the inclination today to make a sincere
> effort to do the impossible, that is enlighten an arrogant, self-
> indulgent, simpleton who is contentedly ensconced in a cocoon of
> delusion and ignorance. You'll just have to brave you demons alone.
>
> You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have a
> right to assume that you are crazy.
1. WE??? And, you boldly assume that you speak on behalf of the
entire readership? Nonsense!
2. You have much in the way of your own atrocious behavior to explain
before you can demand an explanation of anyone else.
3. When do you intend to explain why you have stalked Tom Sherman (in
the past) and TM in the present ... and, denial is not a substitute
for an explanation.
4. Before you can expect to be heard you must first lean to listen.
Not that I owe you an explanation but I have given you one many
times. See what I just wrote about leaning to listen. You merely
don't accept my explanation ... your problem, not mine. You have only
yourself to blame for the "stalking" that you have fallen victim of.
You intentionally go trolling for fights. When you encounter a
tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself hopelessly
embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in desperation,
you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to discredit and dismiss
your adversary by labeling him or her as a stalker. This thinly
disguised ploy of yours has failed countless times. If you really
want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma, then turn tail and slither
on out of here.
5. You in your own words...
"JimmyMac is by far the most consistent and persistent. He is
basically a stalker which I consider a compliment to me."
"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 has become a comforting stalker to me."
You can stop belly aching now ... crybaby.
> > You are the one who needs to wise up and get out of the kitchen since you
> > can't
> > take the heat. If you could take the heat, it would never even occur to
> > you
> > to stalk anyone.
> >> The conclusion does not follow from the premise and, as such is
>
> illogical in the extreme (non sequitor). Seems to me that the one
> suffering from the heat is the one being stalked and constantly crying
> about it.
>
> "You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have a
> right to assume that you are crazy." - Ed Dolan
> [...]
I'll not emulate the indolent master of copy and paste. See my reply
above.
> > Tom Sherman at least had the good sense not to confront me directly after
> > our first go-around.
> >> I guess it takes me longer to work up a tremble? I sincerely doubt
>
> that Tom Sherman fears a windbag coward like you. He probably lost
> interest in you and your crap from sheer boredom. It just must really
> suck to be you.
>
> Tom Sherman is still gainfully employed in the work force.
AND ... your point is?
> Therefore he is vulnerable.
Oh, that's you point? AND, your conclusion logically follows from
your premise NOT (another non sequitor)!!! Logic is just not your
strong suit is it?
> You and I are retired and can say any damn thing we want.
Neither employment nor retirement are determining factors that license
what one can or cannot say. There is something decidedly amiss with
your twisted reasoning process.
> That is the difference - you numbskull!
Not that I am particularly troubled here, but until you can
demonstrate that you are rational, logical and can formulate sensible
argument about anything, numbskull is not a term you should employ to
label others.
> Why not run your posts pass your wife and then tell us all what she thinks
> of you. Women understand stalkers. She could either take mercy on you or
> else kick your dumb ass.
AND, you accuse TM of recycling. This is more of your masticated and
regurgitate tripe that you have intoduced and I have replied to
countless times before. If you want an answer, I'd suggest you review
the archives,. Not that you woudl value the opinion of a registered
therapist, but you'd not appreciate my wifd's opinion of you, but I've
no intention of going down that road.
The Henchman
I don't believe I have ever read a single message by TM that didn't cause me
to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
Fucking Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
----------------------
Just create a create a rule to block him from your newsreader.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle
> ?
> I don't believe I have ever read a single message by TM that didn't cause me
> to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
Hey, it's not my fault that you suffer from the "lack-of-sense-of-
humor & political-blindness" syndrome.
But Ed suffers from Napoleonic Complex.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle
Pardon my French!
Edward Dolan
> You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have
> a
> right to assume that you are crazy.
>> 1. WE??? And, you boldly assume that you speak on behalf of the
entire readership? Nonsense!
This is a public forum. Others read what is posted here.
>> 2. You have much in the way of your own atrocious behavior to explain
before you can demand an explanation of anyone else.
I stand proudly behind every word I have ever posted to Usenet.
>> 3. When do you intend to explain why you have stalked Tom Sherman (in
the past) and TM in the present ... and, denial is not a substitute
for an explanation.
Tom Sherman needed to have his dumb ass kicked, but he was not worth doing
it for more than a few posts.
>> 4. Before you can expect to be heard you must first lean to listen.
Not that I owe you an explanation but I have given you one many
times. See what I just wrote about leaning to listen. You merely
don't accept my explanation ... your problem, not mine. You have only
yourself to blame for the "stalking" that you have fallen victim of.
You intentionally go trolling for fights. When you encounter a
tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself hopelessly
embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in desperation,
you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to discredit and dismiss
your adversary by labeling him or her as a stalker. This thinly
disguised ploy of yours has failed countless times. If you really
want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma, then turn tail and slither
on out of here.
You are a pitiful stalker. I don't doubt that you are ashamed of your
behavior. It is what come of being jealous of your superior. What does your
wife think of you I wonder?
>> 5. You in your own words...
"JimmyMac is by far the most consistent and persistent. He is
basically a stalker which I consider a compliment to me."
"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 has become a comforting stalker to me."
>> You can stop belly aching now ... crybaby.
Every post is complete unto itself. Taking words out of context is the last
refuge of a scoundrel and a coward.
[...]
> Tom Sherman is still gainfully employed in the work force.
>> AND ... your point is?
> Therefore he is vulnerable.
>> Oh, that's you point? AND, your conclusion logically follows from
your premise NOT (another non sequitor)!!! Logic is just not your
strong suit is it?
You need to read the entire paragraph before you respond. Are you sure you
went to Loyola?
> You and I are retired and can say any damn thing we want.
>> Neither employment nor retirement are determining factors that license
what one can or cannot say. There is something decidedly amiss with
your twisted reasoning process.
> That is the difference - you numbskull!
>> Not that I am particularly troubled here, but until you can
demonstrate that you are rational, logical and can formulate sensible
argument about anything, numbskull is not a term you should employ to
label others.
Whatever is said in a public forum can come back to haunt you, most
especially if you are employed by others. Tom Sherman knows this even if you
don't.
> Why not run your posts pass your wife and then tell us all what she thinks
> of you. Women understand stalkers. She could either take mercy on you or
> else kick your dumb ass.
>> AND, you accuse TM of recycling. This is more of your masticated and
regurgitate tripe that you have intoduced and I have replied to
countless times before. If you want an answer, I'd suggest you review
the archives,. Not that you woudl value the opinion of a registered
therapist, but you'd not appreciate my wifd's opinion of you, but I've
no intention of going down that road.
Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you, even of what your wife
will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is a
normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your behavior
on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!
Then again, how could your wife possibly be a normal person? She married
you, didn't she?
Edward Dolan
news:iaalc2$es8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Edward Dolan wrote:
> I don't believe I have ever read a single message by TM that didn't cause
> me
> to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
>
> Just create a create a rule to block him from your newsreader.
If I was only thinking of myself I could of course do that or else just not
bother to notice his posts. But he is ruining a small newsgroup (RBS) with
his numerous daily posts. Newbies will not come to a forum that is just full
of nothing but shit and crap and junk and trash. Would you?
The purpose of my replies (copy and paste insults) is to prevent newbies
from responding to him. That way he ends up talking to himself, ever the
fate of all asshole-idiots.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20c79fb0-61aa-4909...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 10:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You have yet to explain your stalking behavior. Until you do, we all have
> > a
> > right to assume that you are crazy.
> >> 1. WE??? And, you boldly assume that you speak on behalf of the
>
> entire readership? Nonsense!
>
> This is a public forum. Others read what is posted here.
What is posted in a public forum does not automatically guarantee that
it will be read. To assume otherwise is illogical. You often claim
that another author's postwill never be read. Make up you mind.
> >> 2. You have much in the way of your own atrocious behavior to explain
>
> before you can demand an explanation of anyone else.
>
> I stand proudly behind every word I have ever posted to Usenet.
Lack of a response understood.
> >> 3. When do you intend to explain why you have stalked Tom Sherman (in
>
> the past) and TM in the present ... and, denial is not a substitute
> for an explanation.
>
> Tom Sherman needed to have his dumb ass kicked, but he was not worth doing
> it for more than a few posts.
Condemned by your own words ...
"I will lie in wait for him like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.
There is no one I like to pound on better than Tom Sherman.
"I will admit I think I was stalking Tom Sherman at one time
briefly." ... although the duration was hardly brief.
> >> 4. Before you can expect to be heard you must first lean to listen.
>
> Not that I owe you an explanation but I have given you one many
> times. See what I just wrote about leaning to listen. You merely
> don't accept my explanation ... your problem, not mine. You have only
> yourself to blame for the "stalking" that you have fallen victim of.
> You intentionally go trolling for fights. When you encounter a
> tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself hopelessly
> embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in desperation,
> you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to discredit and dismiss
> your adversary by labeling him or her as a stalker. This thinly
> disguised ploy of yours has failed countless times. If you really
> want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma, then turn tail and slither
> on out of here.
>
> You are a pitiful stalker. I don't doubt that you are ashamed of your
> behavior. It is what come of being jealous of your superior. What does your
> wife think of you I wonder?
Ashamed ... NO. Jealous ... NO. As for your question, that has been
asked an answered countless times. I refer you to the archives.
>
> >> 5. You, in your own words...
>
> "JimmyMac is by far the most consistent and persistent. He is
> basically a stalker which I consider a compliment to me."
>
> "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 has become a comforting stalker to me."
>
> >> You can stop belly aching now ... crybaby.
>
> Every post is complete unto itself. Taking words out of context is the last
> refuge of a scoundrel and a coward.
> [...]
It is clear that those words stand on their own regardless of context.
AGAIN, you, in your own words...
"I will stand by every message I have ever posted to Usenet, bar none.
Some of my posts will require some explanation no doubt, but I can
defend and justify everything I have ever said to anyone."
> > Tom Sherman is still gainfully employed in the work force.
> >> AND ... your point is?
> > Therefore he is vulnerable.
> >> Oh, that's you point? AND, your conclusion logically follows from
>
> your premise NOT (another non sequitor)!!! Logic is just not your
> strong suit is it?
>
> You need to read the entire paragraph before you respond. Are you sure you
> went to Loyola?
Diversion duly noted.
> > You and I are retired and can say any damn thing we want.
> >> Neither employment nor retirement are determining factors that license
>
> what one can or cannot say. There is something decidedly amiss with
> your twisted reasoning process.
>
> > That is the difference - you numbskull!
> >> Not that I am particularly troubled here, but until you can
>
> demonstrate that you are rational, logical and can formulate sensible
> argument about anything, numbskull is not a term you should employ to
> label others.
>
> Whatever is said in a public forum can come back to haunt you, most
> especially if you are employed by others. Tom Sherman knows this even if you
> don't.
Well, Tom is cautious measured and you know that. Nothing he has said
seems not to have hurt Tom thus far. Besides, whatever is said in a
public forum can come back to haunt one even if retired and I know
that even if you don't.
> > Why not run your posts pass your wife and then tell us all what she thinks
> > of you. Women understand stalkers. She could either take mercy on you or
> > else kick your dumb ass.
> >> AND, you accuse TM of recycling. This is more of your masticated and
>
> regurgitate tripe that you have introduced and I have replied to
> countless times before. If you want an answer, I'd suggest you review
> the archives,. Not that you would value the opinion of a registered
> therapist, but you'd not appreciate my wife's opinion of you, but I've
> no intention of going down that road.
>
> Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you, even of what your wife
> will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is a
> normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your behavior
> on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!
For the final time ... I only care about what is though of me by those
that personally matter to me and you don't qualify. See what I said
above regarding your own behavior before lecturing people about
theirs. You are the only person asking me to prove that I have guts
and I feel not the least bit compelled to prove anything to someone
who matters not. DO you have attention deficit disorder or memory
loss? As I have told you many times ... I don't dance to your music.
As concerns my wife and your comments, I have already told you that
Ive been that road with you before and have no intention of doing so
again. Having replied to this before numerous time, l've no intention
to do so again. I refer you to the archives.
> Then again, how could your wife possibly be a normal person? She married
> you, didn't she?
Your opinion matters not since you matter not, but I am amused that
someone so obviously less than "normal" feels qaulified to pass
judgment on someone with whom he he is unacquanted. The conundrum
continues.
JimmyMac
> "The Henchman" <y...@yup.org> wrote in message
>
> news:iaalc2$es8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > I don't believe I have ever read a single message by TM that didn't cause
> > me
> > to say, "What an idiot!" At least he is consistently an idiot!
>
> > Just create a create a rule to block him from your newsreader.
>
> If I was only thinking of myself I could of course do that or else just not
> bother to notice his posts. But he is ruining a small newsgroup (RBS) with
> his numerous daily posts. Newbies will not come to a forum that is just full
> of nothing but shit and crap and junk and trash. Would you?
It is you shit and crap and junk ane trash that has done just that
long before TM even showed up..
Edward Dolan
> This is a public forum. Others read what is posted here.
>> What is posted in a public forum does not automatically guarantee that
it will be read. To assume otherwise is illogical. You often claim
that another author's post will never be read. Make up you mind.
Abandon logic all ye who enter here. If others CAN read what is posted here,
then it is logical to assume that others WILL read what is posted here. Back
to Loyola for you!
[...]
> You are a pitiful stalker. I don't doubt that you are ashamed of your
> behavior. It is what come of being jealous of your superior. What does
> your
> wife think of you I wonder?
>> Ashamed ... NO. Jealous ... NO. As for your question, that has been
asked an answered countless times. I refer you to the archives.
Envy is the worst of all the vices because it gives no pleasure.
[...]
>> It is clear that those words stand on their own regardless of context.
Words NEVER stand on their own since context is EVERYTHING. Didn't those
Jesuits teach you anything at Loyola?
[...]
> Whatever is said in a public forum can come back to haunt you, most
> especially if you are employed by others. Tom Sherman knows this even if
> you
> don't.
>> Well, Tom is cautious measured and you know that. Nothing he has said
seems not to have hurt Tom thus far. Besides, whatever is said in a
public forum can come back to haunt one even if retired and I know
that even if you don't.
Tom Sherman measures his words indeed for now because he is in and of the
world. After he retires, he will be a lot like me, maybe even a
conservative! He will never be like you. He is too intelligent to waste his
time feuding with someone because of envy. You have got to be a fool to do
that.
I say anything I want because I do not give a damn what anyone thinks of me.
You do, so you cannot say anything you want. In fact, you feared what Ed Gin
was saying about you. You are not a hermit like me.
[...]
> Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you, even of what your wife
> will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is
> a
> normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your
> behavior
> on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!
>> For the final time ... I only care about what is though of me by those
that personally matter to me and you don't qualify. See what I said
above regarding your own behavior before lecturing people about
theirs. You are the only person asking me to prove that I have guts
and I feel not the least bit compelled to prove anything to someone
who matters not. DO you have attention deficit disorder or memory
loss? As I have told you many times ... I don't dance to your music.
As concerns my wife and your comments, I have already told you that
Ive been that road with you before and have no intention of doing so
again. Having replied to this before numerous time, l've no intention
to do so again. I refer you to the archives.
"Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you, even of what your wife
will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is a
normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your behavior
on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!" - Ed
Dolan
> Then again, how could your wife possibly be a normal person? She married
> you, didn't she?
>> Your opinion matters not since you matter not, but I am amused that
someone so obviously less than "normal" feels qaulified to pass
judgment on someone with whom he is unacquainted. The conundrum
continues.
I am probably the most normal person you have encountered in your entire
life. I stand up to your bullying nature just as Ed Gin did, but Ed Gin was
a bastard and I am not. I am fully acquainted with how your mind works and
hence your nature. You need to get over your envy of me. It is the worst of
all the vices because it gives no pleasure. Find a vice that gives some
pleasure. I know the virtues are beyond you.
Edward Dolan
> If I was only thinking of myself I could of course do that [kill-file] or
> else just not
> bother to notice his posts. But he is ruining a small newsgroup (RBS) with
> his numerous daily posts. Newbies will not come to a forum that is just
> full
> of nothing but shit and crap and junk and trash. Would you?
>> It is you [your] shit and crap and junk and trash that has done just that
long before TM even showed up..
It is indeed annoying to many when they get a reply that precisely hones in
on what they are saying. Most are like you. They just want to be agreed
with, and then told how wonderful they are. Fuck that!
Only Tom Sherman, if ever so briefly, came up to my high standards. You have
failed every test so far - all because of envy, the worst of all the vices
because it gives no pleasure.
> The purpose of my replies (copy and paste insults) is to prevent newbies
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f18ad0c1-98eb-44cf...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 10:20 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > This is a public forum. Others read what is posted here.
> >> What is posted in a public forum does not automatically guarantee that
>
> it will be read. To assume otherwise is illogical. You often claim
> that another author's post will never be read. Make up you mind.
>
> Abandon logic all ye who enter here. If others CAN read what is posted here,
> then it is logical to assume that others WILL read what is posted here. Back
> to Loyola for you!
> [...]
Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise and CAN
and WILL are non synonyms Conan The Librarian.
> > You are a pitiful stalker. I don't doubt that you are ashamed of your
> > behavior. It is what come of being jealous of your superior. What does
> > your
> > wife think of you I wonder?
> >> Ashamed ... NO. Jealous ... NO. As for your question, that has been
>
> asked an answered countless times. I refer you to the archives.
>
> Envy is the worst of all the vices because it gives no pleasure.
> [...]
AND your point was???
> >> It is clear that those words stand on their own regardless of context.
>
> Words NEVER stand on their own since context is EVERYTHING. Didn't those
> Jesuits teach you anything at Loyola?
> [...]
NONSENSE. Words taken out of context can be is leading if selectively
chose, but not all words excerpted are out of context and can stand on
their own. If in the middle of a long paragraph I state that you are
obnoxious, both in and out of context, that statement can stand on its
own regardless of the context in which it was originally stated.
> > Whatever is said in a public forum can come back to haunt you, most
> > especially if you are employed by others. Tom Sherman knows this even if
> > you
> > don't.
> >> Well, Tom is cautious measured and you know that. Nothing he has said
>
> seems not to have hurt Tom thus far. Besides, whatever is said in a
> public forum can come back to haunt one even if retired and I know
> that even if you don't.
>
> Tom Sherman measures his words indeed for now because he is in and of the
> world. After he retires, he will be a lot like me, maybe even a
> conservative!
Tom I am putting you on notice. You have just been insulted.
> He will never be like you. He is too intelligent to waste his
> time feuding with someone because of envy. You have got to be a fool to do
You really must get by this absurd notion of yours regarding envy.
Are you taking on TM because you envy him?
> I say anything I want because I do not give a damn what anyone thinks of me.
> You do, so you cannot say anything you want. In fact, you feared what Ed Gin
> was saying about you. You are not a hermit like me.
> [...]
Right you are. I man not a disenfranchised form reality hermit like
you. I may have rested what Ed Gin siad of me but fear never entered
into it.
> > Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you, even of what your wife
> > will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is
> > a
> > normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your
> > behavior
> > on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!
> >> For the final time ... I only care about what is though of me by those
>
> that personally matter to me and you don't qualify. See what I said
> above regarding your own behavior before lecturing people about
> theirs. You are the only person asking me to prove that I have guts
> and I feel not the least bit compelled to prove anything to someone
> who matters not. Do you have attention deficit disorder or memory
> loss? As I have told you many times ... I don't dance to your music.
> As concerns my wife and your comments, I have already told you that
> Ive been that road with you before and have no intention of doing so
> again. Having replied to this before numerous time, l've no intention
> to do so again. I refer you to the archives.
>
> "Yes, you do indeed care what others think of you,
Local fallacy, Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of
disgust; i.e., by repetition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove
something by saying it again and again, but no matter how many times
one repeats something, it will not become any more true than it was
with the first utterance.
> even of what your wife
> will think of you if she knew you were a pitiful stalker. If your wife is a
> normal person you would be well advised to get her opinion of your behavior
> on this public forum. Prove to the rest of us that you have some guts!" - Ed
> Dolan
>
> > Then again, how could your wife possibly be a normal person? She married
> > you, didn't she?
> >> Your opinion matters not since you matter not, but I am amused that
>
> someone so obviously less than "normal" feels qualified to pass
> judgment on someone with whom he is unacquainted. The conundrum
> continues.
>
> I am probably the most normal person you have encountered in your entire life.
Thanks ... needed a good laugh today.
> I stand up to your bullying nature
Yeah behind a keyboard
> just as Ed Gin did, but Ed Gin was
> a bastard and I am not. I am fully acquainted with how your mind works and
> hence your nature. You need to get over your envy of me. It is the worst of
> all the vices because it gives no pleasure. Find a vice that gives some
> pleasure. I know the virtues are beyond you.
Envy of you is a vice that I will never be able to cultivate.
Delusion is a vice that you have mastered.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e032969d-8ac6-4280...@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 10:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > If I was only thinking of myself I could of course do that [kill-file] or
> > else just not
> > bother to notice his posts. But he is ruining a small newsgroup (RBS) with
> > his numerous daily posts. Newbies will not come to a forum that is just
> > full
> > of nothing but shit and crap and junk and trash. Would you?
> >> It is you [your] shit and crap and junk and trash that has done just that
>
> long before TM even showed up..
>
> It is indeed annoying to many when they get a reply that precisely hones in
> on what they are saying. Most are like you. They just want to be agreed
> with, and then told how wonderful they are. Fuck that!
>
> Only Tom Sherman, if ever so briefly, came up to my high standards. You have
> failed every test so far - all because of envy, the worst of all the vices
> because it gives no pleasure.
Delusion is the best of all vices because it shields one from the pain
of reality.
Edward Dolan
> Words NEVER stand on their own since context is EVERYTHING. Didn't those
> Jesuits teach you anything at Loyola?
>> NONSENSE. Words taken out of context can be is leading if selectively
chose, but not all words excerpted are out of context and can stand on
their own. If in the middle of a long paragraph I state that you are
obnoxious, both in and out of context, that statement can stand on its
own regardless of the context in which it was originally stated.
If the context is available, and it always is on Usenet, then there is NEVER
any reason for taking anything out of context. That is why we normally
include much of the post to which we are responding. Those who selectively
edit to make themselves look good are scoundrels and cowards.
[...]
>>Envy of you is a vice that I will never be able to cultivate.
Delusion is a vice that you have mastered.
You have yet to explain your stalking behavior on Usenet. Envy is the only
thing that explains it. What's the matter? Can't take rejection?
h
> Just create a create a rule to block him from your newsreader.
>
Or to block you, for replying to any of those idiots.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3213b395-b572-4b72...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 12:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Words NEVER stand on their own since context is EVERYTHING. Didn't those
> > Jesuits teach you anything at Loyola?
> >> NONSENSE. Words taken out of context can be is leading if selectively
>
> chose, but not all words excerpted are out of context and can stand on
> their own. If in the middle of a long paragraph I state that you are
> obnoxious, both in and out of context, that statement can stand on its
> own regardless of the context in which it was originally stated.
>
> If the context is available, and it always is on Usenet, then there is NEVER
> any reason for taking anything out of context. That is why we normally
> include much of the post to which we are responding. Those who selectively
> edit to make themselves look good are scoundrels and cowards.
> [...]
>
> >>Envy of you is a vice that I will never be able to cultivate.
>
> Delusion is a vice that you have mastered.
>
> You have yet to explain your stalking behavior on Usenet.
Again you insist on undermining your own credibility with an often
repeated lie. Not only have I offered explanation numerous times, but
have done so again in detail in this very thread . What you have yet
to explain is why you keep asking questions that have already been
answered many times over. You are making yourself out to be childish
and foolish.
> Envy is the only
> thing that explains it. What's the matter? Can't take rejection?
Addressed this to countless times. See the archives if memory fails
you. Refection is what you do when confronted with real-world
reality.
Edward Dolan
> You have yet to explain your stalking behavior on Usenet.
>> Again you insist on undermining your own credibility with an often
repeated lie. Not only have I offered explanation numerous times, but
have done so again in detail in this very thread . What you have yet
to explain is why you keep asking questions that have already been
answered many times over. You are making yourself out to be childish
and foolish.
Stalking anyone for a personal reason is sick. Take this up with your
therapist wife why don't you!
I am stalking TM to prevent newbies from responding and thereby saving the
newsgroup from an asshole-idiot who has shit for brains. Nothing personal
here at all. What is your reason for stalking?
> Envy is the only
> thing that explains it. What's the matter? Can't take rejection?
>> Addressed this to countless times. See the archives if memory fails
you. Rejection is what you do when confronted with real-world
reality.
I thrive on rejection because it gives me an opportunity to educate others.
Failing that, it is enjoyable to tell others to go to hell. It is all fun
and games for me. What is your excuse?
You have yet to explain why you stalk?
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0f33d75f-a481-40bb...@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 8:39 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You have yet to explain your stalking behavior on Usenet.
> >> Again you insist on undermining your own credibility with an often
>
> repeated lie. Not only have I offered explanation numerous times, but
> to explain is why you keep asking questions that have already been
> answered many times over. You are making yourself out to be childish
> and foolish.
>
> Stalking anyone for a personal reason is sick. Take this up with your
> therapist wife why don't you!
You dodged the issue, AS USUAL. You have yet to explain why you keep
asking a question that has already been answered many times over.
> I am stalking TM to prevent newbies from responding and thereby saving the
> newsgroup from an asshole-idiot who has shit for brains. Nothing personal
> here at all. What is your reason for stalking?
Why do you keep asking a question that has already been addressed/ I
refer you to the archives and my detailed explanation in this forum
thread. Can anyone be this dumb? And to think that you assert that
no one is as intelligent as you. The conundrum continues.
> > Envy is the only
> > thing that explains it. What's the matter? Can't take rejection?
> >> Addressed this to countless times. See the archives if memory fails
>
> you. Rejection is what you do when confronted with real-world
> reality.
>
> I thrive on rejection because it gives me an opportunity to educate others.
> Failing that, it is enjoyable to tell others to go to hell. It is all fun
> and games for me. What is your excuse?
>
> You have yet to explain why you stalk?
You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
Edward Dolan
You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
"You have yet to explain why you stalk?" - Ed Dolan
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:54bdf8ec-0548-43c6...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 3:21 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > You have yet to explain why you stalk?
>
> You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
> already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
> deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
>
> "You have yet to explain why you stalk?" - Ed Dolan
I can copy and paste too ...
You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
...BUT, what does that accomplish?
Will you ever learn to advance a discussion rather than attempt to
engage an adversary with monotonous, recycled merry-go-'round
rhetoric? It is amusing that you accuse TM of this when you are the
master of mind-numbing, masticated and regurgitated gibberish. You
were right when you one said of yourself ... "I have never had an
original idea in my entire life and I never will."
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle
> On Nov 1, 5:46 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:54bdf8ec-0548-43c6...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 30, 3:21 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > You have yet to explain why you stalk?
>
> > You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
> > already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
> > deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
>
> > "You have yet to explain why you stalk?" - Ed Dolan
>
> I can copy and paste too ...
>
> You have yet to explain why you keep asking a question that has
> already been answered. How do you account for this ... attention
> deficit disorder, memory loss, dementia, senility?
>
> ...BUT, what does that accomplish?
>
> Will you ever learn to advance a discussion rather than attempt to
> engage an adversary with monotonous, recycled merry-go-'round
> rhetoric? It is amusing that you accuse TM of this when you are the
> master of mind-numbing, masticated and regurgitated gibberish. You
> were right when you one said of yourself ... "I have never had an
> original idea in my entire life and I never will."
He ain't nothing but a teaser! And a very bad one.
Edward Dolan
[...]
>> Will you ever learn to advance a discussion rather than attempt to
engage an adversary with monotonous, recycled merry-go-'round
rhetoric? It is amusing that you accuse TM of this when you are the
master of mind-numbing, masticated and regurgitated gibberish. You
were right when you one said of yourself ... "I have never had an
original idea in my entire life and I never will."
It is impossible to advance a discussion when you do not know how to read.
The newsgroup wants to know why you stalk. Most stalkers are not only
ignorant but evil. You need to justify yourself to the honorable members of
this noble newsgroup.