Ed Dolan the Great and the Long Goodbye
Edward Dolan
newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. That is as it should be
since these newsgroups are without moderators. Anyone with any brains has
long since left Usenet. It is for the mindless only.
I will only look in on these newsgroups occasionally to make sure that Tom
Sherman is not spouting any liberal nonsense. He was the most notorious
liberal ever to infest these newsgroups, but he was also intelligent which
made him a worthy adversary for me. The rest of you are all too god damn
dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any on you.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
JimmyMac
What we have here is a promise made before, broken before and destined
to be broken again. A response to this reply will confirm exactly
that. It has become painfully obvious that BULLSHIT is HEAD Dolan the
GRATE's native language!!!
Bill
realize that you are the savior of mankind. Please don't go away! How
will we be able to maintain the proper attitude without you?
Just think of all the dweebs on here as the proverbial ant crawling up
an elephant's let with rape on his mind. Don' t pay them any
attention. Just keep telling us how you really feel.
Please stay!
- retro
Andre Jute
> It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any [time?] on you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Ciao, Bebe! -- Andre Jute
Edward Dolan
"JimmyMac" <jimmy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:77865591-4137-48f9...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 11:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. That is as it should
> be
> since these newsgroups are without moderators. Anyone with any brains has
> long since left Usenet. It is for the mindless only.
>
> I will only look in on these newsgroups occasionally to make sure that Tom
> Sherman is not spouting any liberal nonsense. He was the most notorious
> liberal ever to infest these newsgroups, but he was also intelligent which
> made him a worthy adversary for me. The rest of you are all too god damn
> dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any on you.
>> What we have here is a promise made before, broken before and destined
to be broken again. A response to this reply will confirm exactly
that. It has become painfully obvious that BULLSHIT is HEAD Dolan the
GRATE's native language!!!
Tom Sherman seemingly drops out of the newsgroups every now and then leading
to me to believe that he has left for good, but then he always returns. I
can never leave these groups for so long as Tom Sherman remains, no matter
how ghostly his appearances.
Edward Dolan
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef764dbe-18a7-46c9...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 5:09 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. The rest of you are
> all too god damn
> dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any [time?] on you.
No, I wanted the entire phrase following the hyphen to depend on "words"
which I believe it does. Maybe a comma would have been better though.
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef764dbe-18a7-46c9...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 5:09 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> > newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. The rest of you are
> > all too god damn
> > dumb for words
Excuse me, Great Ed, but if there are "none left except for idiots,
morons and imbeciles," as you claim, who are "the rest"? Surely, if
there are "none but the [specified set]" there can be no remainder,
what you call "the rest". It is a logical absurdity. Not that logic or
the lack of it has ever concerned you overly much, of course.
>The rest of you are
> > all too god damn
> > dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any [time?] on you.
>
> No, I wanted the entire phrase following the hyphen to depend on "words"
> which I believe it does. Maybe a comma would have been better though.
Then you shouldn't use a hyphen but an en-dash, normally rendered on
the net as two hyphens together with a space at each end of the
construction like this -- which when printed will be a single en dash
without the spaces.
Very theatrical, these long speeches about syntactical niceties which
you deliver while holding the fire door open for a quick exit.
Andre Jute
Just saying...
Stephen Bauman
> It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. That is as it should
> be since these newsgroups are without moderators. Anyone with any brains
> has long since left Usenet. It is for the mindless only.
>
> I will only look in on these newsgroups occasionally to make sure that
> Tom Sherman is not spouting any liberal nonsense. He was the most
> notorious liberal ever to infest these newsgroups, but he was also
> intelligent which made him a worthy adversary for me. The rest of you
> are all too god damn dumb for words - which is why I will no longer
> waste any on you.
>
As Oliver Cromwell said: "You have sat too long for any good you have
been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In
the name of God, go!"
Edward Dolan
On Nov 2, 12:32 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef764dbe-18a7-46c9...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 5:09 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> > newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. The rest of you are
> > all too god damn
> > dumb for words
>>> Excuse me, Great Ed, but if there are "none left except for idiots,
morons and imbeciles," as you claim, who are "the rest"? Surely, if
there are "none but the [specified set]" there can be no remainder,
what you call "the rest". It is a logical absurdity. Not that logic or
the lack of it has ever concerned you overly much, of course.
You are just an occasional, almost rare, poster to these cycling newsgroups.
I am only concerned with the regulars - all whom appear to me to be cretins.
In my hierarchy of rankings, idiots, morons and imbeciles are not the
dumbest of the dumb. The dumbest of the dumb are "all the rest of you". I
leave it to your imagination who that might include.
But of course what matters on Usenet is not what you say, but how you say
it. If it doesn't make much sense, so much the better!
>The rest of you are
> > all too god damn
> > dumb for words - which is why I will no longer waste any [time?] on you.
>
> No, I wanted the entire phrase following the hyphen to depend on "words"
> which I believe it does. Maybe a comma would have been better though.
>>> Then you shouldn't use a hyphen but an en-dash, normally rendered on
the net as two hyphens together with a space at each end of the
construction like this -- which when printed will be a single en dash
without the spaces.
I should have used a comma. I don't think any kind of hyphen is ever
appropriate for sentence separation. Any hyphens in Shakespeare?
>>> Very theatrical, these long speeches about syntactical niceties which
you deliver while holding the fire door open for a quick exit.
I stopped caring about syntactical niceties on Usenet ages ago. It is rare
that anyone finds fault with how anyone says anything. As you can tell, I do
not waste time or effort trying to get things perfect.
Edward Dolan
"Stephen Bauman" <sba...@abt.net> wrote in message
news:bMednStao_QsxHPX...@speakeasy.net...
The only good I ever did on Usenet was to get rid of all the liberals who
were posting rubbish and nonsense on ARBR. It took me several years to
accomplish this rather mundane task. They all appear to be gone now. I think
what happened is everyone got sick and tired of politics, even Tom Sherman,
the most noxious liberal ever in the entire history of Usenet.
By the way, this is my 12th final farewell. I do this about twice every
year.
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> Tom Sherman seemingly drops out of the newsgroups every now and then leading
> to me to believe that he has left for good, but then he always returns. I
> can never leave these groups for so long as Tom Sherman remains, no matter
> how ghostly his appearances.
Finally, confirmation of what many of us have long
supposed - Ed Dolan the Great and Tom Sherman
are inseparable. If not the same bodily incarnation,
then they are two opposed manifestations of the same
entity, neither capable of existing without the other:
yin and yang, good and evil, Jekyll and Hyde, the two
faces of Janus, Ahriman and Ahura Mazda, Jobst and
jim, Shimano and Campagnolo.
Ben
Edward Dolan
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdc466ee-4569-42f1...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
When it comes to Usenet, you are not far from wrong, but there are some few
other posters that I also enjoy. What I truly do not enjoy are name callers,
but I am determined never to let them have the last word. If you permit
that, then the lowest common denominator will prevail.
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>Tom Sherman seemingly drops out of the newsgroups every now and then leading
>to me to believe that he has left for good, but then he always returns. I
>can never leave these groups for so long as Tom Sherman remains, no matter
>how ghostly his appearances.
Well, Hello, Ed... it's good to see that some things remain immutable.
I have been in and out for about ten years or so and I have yet to see
either of you come anywhere close to making some point... but, then...
I do not see anything that compels you to do so.
You may be the local kook... I have no intention to try to unseat you.
Carry on, Sir!
Jones
Edward Dolan
On Nov 2, 12:32 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > It now appears to me that there are none left on these fucking cycling
> > newsgroups except for idiots, morons and imbeciles. The rest of you are
> > all too god damn dumb for words
>>> Excuse me, Great Ed, but if there are "none left except for idiots,
morons and imbeciles," as you claim, who are "the rest"? Surely, if
there are "none but the [specified set]" there can be no remainder,
what you call "the rest". It is a logical absurdity. Not that logic or
the lack of it has ever concerned you overly much, of course.
Andre Jute has not got this wrong. I am usually in a rage whenever I post
anything to Usenet and I do not take the time to get my syntax or even my
logic always right. But I think my animosity comes across just fine and that
is what I want to come across.
If there were more posters like Andre Jute to Usenet, I would not be in such
a rage all the time. But it seems I am always having to deal with name
callers and other assorted morons and numbskulls.
The fact is that we all need a good editor from time to time. We all have
our blind spots which we cannot see no matter how hard we try. That is why a
good editor is worth his weight in gold. Even very good writers need
editors, not even excepting Tom Sherman.
[...]
Edward Dolan
"!Jones" <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vanue512atkcntmhk...@4ax.com...
Usenet is the greatest frustration of my life. It desperately needs
moderators, but still I can't stand moderators because they censor me and
ban me after only a single post. How do you ever get all the idiots off of
Usenet? Well, it can't be done, but that does not mean we have to let them
rule. We have to fight the good fight even if it goes on forever.
The only other poster to these cycling newsgroups who has ever approached My
Greatness is the Great Mike Vandeman. He is a one note Johnny, but I think
that is the only way you can ever accomplish anything in this world. I am a
dilettante who is all over the map and who abhors specialization. I will
never accomplish anything but I hope at least I make the world more
interesting and amusing for those of us who merely want to have some fun
before the Grim Reaper claims us for his realm.
I will admit I would never have stayed on these newsgroups for as long as I
have if it had not been for Tom
Sherman. He constantly infuriated me with his liberal-socialist-communist
posts. These alien ideologies have never worked anywhere in the world in
advanced societies, yet these sentiments persist seemingly forever. I tried
to educate him, but there is no way you can educate a liberal. They are true
believers like the early Christians who wound rather suffer martyrdom in the
Roman coliseum than renounce their foolish beliefs.
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>Usenet is the greatest frustration of my life. It desperately needs
>moderators, but still I can't stand moderators because they censor me and
>ban me after only a single post. How do you ever get all the idiots off of
>Usenet? Well, it can't be done, but that does not mean we have to let them
>rule. We have to fight the good fight even if it goes on forever.
Oh, just one idiot on Usenet to another... I can't imagine why they
would ban you. I personally do not care for the idea of moderation as
it tends to get carried to extremes. Usenet is the proper forum for
idiots such as you and I.
Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
Jones
Edward Dolan
A moderator will ban anyone who says anything the least bit out of the
ordinary. Me ... ordinary? Get real!
> Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
Saint Edward the Great is way beyond Jesus. In fact, He may even be beyond
God!
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> Oh, just one idiot on Usenet to another... I can't imagine why they
>> would ban you. I personally do not care for the idea of moderation as
>> it tends to get carried to extremes. Usenet is the proper forum for
>> idiots such as you and I.
>
>A moderator will ban anyone who says anything the least bit out of the
>ordinary. Me ... ordinary? Get real!
Please read more carefully, Ed... I implied in no way, shape, or form
that you were ordinary. In fact, I believe that I explicitly argued
that you are an idiot, did I not?
It took you exactly 7 minutes and 14 seconds to reply. You must be an
addict! Is that so?
Jones
Edward Dolan
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:52:50 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, just one idiot on Usenet to another... I can't imagine why they
>>> would ban you. I personally do not care for the idea of moderation as
>>> it tends to get carried to extremes. Usenet is the proper forum for
>>> idiots such as you and I.
>>
>>A moderator will ban anyone who says anything the least bit out of the
>>ordinary. Me ... ordinary? Get real!
>
> Please read more carefully, Ed... I implied in no way, shape, or form
> that you were ordinary. In fact, I believe that I explicitly argued
> that you are an idiot, did I not?
I am a genius of course as everyone on Usenet knows. Who knows about you.
> It took you exactly 7 minutes and 14 seconds to reply. You must be an
> addict! Is that so?
I am always doing other things on the Internet and it is easy for me to look
in on Usenet to check on the latest posts.
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>>> Oh, just one idiot on Usenet to another... I can't imagine why they
>>>> would ban you. I personally do not care for the idea of moderation as
>>>> it tends to get carried to extremes. Usenet is the proper forum for
>>>> idiots such as you and I.
>>>
>>>A moderator will ban anyone who says anything the least bit out of the
>>>ordinary. Me ... ordinary? Get real!
>>
>> Please read more carefully, Ed... I implied in no way, shape, or form
>> that you were ordinary. In fact, I believe that I explicitly argued
>> that you are an idiot, did I not?
>
>I am a genius of course as everyone on Usenet knows. Who knows about you.
I'm a genius, too... now, *you* know about me.
But, that's not the issue. Here's the real question: if Jesus had
ridden a bicycle, what kind of bicycle would he have ridden and would
he have worn a helmet?
Jones
Opus
>snip<
> Tell me, Ed... have you found Jesus, yet?
>
> Jones
I found Him. Turns out he was between the couch cushions the whole
time.
Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if
Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was
only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His
entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the
rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look
busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New
Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think
he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name
and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and
Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
Michael Press
<1657c54d-b711-40db...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Opus <opust...@gmail.com> wrote:
Aye ah. The very nub of the gist.
--
Michael Press
Edward Dolan
The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I. I think it
boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well over
15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from
their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius I
am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a pretender
to the throne.
Edward Dolan
"Opus" <opust...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1657c54d-b711-40db...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
If it hadn't been for St. Paul, Christianity would have been nothing but
another small oriental sect of interest to no one except for some Jewish
fanatics.
!Jones
<opust...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seriously though, Christianity would be a whole lot better if
>Christians followed His teachings rather than worshiping Him. It was
>only 4 chapters out of the Bible people, how hard can that be? His
>entire recorded life would only make a tabloid newspaper. Ignore the
>rest, the Old Testament can be summarized as "Jesus is coming, look
>busy" and after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John the rest of the New
>Testament was written by Paul to destroy Christianity, which I think
>he did a wonderful job at. The only thing left intact was Jesus' name
>and the Gospels which Paulists ignore anyway except at Christmas and
>Easter when they trot out the birth and death stories.
Oh, OK... I really don't wanna argue about Jesus *OR* safety helmets.
But... have a nice day.
Jones
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I.
Actually, I think it's "you or me" since it's used as an object. The
rule is a bit unclear in that, some handbooks of style (MLA, for
example) argue that, if the pronoun follows a form of the verb "to be"
and renames the subject, then it takes the subjective form... that
rule probably applies here; however, methinks it's a silly rule. Are
you writing to MLA?
>I think it
>boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well over
>15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from
>their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius I
>am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a pretender
>to the throne.
Oh, I can easily write a bot that posts nonsense to Usenet; I simply
format it with a script and write port 119. What brings you to the
belief that genius is measured by a metric such as a simple counter?
If that's so, then I have written single threads that have spawned
well over 30K postings... hardly a mark of genius, I suggest!
On the other hand, it may be so... you may very well be a genius. I
have no criteria before me by which to judge.
So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance!
If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
Jones
Edward Dolan
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:57:51 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I.
>
> Actually, I think it's "you or me" since it's used as an object. The
> rule is a bit unclear in that, some handbooks of style (MLA, for
> example) argue that, if the pronoun follows a form of the verb "to be"
> and renames the subject, then it takes the subjective form... that
> rule probably applies here; however, methinks it's a silly rule. Are
> you writing to MLA?
I am right and you are wrong.
>>I think it
>>boils down to who has the most posts to Usenet. I think I must be well
>>over
>>15,000 by now, but I can't say for sure since Google has banned me from
>>their statistics. That is just another indication of what a Great Genius
>>I
>>am! If you have not yet been banned by Google, then you are just a
>>pretender
>>to the throne.
>
> Oh, I can easily write a bot that posts nonsense to Usenet; I simply
> format it with a script and write port 119. What brings you to the
> belief that genius is measured by a metric such as a simple counter?
> If that's so, then I have written single threads that have spawned
> well over 30K postings... hardly a mark of genius, I suggest!
Who cares who spawns what. I have posted distinctive messages tailored to
other messages. That is all that counts.
> On the other hand, it may be so... you may very well be a genius. I
> have no criteria before me by which to judge.
>
> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance!
> If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you are
ever going to get up to speed.
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:57:51 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> >The one and only issue is who is the greater genius, you or I.
>
> Actually, I think it's "you or me" since it's used as an object.
No. Recast. Recasting is the way to resolve almost every
grammatical question.
You are the greater genius.
I am the greater genius.
NOT
Me is the greater genius.
--
Michael Press
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance!
>> If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
>
>You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you are
>ever going to get up to speed.
Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I
appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a
life, all of which demand my attention.
Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not
going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden
of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to
that possibility.
Yes, it could be true...
Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some
cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence
of genius.
OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something
*REALLY* profound!!!
I'm a genius sometimes... I just can't produce it on demand and that's
the mark of a real one, you know.
Jones
!Jones
<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>No. Recast. Recasting is the way to resolve almost every
>grammatical question.
>
>You are the greater genius.
>I am the greater genius.
>
>NOT
>
>Me is the greater genius.
But that approach would also give you: "The greater genius is me."
I've tried that rule... it gives you whatever you want. For that
matter, so do the handbooks of style... maybe it's just a stylistic
thing. I'd use objective; however, I won't scream if you choose
otherwise.
Jones
!Jones
Me * <noEmai...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
>But you can't be, I is!
You will see some obscure rule stating that: when a pronoun follows a
form of the verb "to be" and renames the subject, it takes the
subjective form of the pronoun... i.e.: "I" versus "me".
Thus: "It is I," is correct by that rule even though the first-person
pronoun is an object in the sentence. If I were writing a formal
paper, I'd have to live with that because I always try to write good.
Jones
AMuzi
An uncommon quality:
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/10/26/why-you-should-never-order-a-custom-cake-from-walmart/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Edward Dolan
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>> So, dazzle me, Ed... say something profound! Here's your big chance!
>>> If I'm impressed, then I will acknowledge genius when I recognize it.
>>
>>You have 15,000 messages to read. I suggest you begin right away if you
>>are
>>ever going to get up to speed.
>
> Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I
> appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a
> life, all of which demand my attention.
A wife should not demand any attention other than a good swift kick in the
ass every now and then. If your job demands much attention, then you are in
over your head. As for your life, just contemplate your navel. That will
tell you all you will ever have to know.
> Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not
> going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden
> of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to
> that possibility.
>
> Yes, it could be true...
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some
> cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence
> of genius.
>
> OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something
> *REALLY* profound!!!
Here it is, just 10 words, but it sums up all the wisdom in the world.
"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
> I'm a genius sometimes... I just can't produce it on demand and that's
> the mark of a real one, you know.
How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
Opus
>snip<
> How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Deeds Ed, deeds. Whenever someone tells me to "Do something smart!" I
just walk away.
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> Hi, Ed... sorry if I'm not right back to you in 8 minutes. I
>> appreciate your prompt replies; however, *I* have a job, a wife, and a
>> life, all of which demand my attention.
>
>A wife should not demand any attention other than a good swift kick in the
>ass every now and then. If your job demands much attention, then you are in
>over your head. As for your life, just contemplate your navel. That will
>tell you all you will ever have to know.
I see that you're a single, and, most likely, unemployed genius.
>
>> Now, I am not going to rummage through ancient history. I am not
>> going to deny that you may, in fact, be a genius; however, the burden
>> of proof remains squarely in your court... I will leave myself open to
>> that possibility.
>>
>> Yes, it could be true...
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen, you saw it here in... wherever we are... some
>> cycling newsgroup, massively cross-posted. We stand in the presence
>> of genius.
>>
>> OK, Ed... here's your big chance... nail my ass! Say something
>> *REALLY* profound!!!
>
>Here it is, just 10 words, but it sums up all the wisdom in the world.
>
>"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
[...]
>How does anyone smart every impress anyone who is a moron?
Well, Ed, I try to keep an open mind. I suppose my question is: How
can I differentiate a genius from the rest of the people on the group?
Of course, you tell me that you're a genius; however, you wouldn't
*believe* how many times that's happened.
To address your question: I suppose that you should start with some
original writing. Quoting someone's epitaph isn't a mark of genius.
Personally, I like visiting old cemeteries and reading epitaphs,
too... does *that* make me a genius?
Jones
Edward Dolan
It does if you can separate the seed from the chaff. Original writing is
vastly overrated and so is original thought. It is quite enough to be able
to intelligently select what is fine to make one a genius. It explains why
some think Beethoven's last quartets are fine while others think
Wellington's Victory is fine. It is also explains why my epitaph will be
infinity superior to any that you can find. All that counts is the ability
to make discriminations, and the finer the discrimination, the greater the
genius.
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now you went and made me do it.
Gen"ius (?), n.; pl. E. Geniuses (#); in sense 1, L.
Genii (#). [L. genius, prop., the superior or divine
nature which is innate in everything, the spirit, the
tutelar deity or genius of a person or place, taste,
talent, genius, from genere, gignere, to beget, bring
forth. See Gender, and cf. Engine.]
1. A good or evil spirit, or demon, supposed by the
ancients to preside over a man's destiny in life; a
tutelary deity; a supernatural being; a spirit, good or
bad. Cf. Jinnee.
The unseen genius of the wood. Milton.
We talk of genius still, but with thought how changed!
The genius of Augustus was a tutelary demon, to be
sworn by and to receive offerings on an altar as a
deity. Tylor.
That makes you the tutelar genius of cemeteries.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Okay. I am right and you are wrong.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
!Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:58:11 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech * Still Just
> Me * <noEmai...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
>
> >But you can't be, I is!
>
> You will see some obscure rule stating that: when a pronoun follows a
> form of the verb "to be" and renames the subject, it takes the
> subjective form of the pronoun... i.e.: "I" versus "me".
But not for transitive verbs, such as
>
> Thus: "It is I," is correct by that rule even though the first-person
`is'.
> pronoun is an object in the sentence. If I were writing a formal
> paper, I'd have to live with that because I always try to write good.
--
Michael Press
!Jones
Of course, a genius shouldn't need someone to tell him *that*
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>It does if you can separate the seed from the chaff. Original writing is
>vastly overrated and so is original thought. It is quite enough to be able
>to intelligently select what is fine to make one a genius. It explains why
>some think Beethoven's last quartets are fine while others think
>Wellington's Victory is fine. It is also explains why my epitaph will be
>infinity superior to any that you can find. All that counts is the ability
>to make discriminations, and the finer the discrimination, the greater the
>genius.
OK, so, it's: "Faster horses, older whisky, younger (and less
virtuous) women... MORE MONEY!"
In my life, I have yet to see anyone agree on the difference between
"discrimination" and vulgar excess.
I would argue that a genius, or any other person, for that matter,
should make an original contribution. For example: in a newsgroup,
some people dedicate their time to posting links to... well... news.
Can one say that these people contribute? I suppose so.
Others find "news" that supports their pet point.
Jones
Edward Dolan
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 19:56:16 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>It does if you can separate the seed from the chaff. Original writing is
>>vastly overrated and so is original thought. It is quite enough to be able
>>to intelligently select what is fine to make one a genius. It explains why
>>some think Beethoven's last quartets are fine while others think
>>Wellington's Victory is fine. It is also explains why my epitaph will be
>>infinity superior to any that you can find. All that counts is the ability
>>to make discriminations, and the finer the discrimination, the greater the
>>genius.
>
> OK, so, it's: "Faster horses, older whisky, younger (and less
> virtuous) women... MORE MONEY!"
>
> In my life, I have yet to see anyone agree on the difference between
> "discrimination" and vulgar excess.
What you say is true for the mass of men, but not for superior types like
myself. I am a poor hermit who glories in poverty and aloneness.
> I would argue that a genius, or any other person, for that matter,
> should make an original contribution. For example: in a newsgroup,
> some people dedicate their time to posting links to... well... news.
> Can one say that these people contribute? I suppose so.
>
> Others find "news" that supports their pet point.
You and I have different ideas about what constitutes genius. I have already
told you I don't give a damn about original contributions. I only care about
the ability to make discriminations. In other words, without a connoisseur
of the fine arts like me, there could be no Beethoven or any other
"originator". Don't believe me? Why not go live in Afghanistan and find out
what it takes to have a civilized society.
Was Einstein a genius? Yes and no. He could not have done anything if he
hadn't been standing on the shoulders of all those who came before him.
Einstein, if he had been born an Afghan instead of a central European, would
have contributed nothing, not even any warrior skills (he had a gentle
disposition) which it seems are all that are in demand in that blighted
country.
Unlike you, I give all the credit to societies which can produce a Beethoven
or an Einstein, not to the individuals themselves. An individual removed
from society is worth next to nothing. Jeez, I thought everyone knew at
least that much! Soc 101.
Edward Dolan
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-BBB7A8....@news.albasani.net...
The rest of us should stay out of any discussion involving rules of grammar.
Leave it to teachers of composition I always say. But if it looks right and
sounds right, that is good enough for me.
Michael Press
"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-BBB7A8....@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <6di9f5pr6fl1klh4c...@4ax.com>,
> > !Jones <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:27:29 -0800, in rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press
> >> <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No. Recast. Recasting is the way to resolve almost every
> >> >grammatical question.
> >> >
> >> >You are the greater genius.
> >> >I am the greater genius.
> >> >
> >> >NOT
> >> >
> >> >Me is the greater genius.
> >>
> >> But that approach would also give you: "The greater genius is me."
> >>
> >> I've tried that rule... it gives you whatever you want. For that
> >> matter, so do the handbooks of style... maybe it's just a stylistic
> >> thing. I'd use objective; however, I won't scream if you choose
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > Okay. I am right and you are wrong.
>
> The rest of us should stay out of any discussion involving rules of grammar.
Then you have no business here.
--
Michael Press
Edward Dolan
Edward Dolan wrote:
"The rest of us should stay out of any discussion involving rules of
grammar.
Leave it to teachers of composition I always say. But if it looks right and
sounds right, that is good enough for me."
I did stay out of it, you confounded asshole, except to say if it looks
right and sounds right it is sufficient for me. And why not quote me in
full, you confounded asshole! Fuck you too!
Furthermore, this is my thread and everything that transpires on this thread
is my business by virtue of that.
Fucking Regards,
!Jones
That's an interesting statement on several levels. First of all, it
tends to contradict your previous comment: "I am a poor hermit who
glories in poverty and aloneness." It doesn't sound like you give a
great deal of credit to society... not by that statement, anyway.
Second: I'm quite sure that *I* have never even mentioned the amount
of credit that I do or do not give society (or societies) that
"produce a Beethoven or an Einstein..." This is the first time that
facet of the discussion has been mentioned. Why do you presume to
state my position on a brand new topic?
Isn't that what's commonly known as "pummeling a straw man," Ed? I
usually think of that fallacy as stating the other person's position
in a way that is easily attacked, then jumping on that. See:
>Jeez, I thought everyone knew at least that much! Soc 101.
You're soundly refuting something I never said... attacking a position
I never took. Now, I do tend to play the Devil's Advocate on
occasion, so I might have taken up the other side of that; however, I
would appreciate it if you'd allow me to choose my own ground.
Seriously, sir... if you expect me to acknowledge you as a genius,
then you *must* improve your forensic skills.
Jones
Edward Dolan
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:33:53 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>Unlike you, I give all the credit to societies which can produce a
>>Beethoven
>>or an Einstein, not to the individuals themselves. An individual removed
>>from society is worth next to nothing. Jeez, I thought everyone knew at
>>least that much! Soc 101.
>
> That's an interesting statement on several levels. First of all, it
> tends to contradict your previous comment: "I am a poor hermit who
> glories in poverty and aloneness." It doesn't sound like you give a
> great deal of credit to society... not by that statement, anyway.
It is only us poor hermits who truly know what a single individual is
worth - nothing! But that doesn't mean we have to worship society either.
> Second: I'm quite sure that *I* have never even mentioned the amount
> of credit that I do or do not give society (or societies) that
> "produce a Beethoven or an Einstein..." This is the first time that
> facet of the discussion has been mentioned. Why do you presume to
> state my position on a brand new topic?
Geniuses like Me infer what you mean to say so others will not be bored to
death reading trivial nonsense. We geniuses always enlarge the subject. Who
wants to talk about what a great genius I am compared to you.
> Isn't that what's commonly known as "pummeling a straw man," Ed? I
> usually think of that fallacy as stating the other person's position
> in a way that is easily attacked, then jumping on that. See:
>
>>Jeez, I thought everyone knew at least that much! Soc 101.
>
> You're soundly refuting something I never said... attacking a position
> I never took. Now, I do tend to play the Devil's Advocate on
> occasion, so I might have taken up the other side of that; however, I
> would appreciate it if you'd allow me to choose my own ground.
You are the idiot who is extolling the individual, not me - all that crap
about being original and making original contributions. I am telling you
that society is far more important than any individual, original or
unoriginal, ever created by man or god. Like all your ilk, you have got
everything backwards.
> Seriously, sir... if you expect me to acknowledge you as a genius,
> then you *must* improve your forensic skills.
Perfection is beyond improvement. But here is some wisdom for even one so
dense as you:
"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
Regards,
!Jones
<edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>You are the idiot...
Well, I am never reduced to screaming and name-calling. I am quite
able to have a perfectly civil discussion involving a person or
persons with whom I disagree. The interesting point, here, is that I
have never particularly disagreed with you!
But (and here's the disagreement,) Ed, I'm afraid that you've been
misdiagnosed... you're not a genius. What you are is a "kook". Now,
I'm not knocking kook-hood, mind you. Almost every active Usenet
group has a resident kook. In my opinion, kooks go with the turf...
they're alternately amusing and annoying; they're never taken very
seriously.
Now, me...? I'm just passing through on my way to Australia. I'm
afraid that I only have a limited amount of patients for kooks...
particularly when they begin screaming at me and calling me names.
Have a great life, Ed.
Jones
Simon Lewis
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:47 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>You are the idiot...
>
> Well, I am never reduced to screaming and name-calling. I am quite
> able to have a perfectly civil discussion involving a person or
> persons with whom I disagree. The interesting point, here, is that I
> have never particularly disagreed with you!
Between him and Bill Baka, these groups have been pulled to their
knees. Two more objectionable, nasty people it would be hard to find.
Andre Jute
> "!Jones" <swsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Gee, Eddie, that's the finest (and the shortest) apologia for a failed
artist I've ever heard. Man. I've heard thousands, and you just capped
them all.
Reminds me of the designer of several significant Aston Martins, a
chum of one of my editors, exclaiming one night in a bar, "We are in
the presence of much genius!" He swept his arm across the bar and
explained, "There are at least five fellows over there who each by
himself designed the Austin-Healey 3000!"
Andre Jute
Pay attention to what I say or tomorrow you will not remember what I
said -- and Google will have lost it.
!Jones
Oh, Ed is really pretty mild by the standards of what I've seen
elsewhere. I can cite quite a few more objectionable posters just off
the top of my head if I'm allowed to span Usenet. Now, that said,
based on my limited exposure, I don't think I'd go out of my way to
read his nonsense; however, that applies to *lots* of people... and
I'm sure it's reciprocal. OTOH, I have yet to meet the person who
ever tried to force me to read anything when I had set my
determination otherwise.
Jones
Edward Dolan
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:47 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward Dolan"
> <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>You are the idiot...
>
> Well, I am never reduced to screaming and name-calling. I am quite
> able to have a perfectly civil discussion involving a person or
> persons with whom I disagree. The interesting point, here, is that I
> have never particularly disagreed with you!
No one knows what the hell you are ever talking about! Moreover, you do not
quote me properly, which tells me all I will ever have to know about you.
> But (and here's the disagreement,) Ed, I'm afraid that you've been
> misdiagnosed... you're not a genius. What you are is a "kook". Now,
> I'm not knocking kook-hood, mind you. Almost every active Usenet
> group has a resident kook. In my opinion, kooks go with the turf...
> they're alternately amusing and annoying; they're never taken very
> seriously.
I am doing exactly what I intended to do on Usenet, which is to take
pretentious bastards like you to the woodshed. If it requires that I be a
kook, then so much the better. Real kooks to do not know they are kooks. I
give you Comandante Banana as an example. But I know know what I am doing
here. What is it you think you are doing here besides pissing me off?
> Now, me...? I'm just passing through on my way to Australia. I'm
> afraid that I only have a limited amount of patients for kooks...
> particularly when they begin screaming at me and calling me names.
The land down under ought to suit you. Why not take up with the Aborigines
there. I think you will find them about on your level of idiocy.
The fact remains I am a greater genius than you. I am also more virtuous
since I do not fuck up your posts like you do mine.
Edward Dolan
"Simon Lewis" <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdbti0$h5b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Simon Lewis needs to know that jealousy of one's superiors is not an
admirable vice. Why not get another vice instead that does not involve
anyone else.
Simon Lewis has never to my knowledge ever written anything to Usenet that
anyone would ever want to read. By the way, that is what is wrong with these
cycling newsgroups. No one ever says anything that is the least bit
interesting. The boredom is excruciating and unending.
Edward Dolan
Jones is a smart ass and I doubt if we have heard the last of him. But do
not worry, I will be here for him. He has earned my animosity and I am a
world class expert at nursing grievances. What is the grievance? Jones said
he was a greater genius than me! Imagine that! I have never been so insulted
in all of my life!
Edward Dolan
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba010a09-2377-4689...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...[...]
> It does if you can separate the seed from the chaff. Original writing is
> vastly overrated and so is original thought. It is quite enough to be able
> to intelligently select what is fine to make one a genius. It explains why
> some think Beethoven's last quartets are fine while others think
> Wellington's Victory is fine. It is also explains why my epitaph will be
> infinity superior to any that you can find. All that counts is the ability
> to make discriminations, and the finer the discrimination, the greater the
> genius.
>> Gee, Eddie, that's the finest (and the shortest) apologia for a failed
artist I've ever heard. Man. I've heard thousands, and you just capped
them all.
>> Reminds me of the designer of several significant Aston Martins, a
chum of one of my editors, exclaiming one night in a bar, "We are in
the presence of much genius!" He swept his arm across the bar and
explained, "There are at least five fellows over there who each by
himself designed the Austin-Healey 3000!"
Every society needs a few smart men from time to time to come up with new
inventions and discoveries, but still such men are vastly overrated. The
history of great men (leaders) bores me to tears because I do not think it
ever gets to the root cause of a civilization. For that, you need to read
Arnold Toynbee.
If Napoleon had never lived, would the history of France and Europe been any
different? I think not because a Napoleon like leader was bound to appear
when and how he did. It was French society and European civilization which
made Napoleon inevitable. Same goes for Hitler and Stalin too of course.
If Edison had never lived, would we be without electric light bulbs? If
Einstein had never lived, would we be without a theory of the universe? If
Mozart had never lived, would we be without classical era music?
Individuals come and go, but societies and civilizations last for very long
periods of time. It is what is worth studying. To spend much time on
individuals is a waste of time. It is why I have never liked biographies
unless they portray the times.
Genius resides in a people, not in individuals. Hells Bell, even the most
benighted people on earth, the Aborigine, has a genius to be able to figure
out how to survive in that god forsaken land known as Australia.