Tom Sherman - has he really gone for good?
Edward Dolan
newsgroups. Has he finally left us after a decade of wretched posts to ARBR
on almost a daily basis. My God, I should live so long!
I came to this cycling newsgroup many years ago when I resolved to get rid
of all the liberals who were posting messages reeking of Bush hatred,
America hatred and Israel hatred. I believe I have succeeded. Only Tom
Sherman remained of the original scurrilous lot of liberals, but he was
chastened by the Great Ed Dolan and became increasingly trivialized. Most of
the former members of this newsgroup fled to BROL where they could be
properly chaperoned since that is a moderated forum. I heartily approved of
this flight and can take some credit for causing it.
An unmoderated newsgroup (most of Usenet) is an abomination and there is not
much good that can be said about it. It will draw all the scum bags in the
universe, most of whom are barely literate. Before you know it, everyone is
telling everyone else to go fuck themselves. Well, that is Usenet for you.
Ed Dolan the Great will hang around for a bit longer to make sure that the
nefarious Tom Sherman does not return to dominate this newsgroup with his
traitorous liberalism. I would rather die than let that happen. As long as
there is breath in my body, I can assure one and all that Tom Sherman will
never have free reign on this newsgroup to say just any old stupid thing
that pops into his head.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Tom Keats
You're obviously concerned about your own mortality.
Perhaps even facing it like it's an oncoming truck
and you can't move even a single step out of its way.
Here's a few quotes that might cheer you up:
"What fools these mortals be."
-- Shakespeare
"Somebody up there likes me."
-- Malachi Constant, from Kurt Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan
"The pitcher wound up and he flang the ball at the batter.
The batter swang and missed. The pitcher flang the ball
again and this time the batter connected. He hit a high fly
right to the center fielder. The center fielder was all set
to catch the ball, but at the last minute his eyes were blound
by the sun and he dropped it."
-- Dizzy Dean
"I'm not a crook."
-- Richard M. Nixon
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
-- Frank Zappa
"Fuck off."
-- Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
"Horse sense is a thing a horse has, which keeps it
from betting on people."
-- W.C. Fields
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Edward Dolan
"Tom Keats" <tomk...@bud.garden.local> wrote in message
news:iruf2g...@vcn.bc.ca...
Why would someone who has been on a group for a decade just go slinking off
into the night without making a grand and final farewell. Hells Bells, I
have already taken 8 final farewells from these freaking cycling newsgroups
with much cussing and swearing and slamming of doors. Parting is such sweet
sorrow that you have got to do it many times. Tom Sherman will forever
remain a mystery to me. He seemed like a man without a personality.
As Tom Keats is a philosopher like me (but not so Great, of course) I now
give him all the wisdom he will ever need in this forlorn world in one
succinct sentence:
"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
Tom Keats
"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^
I vehemently, passionately abhor philosophy!
It, like Artificial Intelligence, is an extremely
regrettable waste of perfectly good mathematics.
Bertrand Russell and his ilk wouldn't know a real
world if one jumped up and bit 'em on the ass.
I guess if that happened, they'd ponder the hell
out of it. Probably just to take their minds off
the pain in their sore asses.
> give him all the wisdom he will ever need in this forlorn world in one
> succinct sentence:
>
> "Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."
>
> - Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard
"If I can't take it with me, then I'm not goin'!"
-- some cat from a Merrie Melodies cartoon
"King Kong Died For Our Sins"
-- caption on a three-eye'd freaky kid's t-shirt,
from MAD magazine
"He's outside, looking in"
-- Moody Blues/Legend of a Mind
And just for the record, I'm not a longshoreman (yet.)
I'm currently just an overly-skilled warehouseman.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Keats" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l6kh2g...@vcn.bc.ca...[...]
>> As Tom Keats is a philosopher like me (but not so Great, of course) I now
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I vehemently, passionately abhor philosophy!
> It, like Artificial Intelligence, is an extremely
> regrettable waste of perfectly good mathematics.
>
> Bertrand Russell and his ilk wouldn't know a real
> world if one jumped up and bit 'em on the ass.
> I guess if that happened, they'd ponder the hell
> out of it. Probably just to take their minds off
> the pain in their sore asses.
Philosophy went terribly astray with the likes of Bertrand Russell. It
became a linguistic nightmare which marked the end of philosophy.
Philosophy in the traditional sense is nothing more than an idle speculation
on life, its truths, values and moralities. It has to do with how we should
best live our lives. What is there about this that you do not understand?
[...]
> And just for the record, I'm not a longshoreman (yet.)
> I'm currently just an overly-skilled warehouseman.
You are a workingman pure and simple. However, you have the potential to
become another Eric Hoffer. Hang in there and do not neglect the reading of
books and, who knows, maybe someday you can be Great like Me!
Edward Dolan
"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message
news:UsCdnb5zXcwI2tbV...@prairiewave.com...
My God ... I think Tom Sherman has really gone at last! Oh happy day! Now my
heart can be light and rejoice in that the worst scoundrel ever to infest
these newsgroups is truly gone. I say worst scoundrel because he was also
intelligent. A dumb scoundrel is no threat to anyone (except to Jim McNamara
of course).
These newsgroups will have arrived at perfection when it is just Ed Dolan
the Great commiserating with Himself. Yea, He is a universe unto Himself and
does not need or want any others polluting these sacred precincts. My
Greatness demands solitary grandeur. The rest of you can skedaddle the same
as Tom Sherman.
JimmyMac
A single word best describes your pugnacious prolixity on ARBR ...
CONTAMINANT!!!
> My Greatness demands solitary grandeur. The rest of you can skedaddle the same
> as Tom Sherman.
You've obviously been a jerk your entire life. Why don't you take a
day off?
Edward Dolan
"JimmyMac" <jimmy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29d62225-f2f1-43e6...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
All you ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
like a bad penny. It is fun to do this. I urge the rest of you to do this
too and then you can have your own personal stalker just like I do. The name
is 'Jim McNamara'. You can never be Great like I am unless you have your own
personal stalker.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You know what is even funnier? In my reply, almost wrote ... All you
ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
like a bad penny ... WORD FOR WORD! You have indeed become
predictably boring.
Edward Dolan
>> All you ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
>> too and then you can have your own personal stalker just like I do. The
>> name
>> is 'Jim McNamara'. You can never be Great like I am unless you have your
>> own
>> personal stalker.
>
> ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
> like a bad penny ... WORD FOR WORD! You have indeed become
> predictably boring.
'Almost' doesn't count.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:de48b024-e49d-4f69...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 14, 7:42 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> All you ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
> >> like a bad penny. It is fun to do this. I urge the rest of you to do this
> >> too and then you can have your own personal stalker just like I do. The
> >> name
> >> is 'Jim McNamara'. You can never be Great like I am unless you have your
> >> own
> >> personal stalker.
>
> > You know what is even funnier? In my reply, almost wrote ... All you
> > ever have to do is just mention his name and he will show up here
> > like a bad penny ... WORD FOR WORD! You have indeed become
> > predictably boring.
>
> 'Almost' doesn't count.
Whatever ... BUT I thought it and predictably you followed through
exactly as I thought you would ... YAWN!!! By the way, who you going
to stalk now that Tom Sherman is gone. You do realize that you bait
and stalk him don't you? I'm sure Tom does and I'm sure the
readership realizes this too. Queen of Denial, there is no reason for
you to reply with a rebuttal since denial will in no way change
reality.
Edward Dolan
JimmyMac knows all about stalking. It is the one and only thing he ever does
on Usenet.
I'm sure Tom does and I'm sure the
> readership realizes this too. Queen of Denial, there is no reason for
> you to reply with a rebuttal since denial will in no way change
> reality.
Tom Sherman deserved every kick in the butt he ever got from me. But we now
have some new trolls here on ARBR from the kooks group. All they will ever
get from me is boilerplate name calling. I have wised up considerably since
the days of Ed Gin.
This new group of trolls will prove once and for all how worthless Usenet
is. Most ARBR members (what is left of them) are naifs and simply don't know
any better. Now they will learn the hard way. Anyone with any brains has
long since left Usenet. The Great Ed Dolan only remains to see how low it
can sink.
JimmyMac
So, you've got company then ... or would that be rivals???
Edward Dolan
>> Tom Sherman deserved every kick in the butt he ever got from me. But we
>> now
>> have some new trolls here on ARBR from the kooks group.
>
> So, you've got company then ... or would that be rivals???
If you can't recognize the difference between a message from the kooks group
and one from One so Great as Myself, then you are truly a lost cause. You
and Ed Gin deserved one another - you a whiner and a stalker and he a
criminal vandal troll. A match made in Heaven!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:05431773-d388-47ce...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Tom Sherman deserved every kick in the butt he ever got from me. But we
> >> now
> >> have some new trolls here on ARBR from the kooks group.
>
> > So, you've got company then ... or would that be rivals???
>
> If you can't recognize the difference between a message from the kooks group
> and one from One so Great as Myself, then you are truly a lost cause. You
> and Ed Gin deserved one another - you a whiner and a stalker and he a
> criminal vandal troll. A match made in Heaven!
Pot calling the kettle black, Ed? You are both a a stalker and a
troll! Just how is one to recognize the difference in messages when
your postings and those from the "kooks group" are virtual mirror
images? At least "the kooks" have the common decency not to deny what
and who they are. In that sense, they score much better on the
objectivity meter. I hope you are enjoying a dose of your own
medicine. Kooks deserve one another, speaking of matches made in
heaven.
Edward Dolan
> On Jun 17, 2:53 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:05431773-d388-47ce...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Tom Sherman deserved every kick in the butt he ever got from me. But
>> >> we
>> >> now
>> >> have some new trolls here on ARBR from the kooks group.
>>
>> > So, you've got company then ... or would that be rivals???
>>
>> If you can't recognize the difference between a message from the kooks
>> group
>> and one from One so Great as Myself, then you are truly a lost cause. You
>> and Ed Gin deserved one another - you a whiner and a stalker and he a
>> criminal vandal troll. A match made in Heaven!
>
> Pot calling the kettle black, Ed? You are both a a stalker and a
> troll! Just how is one to recognize the difference in messages when
> your postings and those from the "kooks group" are virtual mirror
> images? At least "the kooks" have the common decency not to deny what
> and who they are. In that sense, they score much better on the
> objectivity meter. I hope you are enjoying a dose of your own
> medicine. Kooks deserve one another, speaking of matches made in
> heaven.
JimmyMac is a stalker, but not a troll any more than I am. The assholes from
the kooks group are all trolls as far as I can tell. Ed Dolan the Great is
NOT a troll. He never has been and he never will be. Why? Because he does
not have the required stupidity for it.
Both JimmyMac and Ed Dolan are responsive to whatever is being said. Trolls
could care less about what is being said. Their only intent is to disrupt
and destroy. Ed Gin was an example of a troll (a criminal one because he
forged addresses and names) and he in fact destroyed ARBR single handedly
some years ago. The key to not being a troll is responsiveness to what is
being said. As long as you are doing that you are engaging on a rational
level.
[...]
JimmyMac
I never said I was a troll. I said you were a troll and a stalker and
you are. You have stalked Tom Sherman for years. As concerns not
being a troll, you have several times admitted to being a troll though
you have often qualified that by stating that you were a "good
troll" ... an oxymoron, of course.
> Both JimmyMac and Ed Dolan are responsive to whatever is being said. Trolls
> could care less about what is being said. Their only intent is to disrupt
> and destroy. Ed Gin was an example of a troll (a criminal one because he
> forged addresses and names) and he in fact destroyed ARBR single handedly
> some years ago. The key to not being a troll is responsiveness to what is
> being said. As long as you are doing that you are engaging on a rational
> level.
So then, you are a responsive troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
Edward Dolan
I am telling you what you are. You are a stalker - period! Only fucked-up
wretches can be stalkers. Tom Sherman and I dueled as equals. As much as I
disliked his political opinions (he was a liberal ideologue), I at least
respected him. That is more than I can say for you. A stalker is even lower
than a troll.
>> Both JimmyMac and Ed Dolan are responsive to whatever is being said.
>> Trolls
>> could care less about what is being said. Their only intent is to disrupt
>> and destroy. Ed Gin was an example of a troll (a criminal one because he
>> forged addresses and names) and he in fact destroyed ARBR single handedly
>> some years ago. The key to not being a troll is responsiveness to what is
>> being said. As long as you are doing that you are engaging on a rational
>> level.
>
> So then, you are a responsive troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
Read the above paragraph a dozen times until it soaks into your addled
brain. Not all trolls are created equal. A good troll is NOT a troll. A
RESPONSIVE troll is NOT a troll. Jeez ... what an idiot you are!
Ed Gin was a troll and a criminal one to boot (he forged names and
addresses). The kooks group are trolls. None of them are responsive nor are
they good. They mean to disrupt and to destroy. That is what trolls do.
Usenet is the pits because there is no way to prevent any of this. All
newsgroups must have a moderator that will edit (censor) what gets said.
There is no other way.
JimmyMac
And tit for tat, I'm telling you what you are ... a Tom Sherman
stalker. Care to take a poll?
> Tom Sherman and I dueled as equals. As much as I
> disliked his political opinions (he was a liberal ideologue), I at least
> respected him. That is more than I can say for you. A stalker is even lower
> than a troll.
Trust me I have the same lack of respect for you.
> >> Both JimmyMac and Ed Dolan are responsive to whatever is being said.
> >> Trolls
> >> could care less about what is being said. Their only intent is to disrupt
> >> and destroy. Ed Gin was an example of a troll (a criminal one because he
> >> forged addresses and names) and he in fact destroyed ARBR single handedly
> >> some years ago. The key to not being a troll is responsiveness to what is
> >> being said. As long as you are doing that you are engaging on a rational
> >> level.
>
> > So then, you are a responsive troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Read the above paragraph a dozen times until it soaks into your addled
> brain. Not all trolls are created equal. A good troll is NOT a troll. A
> RESPONSIVE troll is NOT a troll. Jeez ... what an idiot you are!
Read what you wrote a dozen times ... "A good troll is NOT a troll",
and ty to make sense of it. Conan the Librarian, GOOO is merely an
adjective and in this particular context an inappropriate one. There
is no such thing as a GOOD troll. Remove the adjective, and the
sentence would read ... "A troll is not a troll ... DUh!!! Now go
back and read what I wrote again and substitute the word RESPONSIVE
for GOOD, since the same applies. Can you be any more dense???
> Ed Gin was a troll and a criminal one to boot (he forged names and
> addresses). The kooks group are trolls. None of them are responsive nor are
> they good. They mean to disrupt and to destroy.
What is completely laughable is that you don't consider yourself to be
disruptive or a troll. What a hoot. So much for insight and
objectivity!!!
> That is what trolls do.
> Usenet is the pits because there is no way to prevent any of this. All
> newsgroups must have a moderator that will edit (censor) what gets said.
> There is no other way.
If there were a moderator here, you'd be one of the bery first to be
show the door.
Edward Dolan
>> I am telling you what you are. You are a stalker - period! Only fucked-up
>> wretches can be stalkers.
>
> And tit for tat, I'm telling you what you are ... a Tom Sherman
> stalker. Care to take a poll?
Who is there to poll? Ed Gin and you destroyed this newsgroup (ARBR) some
years ago with your childish feud. Even Tom Sherman has left the group
because of you. He was embarrassed by your stalking of One so Great as
Myself and couldn't take it anymore.
[...]
>> >> Both JimmyMac and Ed Dolan are responsive to whatever is being said.
>> >> Trolls
>> >> could care less about what is being said. Their only intent is to
>> >> disrupt
>> >> and destroy. Ed Gin was an example of a troll (a criminal one because
>> >> he
>> >> forged addresses and names) and he in fact destroyed ARBR single
>> >> handedly
>> >> some years ago. The key to not being a troll is responsiveness to what
>> >> is
>> >> being said. As long as you are doing that you are engaging on a
>> >> rational
>> >> level.
>>
>> > So then, you are a responsive troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>> Read the above paragraph a dozen times until it soaks into your addled
>> brain. Not all trolls are created equal. A good troll is NOT a troll. A
>> RESPONSIVE troll is NOT a troll. Jeez ... what an idiot you are!
>
> Read what you wrote a dozen times ... "A good troll is NOT a troll",
> and ty to make sense of it. Conan the Librarian, GOOO is merely an
> adjective and in this particular context an inappropriate one. There
> is no such thing as a GOOD troll. Remove the adjective, and the
> sentence would read ... "A troll is not a troll ... DUh!!! Now go
> back and read what I wrote again and substitute the word RESPONSIVE
> for GOOD, since the same applies. Can you be any more dense???
A good troll creates conversation that would otherwise not exist. Ed Dolan
the Great is the 'goodest' troll that has ever been. It is a high honor and
a privilege to be in His presence. If He should deign to address you,
consider yourself truly blessed by the gods.
[...]
> If there were a moderator here, you'd be one of the very first to be
> shown the door.
Nope, I would simply be a bit more careful what I say and how I say it. But
since there are no moderators on these newsgroups connected with Usenet, it
does not matter what is said or how it is said provided you do not stoop to
ultimate stupidity or criminality like Ed Gin did. He was a criminal vandal
troll and you made it possible by remonstrating with him. You are culpable
to that extent for having destroyed ARBR as a viable newsgroup.
Ed Gin and JimmyMac destroyed ARBR some years ago. Cowards like Tom Sherman,
Jon Meinecke and Peter Clinch stood by and let it happen. Only Ed Dolan the
Great acted honorably and indeed heroically and fought the good fight. But
it is easy to destroy a small newsgroup and not so easy to build it up. Ed
Dolan the Great now wishes only to see ARBR dead and buried. The group was
way too cowardly to deserve to live.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > adjective and in this particular context an inappropriate one. There
> > is no such thing as a GOOD troll. Remove the adjective, and the
> > sentence would read ... "A troll is not a troll ... DUh!!! Now go
> > back and read what I wrote again and substitute the word RESPONSIVE
> > for GOOD, since the same applies. Can you be any more dense???
>
> A good troll creates conversation that would otherwise not exist.
No troll is good. Good troll is an oxymoron and your instance is an
indication that you are a moron. A troll is a troll is a troll, and
there is nothing good about a troll. I used to think you were an
egomaniac, but I've changed my mind. You're a megalomaniac!
> Ed Dolan
> the Great is the 'goodest' troll that has ever been. It is a high honor and
> a privilege to be in His presence. If He should deign to address you,
> consider yourself truly blessed by the gods.
> [...]
Delusion must be such a comfort.
> > If there were a moderator here, you'd be one of the very first to be
> > shown the door.
>
> Nope, I would simply be a bit more careful what I say and how I say it. But
> since there are no moderators on these newsgroups connected with Usenet, it
> does not matter what is said or how it is said provided you do not stoop to
> ultimate stupidity or criminality like Ed Gin did. He was a criminal vandal
> troll and you made it possible by remonstrating with him. You are culpable
> to that extent for having destroyed ARBR as a viable newsgroup.
This opinionated nonsense stated as though factual has already been
regurgitated countless times. Your contention is no more valid or
true than it was with its initial utterance. Shitcan your fallacious,
meaningless cut and paste boilerplate. Get some new material why
don't you. Your material is about as old as you are. You are boring
the readership to death with your crap.
> Ed Gin and JimmyMac destroyed ARBR some years ago. Cowards like Tom Sherman,
> Jon Meinecke and Peter Clinch stood by and let it happen. Only Ed Dolan the
> Great acted honorably and indeed heroically and fought the good fight. But
> it is easy to destroy a small newsgroup and not so easy to build it up. Ed
> Dolan the Great now wishes only to see ARBR dead and buried. The group was
> way too cowardly to deserve to live.
When I remonstrated (opposed, denounced criticized, protested,
argued), that was fighting the good fight and remonstrating is exactly
what Ed Dolan you did as well. Perhaps Connan the Librarian just
does't know the definition of the word and considers it to be an
insult. Go figure. Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
yourself look foolish.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> No troll is good. Good troll is an oxymoron and your instance is an
> indication that you are a moron. A troll is a troll is a troll, and
> there is nothing good about a troll. I used to think you were an
> egomaniac, but I've changed my mind. You're a megalomaniac!
You define 'troll' your way and I'll define it my way.
[...]
> When I remonstrated (opposed, denounced criticized, protested,
> argued), that was fighting the good fight and remonstrating is exactly
> what Ed Dolan you did as well. Perhaps Connan the Librarian just
> does't know the definition of the word and considers it to be an
> insult. Go figure.
When someone is telling you to go fuck yourself, it is a no brainer to say
it right back. Once a discussion has descended to name calling, only a naïf
would engage on any other level. All I ever did was was to tell Ed Gin to go
fuck himself. That is what you should have done too.
Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
> past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
> something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
> history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
> speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
> this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
> clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
> yourself look foolish.
Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll who forged names and addresses and who,
along with JimmyMac, destroyed ARBR. But I mainly blame all the regular
members of the group who were too cowardly to take on the criminal vandal
troll. He could have been put in his place easily if everyone had joined in
instead of running for the tall grass.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e8593d6-7237-431d...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > No troll is good. Good troll is an oxymoron and your instance is an
> > indication that you are a moron. A troll is a troll is a troll, and
> > there is nothing good about a troll. I used to think you were an
> > egomaniac, but I've changed my mind. You're a megalomaniac!
>
> You define 'troll' your way and I'll define it my way.
> [...]
I don't define a troll. I merely accept the commonly recognized
definition of what a troll is. Defining a troll your way does not
change what constitutes a troll. A troll is what it is regardless of
your distorted conceptualization.
> > When I remonstrated (opposed, denounced criticized, protested,
> > argued), that was fighting the good fight and remonstrating is exactly
> > what Ed Dolan you did as well. Perhaps Connan the Librarian just
> > does't know the definition of the word and considers it to be an
> > insult. Go figure.
>
> When someone is telling you to go fuck yourself, it is a no brainer to say
> it right back. Once a discussion has descended to name calling, only a naïf
> would engage on any other level. All I ever did was was to tell Ed Gin to go
> fuck himself. That is what you should have done too.
You remonstrated just as I did no matter what spin you vainly attempt
to put on things. Name calling is NOT "fighting the good fight".
Furthermore, need I remind you in your own words ..."Name calling is
just so infantile that I hate to do it even in retaliation."
> Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
>
> > past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
> > something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
> > history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
> > speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
> > this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
> > clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
> > yourself look foolish.
>
> Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll who forged names and addresses and who,
> along with JimmyMac, destroyed ARBR. But I mainly blame all the regular
> members of the group who were too cowardly to take on the criminal vandal
> troll. He could have been put in his place easily if everyone had joined in
> instead of running for the tall grass.
Regurgitated ancient history that Dolan is unable to free himself ...
forever stuck in a yesteryear quagmire that no one except Dolan
remains interested in.
Edward Dolan
On Jun 21, 9:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e8593d6-7237-431d...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > No troll is good. Good troll is an oxymoron and your instance is an
> > indication that you are a moron. A troll is a troll is a troll, and
> > there is nothing good about a troll. I used to think you were an
> > egomaniac, but I've changed my mind. You're a megalomaniac!
>
> You define 'troll' your way and I'll define it my way.
> [...]
>>>I don't define a troll. I merely accept the commonly recognized
definition of what a troll is. Defining a troll your way does not
change what constitutes a troll. A troll is what it is regardless of
your distorted conceptualization.
There is no commonly recognized definition of what a troll is. It is
whatever someone says it is. It is more name calling than anything else.
> > When I remonstrated (opposed, denounced criticized, protested,
> > argued), that was fighting the good fight and remonstrating is exactly
> > what Ed Dolan you did as well. Perhaps Connan the Librarian just
> > does't know the definition of the word and considers it to be an
> > insult. Go figure.
>
> When someone is telling you to go fuck yourself, it is a no brainer to say
> it right back. Once a discussion has descended to name calling, only a
> naïf
> would engage on any other level. All I ever did was was to tell Ed Gin to
> go
> fuck himself. That is what you should have done too.
>>>You remonstrated just as I did no matter what spin you vainly attempt
to put on things. Name calling is NOT "fighting the good fight".
Furthermore, need I remind you in your own words ..."Name calling is
just so infantile that I hate to do it even in retaliation."
That should be the rule, but when confronted with the Devil you have to deal
on the Devil's terms. Any other way and you are defeated.
> Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
>
> > past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
> > something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
> > history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
> > speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
> > this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
> > clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
> > yourself look foolish.
>
> Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll who forged names and addresses and who,
> along with JimmyMac, destroyed ARBR. But I mainly blame all the regular
> members of the group who were too cowardly to take on the criminal vandal
> troll. He could have been put in his place easily if everyone had joined
> in
> instead of running for the tall grass.
>>>Regurgitated ancient history that Dolan is unable to free himself ...
forever stuck in a yesteryear quagmire that no one except Dolan
remains interested in.
We need to be constantly reminded of the past lest we repeat it.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f18a1f87-5cb9-4e5b...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 9:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5e8593d6-7237-431d...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]
>
> > > No troll is good. Good troll is an oxymoron and your instance is an
> > > indication that you are a moron. A troll is a troll is a troll, and
> > > there is nothing good about a troll. I used to think you were an
> > > egomaniac, but I've changed my mind. You're a megalomaniac!
>
> > You define 'troll' your way and I'll define it my way.
> > [...]
> >>>I don't define a troll. I merely accept the commonly recognized
>
> definition of what a troll is. Defining a troll your way does not
> change what constitutes a troll. A troll is what it is regardless of
> your distorted conceptualization.
>
> There is no commonly recognized definition of what a troll is. It is
> whatever someone says it is. It is more name calling than anything else.
Nonsense ... th usual errant opinion stated as fact. Why am I not the
least bit surprised. There is of course what the majority of sensible
folk acknowledge as commonly recognized characteristics that comprise
the definition of a troll and you fit the definition, so naturally
there is your twisted opposinng definition which you employ in order
not to fit the commonly recognized definition ... how very convenient.
> > > When I remonstrated (opposed, denounced criticized, protested,
> > > argued), that was fighting the good fight and remonstrating is exactly
> > > what Ed Dolan you did as well. Perhaps Connan the Librarian just
> > > does't know the definition of the word and considers it to be an
> > > insult. Go figure.
>
> > When someone is telling you to go fuck yourself, it is a no brainer to say
> > it right back. Once a discussion has descended to name calling, only a
> > naïf
> > would engage on any other level. All I ever did was was to tell Ed Gin to
> > go
> > fuck himself. That is what you should have done too.
>You remonstrated just as I did no matter what spin you vainly attempt
> to put on things. Name calling is NOT "fighting the good fight".
> Furthermore, need I remind you in your own words ..."Name calling is
> just so infantile that I hate to do it even in retaliation."
>
> That should be the rule, but when confronted with the Devil you have to deal
> on the Devil's terms. Any other way and you are defeated.
Well it's your rule, so I guess you feel entitled to break it. You
follow no rules, not even your own ... how telling.
> > > Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
> > > past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
> > > something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
> > > history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
> > > speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
> > > this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
> > > clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
> > > yourself look foolish.
>
> > Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll who forged names and addresses and who,
> > along with JimmyMac, destroyed ARBR. But I mainly blame all the regular
> > members of the group who were too cowardly to take on the criminal vandal
> > troll. He could have been put in his place easily if everyone had joined
> > in instead of running for the tall grass
> Regurgitated ancient history from which Dolan is unable to free himself ...
> forever stuck in a yesteryear quagmire that no one except Dolan
> remains interested in.
>
> > We need to be constantly reminded of the past lest we repeat it.
No we don't. We've been reminded more than enough. Tme to move on.
Edward Dolan
> That should be the rule, but when confronted with the Devil you have to
> deal
> on the Devil's terms. Any other way and you are defeated.
Well it's your rule, so I guess you feel entitled to break it. You
follow no rules, not even your own ... how telling.
Ed Gin made you look like the fool that you are. That is because you played
into his hands. His game, his rules and you were dopey enough to play on his
terms. Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll. Ed Dolan is not only Great, but a
Great Saint known far and wide as Saint Edward the Great.
> > > Regardless Ed Dolan insists in living in the
> > > past. Ed Gin is long gone and yet Dolan continues to harp about
> > > something that is now so far in the past as to be considered ancient
> > > history. Dolan just cannot let things go and move on. He needs to
> > > speak with his therapist about this. Regardless Ed,we've all read
> > > this repetitious bullshit of yours many times before. Give it up
> > > clown. No one is buying your gibberish and you are only making
> > > yourself look foolish.
>
> > Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll who forged names and addresses and
> > who,
> > along with JimmyMac, destroyed ARBR. But I mainly blame all the regular
> > members of the group who were too cowardly to take on the criminal
> > vandal
> > troll. He could have been put in his place easily if everyone had joined
> > in instead of running for the tall grass
> Regurgitated ancient history from which Dolan is unable to free himself
> ...
> forever stuck in a yesteryear quagmire that no one except Dolan
> remains interested in.
>
> > We need to be constantly reminded of the past lest we repeat it.
No we don't. We've been reminded more than enough. Time to move on.
"We need to be constantly reminded of the past lest we repeat it." - Ed
Dolan
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e79230da-9a6e-4b86...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > That should be the rule, but when confronted with the Devil you have to
> > deal
> > on the Devil's terms. Any other way and you are defeated.
>
> Well it's your rule, so I guess you feel entitled to break it. You
> follow no rules, not even your own ... how telling.
>
> Ed Gin made you look like the fool that you are. That is because you played
> into his hands. His game, his rules and you were dopey enough to play on his
> terms. Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll. Ed Dolan is not only Great, but a
> Great Saint known far and wide as Saint Edward the Great.
Diversion duly noted, a common tactic employed by Ed Dolan. As
concerns the commentary ... that is errant opinion stated as fact ...
a bad habit of Mr. Dolan's that reflects poorly on his character.
Repeating a fallacious opinion over and over again ... hundreds, even
thousands of times makes the utterance no more valid or true with each
subsequent utterance. What Ed Dolan is known for far and wide is
being an obnoxious, delusional, egomaniac troll who is in need of both
a therapist and a trip to the wood shed. Ed Dolan wouldn't have the
testicular fortitude to step forth from him inherited dwelling and say
most of what he has said to readers on this newsgroup. If he did he'd
get a much need attitude adjustment. It is easy to be a bad ass form
behind a keyboard.
Edward Dolan
Here is JimmyMac having another one of his childish tantrums. If he can't
stand the heat, why doesn't he get out of the kitchen? Does his wife know
what he is doing on Usenet? Does his poor old hound dog know what he is
doing on Usenet?
Tom Sherman
>
> My God ... I think Tom Sherman has really gone at last![...]
Who?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
A Muzi
>> My God ... I think Tom Sherman has really gone at last![...]
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Who?
so, rumors of your demise may be exaggerated?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Tom Sherman
> In article <g45oqo$ke3$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Edw*rd D*l*n wrote:
>>> - Hide quoted text -
>> Who?
>
> Please stop crossposting Ed Dolan's horseshit to r.b.t.
Now, is that any way to denigrate horse shit?
N.B. Mr. Ed's contribution deleted, thereby complying with Mr.
McNamara's request.
Tom Sherman
>> Edw*rd D*l*n wrote:
>>> - Hide quoted text -
>
>> Who?
>
> so, rumors of your demise may be exaggerated?
Sorry to disappoint some. ;)
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g45p16$lmi$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:2fb20324-fcd7-4716...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I am telling you what you are. You are a stalker - period! Only
>>>> fucked-up
>>>> wretches can be stalkers.
>>> And tit for tat, I'm telling you what you are ... a Tom Sherman
>>> stalker. Care to take a poll?
>>
>> Who is there to poll? Ed Gin and you destroyed this newsgroup (ARBR) some
>> years ago with your childish feud. Even Tom Sherman has left the group
>> because of you. He was embarrassed by your stalking of One so Great as
>> Myself and couldn't take it anymore.
>> [...]
>
Of course not. I know you better than you know yourself. That is why I am so
God Damn Fucking Great!
>> [...]
>> Nope, I would simply be a bit more careful what I say and how I say it.
>> But since there are no moderators on these newsgroups connected with
>> Usenet, it does not matter what is said or how it is said provided you do
>> not stoop to ultimate stupidity or criminality like Ed Gin did. He was a
>> criminal vandal troll and you made it possible by remonstrating with him.
>> You are culpable to that extent for having destroyed ARBR as a viable
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Ed Gin and JimmyMac destroyed ARBR some years ago. Cowards like Tom
>> Sherman, Jon Meinecke and Peter Clinch stood by and let it happen. Only
>> Ed Dolan the Great acted honorably and indeed heroically and fought the
>> good fight. But it is easy to destroy a small newsgroup and not so easy
>> to build it up. Ed Dolan the Great now wishes only to see ARBR dead and
>> buried. The group was way too cowardly to deserve to live.
>>
> Hint to Mr. Ed Dolan - Ed Gin was NOT Johnny NoCom.
Who cares anymore at this point. They were all associated with one another.
I will continue to use 'Ed Gin' as the generic for what destroyed this
newsgroup. I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my
very good advice to tell all those fuckers to go fuck themselves. Instead,
he wanted to preach to them like a Baptist minister.
Edward Dolan
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-75D7AA....@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <g45oqo$ke3$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > My God ... I think Tom Sherman has really gone at last![...]
>>
>> Who?
>
I find it impossible to believe that Tim McNamara is not somehow related to
that other asshole Jim McNamara of ARBR. Neither one of them ever have a
clue about anything. But RBT is composed solely of geeks and freaks. I must
be like a breath of fresh air to those assholes.
Edward Dolan
"A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:c717e$4866840a$18...@news.teranews.com...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> My God ... I think Tom Sherman has really gone at last![...]
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Who?
>
> so, rumors of your demise may be exaggerated?
Tom Sherman is actually quite brain dead and has been for years. He is like
a zombie. All that is required is that someone drive a wooden stake through
his heart. That is what I am here for.
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <g45oqo$ke3$3...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Edw*rd D*l*n wrote:
> >>> - Hide quoted text -
> >> Who?
> >
> > Please stop crossposting Ed Dolan's horseshit to r.b.t.
>
> Now, is that any way to denigrate horse shit?
Point taken. A road apple offers better conversation than does Edward
the Pathetic.
> N.B. Mr. Ed's contribution deleted, thereby complying with Mr.
> McNamara's request.
Much appreciated.
JimmyMac
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g45p16$lmi$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
Ed Dolan really needs to get over this. A phrase I once heard uttered
by a young girl to her older brother comes to mind ... You are not the
boss of me. It is painfully obvious that Ed Dolan continues to harbor
deep resentment toward me merely because I refused to abide by his
unwelcome advice that was neither requested nor required. When an
irrational manipulative control freak like Ed Dolan fails to impose
his will on another, deep resentment is inevitable. For some peculiar
reason Ed Dolan contends that he knows what's best and consequently is
entitled to dictate mandates regarding how others should or should not
conduct themselves. Well, Ed Dolan is simply mistaken. Ed Dolan has
only himself to blame for his self-inflicted disappointment. The
bottom line is that Ed Dolan should harbor resentment toward himself
for exercise of poor judgment ... and, that's that on that. - Jim
McNamara
Edward Dolan
[...]
> Ed Dolan really needs to get over this. A phrase I once heard uttered
> by a young girl to her older brother comes to mind ... You are not the
> boss of me. It is painfully obvious that Ed Dolan continues to harbor
> deep resentment toward me merely because I refused to abide by his
> unwelcome advice that was neither requested nor required. When an
> irrational manipulative control freak like Ed Dolan fails to impose
> his will on another, deep resentment is inevitable. For some peculiar
> reason Ed Dolan contends that he knows what's best and consequently is
> entitled to dictate mandates regarding how others should or should not
> conduct themselves. Well, Ed Dolan is simply mistaken. Ed Dolan has
> only himself to blame for his self-inflicted disappointment. The
> bottom line is that Ed Dolan should harbor resentment toward himself
> for exercise of poor judgment ... and, that's that on that. - Jim
> McNamara
I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as one
does not whine about it. I am this world's foremost expert at telling others
to go fuck themselves. After all, I know everything and they don't!
You made a damn fool of yourself with Ed Gin on this newsgroup. The group
was destroyed because of you two fools. He was a criminal vandal troll and
you were a whining cry baby. If anyone thinks I am making this up, just go
back and read the Google archives for ARBR from several years ago.
Who do I blame the most? Not the two of you. After all, fools we will always
have with us. I blame the stalwarts of this newsgroup who stood by and did
nothing. Some of those stalwarts still have the nerve to continue to post to
this group. I am thinking of Tom Sherman, Jon Meinecke, and Peter Clinch
primarily. It was at that point that I decided this newsgroup was the pits
and it and everyone connected with it could go to Hell!
ARBR - RIP!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e0f1bb5-0cb1-4691...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > Ed Dolan really needs to get over this. A phrase I once heard uttered
> > by a young girl to her older brother comes to mind ... You are not the
> > boss of me. It is painfully obvious that Ed Dolan continues to harbor
> > deep resentment toward me merely because I refused to abide by his
> > unwelcome advice that was neither requested nor required. When an
> > irrational manipulative control freak like Ed Dolan fails to impose
> > his will on another, deep resentment is inevitable. For some peculiar
> > reason Ed Dolan contends that he knows what's best and consequently is
> > entitled to dictate mandates regarding how others should or should not
> > conduct themselves. Well, Ed Dolan is simply mistaken. Ed Dolan has
> > only himself to blame for his self-inflicted disappointment. The
> > bottom line is that Ed Dolan should harbor resentment toward himself
> > for exercise of poor judgment ... and, that's that on that. - Jim
> > McNamara
>
> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as one
> does not whine about it.
I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
good advice (your own words).
> I am this world's foremost expert at telling others
> to go fuck themselves. After all, I know everything and they don't!
>
> You made a damn fool of yourself with Ed Gin on this newsgroup. The group
> was destroyed because of you two fools. He was a criminal vandal troll and
> you were a whining cry baby. If anyone thinks I am making this up, just go
> back and read the Google archives for ARBR from several years ago.
Same old ... same old often repeated errant opinion.
> Who do I blame the most? Not the two of you. After all, fools we will always
> have with us. I blame the stalwarts of this newsgroup who stood by and did
> nothing. Some of those stalwarts still have the nerve to continue to post to
> this group. I am thinking of Tom Sherman, Jon Meinecke, and Peter Clinch
> primarily. It was at that point that I decided this newsgroup was the pits
> and it and everyone connected with it could go to Hell!
Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 2, 2:49 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3e0f1bb5-0cb1-4691...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>>
>> > Ed Dolan really needs to get over this. A phrase I once heard uttered
>> > by a young girl to her older brother comes to mind ... You are not the
>> > boss of me. It is painfully obvious that Ed Dolan continues to harbor
>> > deep resentment toward me merely because I refused to abide by his
>> > unwelcome advice that was neither requested nor required. When an
>> > irrational manipulative control freak like Ed Dolan fails to impose
>> > his will on another, deep resentment is inevitable. For some peculiar
>> > reason Ed Dolan contends that he knows what's best and consequently is
>> > entitled to dictate mandates regarding how others should or should not
>> > conduct themselves. Well, Ed Dolan is simply mistaken. Ed Dolan has
>> > only himself to blame for his self-inflicted disappointment. The
>> > bottom line is that Ed Dolan should harbor resentment toward himself
>> > for exercise of poor judgment ... and, that's that on that. - Jim
>> > McNamara
>>
>> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as
>> one
>> does not whine about it.
>
> I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
> good advice (your own words).
It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>> I am this world's foremost expert at telling others
>> to go fuck themselves. After all, I know everything and they don't!
>>
>> You made a damn fool of yourself with Ed Gin on this newsgroup. The group
>> was destroyed because of you two fools. He was a criminal vandal troll
>> and
>> you were a whining cry baby. If anyone thinks I am making this up, just
>> go
>> back and read the Google archives for ARBR from several years ago.
>
> Same old ... same old often repeated errant opinion.
>
>> Who do I blame the most? Not the two of you. After all, fools we will
>> always
>> have with us. I blame the stalwarts of this newsgroup who stood by and
>> did
>> nothing. Some of those stalwarts still have the nerve to continue to post
>> to
>> this group. I am thinking of Tom Sherman, Jon Meinecke, and Peter Clinch
>> primarily. It was at that point that I decided this newsgroup was the
>> pits
>> and it and everyone connected with it could go to Hell!
>
> Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
> to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
JimmyMac
In direct response to your continued insistence upon force feeding me
advice OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, I informed you that your advice
was NOT requested, welcome or needed. That isn't whining. Had you
ceased when asked, instead of persisting, additional requests would
have been unnecessary. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you have only
yourself to blame for me having to repeat my request. Try as I may, I
failed to get you to cease. In frustration you wrote ... I have
removed your name from my address book. Any more communications from
you will be met by pure invective, at which I am much better than you.
But stay tuned to ARBR where I will have much to say about you, none
of it complementary. Those days are gone forever. You have ever proven
yourself an asshole with me. Congratulations! You have now made a
permanent enemy on ARBR. I will now cut you no more slack. With that
you ported this entire matter on over to ARBR where it is YOU who
continues to whine about this (Ed Gin, my not taking advice, and other
related peripheral past historical crap that no one really cares about
but you). You just don't get it and never will. Although I don't
value your advice, I will take your advice just this one time to
appease you ... to do as you suggest that I should in dealing with
someone such as yourself and just tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF! Are
you happy now?
Edward Dolan
>> It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>
> In direct response to your continued insistence upon force feeding me
> advice OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, I informed you that your advice
> was NOT requested, welcome or needed. That isn't whining.
You are the greatest whiner that Usenet has ever known. It is what you do
with everyone that you get into a discussion with. Women can whine all they
want and who cares, but we expect more of a man. Take some lessons from Tom
Sherman why don't you. As bad as he is, he never whines.
Had you
> ceased when asked, instead of persisting, additional requests would
> have been unnecessary. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you have only
> yourself to blame for me having to repeat my request. Try as I may, I
> failed to get you to cease. In frustration you wrote ... I have
> removed your name from my address book. Any more communications from
> you will be met by pure invective, at which I am much better than you.
> But stay tuned to ARBR where I will have much to say about you, none
> of it complementary. Those days are gone forever. You have ever proven
> yourself an asshole with me. Congratulations! You have now made a
> permanent enemy on ARBR. I will now cut you no more slack.
Truer words were never spoken by anyone. I simply can't stand a whiner.
Either be a man or get lost!
With that
> you ported this entire matter on over to ARBR where it is YOU who
> continues to whine about this (Ed Gin, my not taking advice, and other
> related peripheral past historical crap that no one really cares about
> but you). You just don't get it and never will. Although I don't
> value your advice, I will take your advice just this one time to
> appease you ... to do as you suggest that I should in dealing with
> someone such as yourself and just tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF! Are
> you happy now?
It is not possible for the Great Ed Dolan to ever be happy in this world. He
was designed for far better worlds than this one. However, Ed Dolan the
Great is almost happy when he has Tom Sherman's sorry ass to kick around on
ARBR.
Email is for friends; usenet is for enemies. That is why you got ported
over.
JimmyMac
BULLSHIT!!! You said otherwise yourself when you wrote ... I harbor
deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very good
advice.
FACT: This has nothing to do with whining and everything to do with
rejection. Your own words stand in testimony.
OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, you persisted in your attempts to
impose ... no, make that force feed me, your advice which you also
firmly insisted that I abide by even though I very clearly indicated
that your advice was NOT requested, wanted or needed. Had you been
considerate enough to respected my wishes, I would not have even had
to even repeat my request. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you
tenaciously persisted. Requesting that you refrain from offering
advice is NOT whining, however your incessant harping about why I
really should take and abide by your advice ... IS, in fact, whining.
In frustration, you wrote ... You have ever proven yourself an asshole
with me. You and Ed Gin truly deserve one another. If and when he
takes after you in the future on ARBR I will side with him and join
in. Someone with your freaking sensitivities has no place on a
newsgroup. Congratulations! You have now made a permanent enemy on
ARBR. I will now cut you no more slack. I have removed your name from
my address book. Any more communications from you will be met by pure
invective, at which I am much better than you. But stay tuned to ARBR
where I will have much to say about you, none of it complementary.
Those days are gone forever.
Then, you ported your petty squabble over to ARBR where you still
persist in whining about the "criminal vandal troll" (Ed Gin) who
allegedly destroyed ARBR, the failure of others who stood by and let
it happen while only delusional you fought the good fight, my
unwillingness to take your advice in handling Ed Gin, and other
related issues that are ancient history and of no particular interest
to anyone else but you who is content to live in and recount the past
ad nauseum.
Dolan, you just t don't get it and you NEVER WILL. I DON'T value your
opinion, but I'll l humor you just this one time. I'll appease you
and take your advice. I'll do as you have advised that I do in
handling those of your ilk. Are you ready? Ed Dolan ... GO FUCK
YOURSELF!!! Are you happy now???
> >> I am this world's foremost expert at telling others
> >> to go fuck themselves. After all, I know everything and they don't!
>
> >> You made a damn fool of yourself with Ed Gin on this newsgroup. The group
> >> was destroyed because of you two fools. He was a criminal vandal troll
> >> and
> >> you were a whining cry baby. If anyone thinks I am making this up, just
> >> go
> >> back and read the Google archives for ARBR from several years ago.
>
> > Same old ... same old often repeated errant opinion.
>
> >> Who do I blame the most? Not the two of you. After all, fools we will
> >> always
> >> have with us. I blame the stalwarts of this newsgroup who stood by and
> >> did
> >> nothing. Some of those stalwarts still have the nerve to continue to post
> >> to
> >> this group. I am thinking of Tom Sherman, Jon Meinecke, and Peter Clinch
> >> primarily. It was at that point that I decided this newsgroup was the
> >> pits
> >> and it and everyone connected with it could go to Hell!
>
> > Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
> > to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
>
> And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
Unlike yourself, most posters probably don't consider a newsgroup to
be a field of battle, at least not until an obnoxious jerk like you
comes along and makes it such.
Edward Dolan
>> >> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as
>> >> one
>> >> does not whine about it.
>>
>> > I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
>> > good advice (your own words).
>>
>> It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>
> BULLSHIT!!! You said otherwise yourself when you wrote ... I harbor
> deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very good
> advice.
>
> FACT: This has nothing to do with whining and everything to do with
> rejection. Your own words stand in testimony.
Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something, I am
shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all you
ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
good advice. That would have settled it just fine with me. But instead, you
whined like a spoiled brat because you recognized that I thought you were
making a jerk of yourself - which of course you were.
> OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, you persisted in your attempts to
> impose ... no, make that force feed me, your advice which you also
> firmly insisted that I abide by even though I very clearly indicated
> that your advice was NOT requested, wanted or needed. Had you been
> considerate enough to respected my wishes, I would not have even had
> to even repeat my request. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you
> tenaciously persisted. Requesting that you refrain from offering
> advice is NOT whining, however your incessant harping about why I
> really should take and abide by your advice ... IS, in fact, whining.
Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I suggested?
Instead, you encouraged him and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
with your imploring. What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
[...]
>> > Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
>> > to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
>>
>> And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
>
> Unlike yourself, most posters probably don't consider a newsgroup to
> be a field of battle, at least not until an obnoxious jerk like you
> comes along and makes it such.
Why would anyone ever post to a newsgroup to agree with someone. I only post
to disagree. Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage so
Great as Myself.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ed1b917b-1215-4fe3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as
> >> >> one
> >> >> does not whine about it.
>
> >> > I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
> >> > good advice (your own words).
>
> >> It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>
> > BULLSHIT!!! You said otherwise yourself when you wrote ... I harbor
> > deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very good
> > advice.
>
> > FACT: This has nothing to do with whining and everything to do with
> > rejection. Your own words stand in testimony.
>
> Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
> anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something, I am
> shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all you
> ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
> good advice. That would have settled it just fine with me. But instead, you
> whined like a spoiled brat because you recognized that I thought you were
> making a jerk of yourself - which of course you were.
I did just that, but when I told you that I was going to do it my way
you continued to harp (read whine) about why I shoudl take your
advice. This si a classic case of and ego defense mechanism called
projection ... in this instance the whiner accusing me of whining.
> > OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, you persisted in your attempts to
> > impose ... no, make that force feed me, your advice which you also
> > firmly insisted that I abide by even though I very clearly indicated
> > that your advice was NOT requested, wanted or needed. Had you been
> > considerate enough to respected my wishes, I would not have even had
> > to even repeat my request. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you
> > tenaciously persisted. Requesting that you refrain from offering
> > advice is NOT whining, however your incessant harping about why I
> > really should take and abide by your advice ... IS, in fact, whining.
>
> Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I suggested?
Thanks for making my point by continuing to offer advice or at least
whine about my not taking your advice.
> Instead, you encouraged him
Opinion stated as fact.
> and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
> with your imploring.
It is still here or you could not be posting now could you?
> What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
> [...]
You can't forgive me becayse you felt shame that I should have felt?
Sounds like an issue you need to address with your therapist.
> >> > Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
> >> > to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
>
> >> And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
>
> > Unlike yourself, most posters probably don't consider a newsgroup to
> > be a field of battle, at least not until an obnoxious jerk like you
> > comes along and makes it such.
>
> Why would anyone ever post to a newsgroup to agree with someone. I only post
> to disagree. Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage so
> Great as Myself.
What you have to learn is to sop giving unwanted advice ...
dunderhead!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ed1b917b-1215-4fe3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as
> >> >> one
> >> >> does not whine about it.
>
> >> > I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
> >> > good advice (your own words).
>
> >> It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>
> > BULLSHIT!!! You said otherwise yourself when you wrote ... I harbor
> > deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very good
> > advice.
>
> > FACT: This has nothing to do with whining and everything to do with
> > rejection. Your own words stand in testimony.
>
> Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
> anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something,
t's all about contention with you, isn't it?
> I am
> shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all you
> ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
> good advice.
In fact, I did emphatically state that I was going to do it my way
which you dismissed and pcontinued to harp (read whine) about why I
was wrong-headed and why I should heed your allegedly "good advice".
> That would have settled it just fine with me.
BUT, it didn't settle it now did it?
> But instead, you
> whined like a spoiled brat because you recognized that I thought you were
> making a jerk of yourself - which of course you were.
Errant assumption stated as fact. This is a classic example of an ego
defense mechanism at work ... projection, that is accusing someone
else about whining wheh the accuser is himself the whiner.
> > OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, you persisted in your attempts to
> > impose ... no, make that force feed me, your advice which you also
> > firmly insisted that I abide by even though I very clearly indicated
> > that your advice was NOT requested, wanted or needed. Had you been
> > considerate enough to respected my wishes, I would not have even had
> > to even repeat my request. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you
> > tenaciously persisted. Requesting that you refrain from offering
> > advice is NOT whining, however your incessant harping about why I
> > really should take and abide by your advice ... IS, in fact, whining.
>
> Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I suggested?
> Instead, you encouraged him and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
> with your imploring. What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
> [...]
Allow me to thank you for making my point that you continue to offer
advice or at least continue to whine about why I didn't take and abide
by your advice. When do you intend to stop.? No one cares but you.
Get over it already. Encouraging Ed Gin is purely your own personal
twisted misconception. If the newsgroup had been brought down, how
then are you continuing to post in the allegedly destroyed
newsgroup ... DUH?!?!?! If you felt shame the I should have felt, I'd
suggest that you take this issue up with your therapist.
> >> > Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
> >> > to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
>
> >> And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
>
> > Unlike yourself, most posters probably don't consider a newsgroup to
> > be a field of battle, at least not until an obnoxious jerk like you
> > comes along and makes it such.
>
> Why would anyone ever post to a newsgroup to agree with someone. I only post to disagree.
I'm not sure why you have an issue with agreeing with someone else,
but thanks for formally going on record to state that you are about
contention.
> Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage so
> Great as Myself.
You haven learned to disagree agreeably, but more importantly, you
haven't learned to stop giving unwanted advice or how to deal with it
when your unwanted, unnecessary advice is rejected. Get over yourself
already.
> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage so
> Great as Myself.
Delusion must be comforting.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ed1b917b-1215-4fe3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:47 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> I never give a damn whether anyone takes my advice or not - as long as
> >> >> one
> >> >> does not whine about it.
>
> >> > I harbor deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very
> >> > good advice (your own words).
>
> >> It was OK not to take my advice; it was not OK to whine about it.
>
> > BULLSHIT!!! You said otherwise yourself when you wrote ... I harbor
> > deep resentment against JimmyMac too for not taking my very good
> > advice.
>
> > FACT: This has nothing to do with whining and everything to do with
> > rejection. Your own words stand in testimony.
>
> Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
> anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something,
It's all about contention with you, isn't it?
> I am
> shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all you
> ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
> good advice.
In fact, I did emphatically state that I was going to do it my way
which you dismissed and pcontinued to harp (read whine) about why I
was wrong-headed and why I should heed your allegedly "good advice".
> That would have settled it just fine with me.
BUT, it didn't now did it?
> But instead, you
> whined like a spoiled brat because you recognized that I thought you were
> making a jerk of yourself - which of course you were.
Errant assumption stated as fact. This is a classic example of an ego
defense mechanism at work ... projection, that is accusing someone
else about whining wheh the accuser is himself the whiner.
> > OVER & OVER ... AGAIN & AGAIN, you persisted in your attempts to
> > impose ... no, make that force feed me, your advice which you also
> > firmly insisted that I abide by even though I very clearly indicated
> > that your advice was NOT requested, wanted or needed. Had you been
> > considerate enough to respected my wishes, I would not have even had
> > to even repeat my request. Stubborn blockhead that you are, you
> > tenaciously persisted. Requesting that you refrain from offering
> > advice is NOT whining, however your incessant harping about why I
> > really should take and abide by your advice ... IS, in fact, whining.
>
> Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I suggested?
> Instead, you encouraged him and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
> with your imploring. What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
> [...]
Allow me to thank you for making my point that you continue to offer
advice or at least continue to whine about why I didn't take and abide
by your advice. When do you intend to stop.? No one cares but you.
Get over it already. Encouraging Ed Gin is purely your own personal
twisted misconception. If the newsgroup had been brought down, how
then are you continuing to post in the allegedly destroyed
newsgroup ... DUH?!?!?! If you felt shame the I should have felt, I'd
suggest that you take this issue up with your therapist.
> >> > Then you should have come to the obvious conclusion that it was time
> >> > to depart rather than to remain and rave on like a lunatic.
>
> >> And leave the field of battle to the likes of Tom Sherman? Not a chance.
>
> > Unlike yourself, most posters probably don't consider a newsgroup to
> > be a field of battle, at least not until an obnoxious jerk like you
> > comes along and makes it such.
>
> Why would anyone ever post to a newsgroup to agree with someone. I only post to disagree.
I'm not sure why you have an issue with agreeing with someone else,
but thanks for formally going on record to state that you are about
contention.
> Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage so
> Great as Myself.
You haven learned to disagree agreeably, but more importantly, you
haven't learned to stop giving unwanted advice or how to deal with it
when your unwanted, unnecessary advice is rejected. Get over yourself
already.
> Regards,
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I see that you know almost as little about email as you do about
Usenet. Both are tools used by friends and enemies alike and as such
are not mutually exclusive. I thought even you would comprehend such
an elementary principle. Obviously, I overestimated your powers of
perception.
Edward Dolan
>> Email is for friends; Usenet is for enemies. That is why you got ported
>> over.
>
> I see that you know almost as little about email as you do about
> Usenet. Both are tools used by friends and enemies alike and as such
> are not mutually exclusive. I thought even you would comprehend such
> an elementary principle. Obviously, I overestimated your powers of
> perception.
In an email I can tell anyone to go fuck himself in a New York second. That
ends any and all emails. But on Usenet I can tell someone to go fuck himself
in a thousand ways with hundreds of others looking in on it. That makes all
the difference. We Great Ones crave an audience.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> I did just that, but when I told you that I was going to do it my way
> you continued to harp (read whine) about why I shoudl take your
> advice. This si a classic case of and ego defense mechanism called
> projection ... in this instance the whiner accusing me of whining.
But imagine a pipsqueak like you demanding anything of One so Great as
Myself? Nay, it is inconceivable!
[...]
> What you have to learn is to stop giving unwanted advice ...
> dunderhead!
That can never be! After all, I am genius and everyone else is an idiot!
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:367d1e17-8738-45b8...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 8, 6:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Email is for friends; Usenet is for enemies. That is why you got ported
> >> over.
>
> > I see that you know almost as little about email as you do about
> > Usenet. Both are tools used by friends and enemies alike and as such
> > are not mutually exclusive. I thought even you would comprehend such
> > an elementary principle. Obviously, I overestimated your powers of
> > perception.
>
> In an email I can tell anyone to go fuck himself in a New York second. That
> ends any and all emails. But on Usenet I can tell someone to go fuck himself
> in a thousand ways with hundreds of others looking in on it. That makes all
> the difference. We Great Ones crave an audience.
You missed the point entirely ... not surprising, but you made one of
your own, not that anyone needed for you to publicly admit that you
are an insecure egomaniac in need of an audience. How pitiful.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3fa725c3-1aaa-4d7a...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > I did just that, but when I told you that I was going to do it my way
> > advice. This si a classic case of and ego defense mechanism called
> > projection ... in this instance the whiner accusing me of whining.
>
> But imagine a pipsqueak like you demanding anything of One so Great as
> Myself? Nay, it is inconceivable!
> [...]
Conan the Librarian, I requested that you cease and desist with your
demands. Request and demand are not synonyms. Please try to keep
that straight in the future.
> > What you have to learn is to stop giving unwanted advice ...
> > dunderhead!
>
> That can never be! After all, I am genius and everyone else is an idiot!
There is no one who is as much the idiot as the idiot who assume that
he is a genius. Don't flatter yourself ... idiot.
Edward Dolan
>> Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
>> anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something,
>
> It's all about contention with you, isn't it?
Bingo!
>> I am
>> shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all
>> you
>> ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
>> good advice.
>
> In fact, I did emphatically state that I was going to do it my way
> which you dismissed and pcontinued to harp (read whine) about why I
> was wrong-headed and why I should heed your allegedly "good advice".
You told me to stop telling you. You told you did not want to hear it. That
is how women react, not men. You are really a weird person!
[...]
>> Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I
>> suggested?
>> Instead, you encouraged him and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
>> with your imploring. What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame
>> you
>> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
>> [...]
>
> Allow me to thank you for making my point that you continue to offer
> advice or at least continue to whine about why I didn't take and abide
> by your advice. When do you intend to stop.? No one cares but you.
> Get over it already. Encouraging Ed Gin is purely your own personal
> twisted misconception. If the newsgroup had been brought down, how
> then are you continuing to post in the allegedly destroyed
> newsgroup ... DUH?!?!?! If you felt shame the I should have felt, I'd
> suggest that you take this issue up with your therapist.
This newsgroup is dead for all practical purposes. It never recovered from
the episode that you generated with Ed Gin.
[...]
>> Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
>> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage
>> so
>> Great as Myself.
>
> You haven learned to disagree agreeably, but more importantly, you
> haven't learned to stop giving unwanted advice or how to deal with it
> when your unwanted, unnecessary advice is rejected. Get over yourself
> already.
Blue collar working class folks (the kind who post to newsgroups) are not
intellectuals and do not know how to discuss anything dispassionately. These
types barely even know how to talk to anyone. They should confine their
discussion to things (objects), not persons or, heaven forbid, ideas.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:93f15453-7e14-4271...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Rejection is my middle name. Hells Bells, I never agree with anyone about
> >> anything, In fact, when anyone ever does agree with me about something,
>
> > It's all about contention with you, isn't it?
>
> Bingo!
>
> >> I am
> >> shocked and think it is a trick to beguile and to bedevil me. Nay, all
> >> you
> >> ever had to say was that you were going to do it your way despite my very
> >> good advice.
>
> > In fact, I did emphatically state that I was going to do it my way
> > was wrong-headed and why I should heed your allegedly "good advice".
>
> You told me to stop telling you. You told you did not want to hear it. That
> is how women react, not men. You are really a weird person!
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> Jeez, why didn't you just tell Ed Gin to go fuck himself like I
> >> suggested?
> >> Instead, you encouraged him and brought down the whole freaking newsgroup
> >> with your imploring. What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame
> >> you
> >> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
> >> [...]
>
> > Allow me to thank you for making my point that you continue to offer
> > advice or at least continue to whine about why I didn't take and abide
> > by your advice. When do you intend to stop.? No one cares but you.
> > Get over it already. Encouraging Ed Gin is purely your own personal
> > twisted misconception. If the newsgroup had been brought down, how
> > then are you continuing to post in the allegedly destroyed
> > newsgroup ... DUH?!?!?! If you felt shame the I should have felt, I'd
> > suggest that you take this issue up with your therapist.
>
> This newsgroup is dead for all practical purposes. It never recovered from
> the episode that you generated with Ed Gin.
> [...]
Challenged in the past to prove that I generated the Ed GIn episode,
you failed to do so and yet you raise the issue again and again
without proof. Reguested to let past history remain as such you
continue to reintroduce the same old crap over and over. Oh, that's
right you don't do requests. You don't do anything requested of you.
> >> Too bad others do not know how to disagree agreeably, but that
> >> is what you have to learn to do when you are confronted with a Personage
> >> so
> >> Great as Myself.
>
> > You haven't learned to disagree agreeably, but more importantly, you
> > haven't learned to stop giving unwanted advice or how to deal with it
> > when your unwanted, unnecessary advice is rejected. Get over yourself
> > already.
>
> Blue collar working class folks (the kind who post to newsgroups) are not
> intellectuals and do not know how to discuss anything dispassionately. These
> types barely even know how to talk to anyone. They should confine their
> discussion to things (objects), not persons or, heaven forbid, ideas.
Diversion duly noted. Who do you think really gives a shit about your
opinionated distortion of reality and your twisted, pompous dogma?
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 9, 6:55 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:367d1e17-8738-45b8...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 6:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Email is for friends; Usenet is for enemies. That is why you got
>> >> ported
>> >> over.
>>
>> > I see that you know almost as little about email as you do about
>> > Usenet. Both are tools used by friends and enemies alike and as such
>> > are not mutually exclusive. I thought even you would comprehend such
>> > an elementary principle. Obviously, I overestimated your powers of
>> > perception.
>>
>> In an email I can tell anyone to go fuck himself in a New York second.
>> That
>> ends any and all emails. But on Usenet I can tell someone to go fuck
>> himself
>> in a thousand ways with hundreds of others looking in on it. That makes
>> all
>> the difference. We Great Ones crave an audience.
>
> You missed the point entirely ... not surprising, but you made one of
> your own, not that anyone needed for you to publicly admit that you
> are an insecure egomaniac in need of an audience. How pitiful.
Why would ANYONE bother posting anything to Usenet if he did not want an
audience? You only want an audience of one, namely ME! That is not enough
for One so Great as Myself!
Edward Dolan
>> This newsgroup is dead for all practical purposes. It never recovered
>> from
>> the episode that you generated with Ed Gin.
>> [...]
>
> Challenged in the past to prove that I generated the Ed GIn episode,
> you failed to do so and yet you raise the issue again and again
> without proof. Reguested to let past history remain as such you
> continue to reintroduce the same old crap over and over. Oh, that's
> right you don't do requests. You don't do anything requested of you.
You generated the Ed Gin episode by NOT telling him to go fuck himself as I
suggested you should. If you had done so, that would have ended it. Instead,
you allowed him to play you for the fool and the jerk that you were and
still are. But that is what comes of not taking advice from a genius like
ME!
[...]
>> Blue collar working class folks (the kind who post to newsgroups) are not
>> intellectuals and do not know how to discuss anything dispassionately.
>> These
>> types barely even know how to talk to anyone. They should confine their
>> discussion to things (objects), not persons or, heaven forbid, ideas.
>
> Diversion duly noted. Who do you think really gives a shit about your
> opinionated distortion of reality and your twisted, pompous dogma?
The one thing I care least about in this world are your personal hang-ups.
That is why I broaden the discussion whether you like it or not. I write for
a universe of readers. You write only for yourself. But I can clearly see
that higher education was wasted on you. You never got out of the working
class despite your years at Loyola.
Working class folks can only discuss objects. Folks with a little education
can discuss objects and people. But only intellectuals like Ed Dolan the
Great can discuss ideas as well as objects and people. Now you know why I am
Great and the rest of you aren't.
Edward Dolan
>> What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
>> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
>> [...]
>
> Sounds like an issue you need to address with your therapist.
Let us say you are walking down the street and a guy is coming at you with
his fly open. Are you embarrassed for him or do you think it is funny? I
would simply tell him that his fly is open since that is what I would want
someone to do for me. You would keep quiet and laugh at him behind his back.
Why the difference? Because you have no shame. Not for yourself and not for
others. It is why you went on and on with Ed Gin when any fool would have
told him to go fuck himself. It is also why you stalk. You have no shame and
you cannot be embarrassed because of it. Let's face it, you are just barely
human.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
JimmyMac
To obtain information about something, to provide information about
something, to exchange ideas, etc., but what would you know about the
customary an proper use of a Usenet forum. It isn;t all about you and
your imagined audience.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3bdabe1a-e54a-4bb5...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:04 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> This newsgroup is dead for all practical purposes. It never recovered
> >> from
> >> the episode that you generated with Ed Gin.
> >> [...]
>
> > Challenged in the past to prove that I generated the Ed GIn episode,
> > you failed to do so and yet you raise the issue again and again
> > continue to reintroduce the same old crap over and over. Oh, that's
> > right you don't do requests. You don't do anything requested of you.
>
> You generated the Ed Gin episode by NOT telling him to go fuck himself as I
> suggested you should.
I suggest that Conan the Librarian look up the definition of the word
GENERATE. Allow
> If you had done so, that would have ended it.
Yeah, that approach worked real well for you with Johnny NoCom now
didn't it?
> Instead,
> you allowed him to play you for the fool and the jerk that you were and
> still are. But that is what comes of not taking advice from a genius like
> ME!
> [...]
Still harping about not taking advice I see. Sorry to disappoint, but
I dont' take advice from those whose advice I do not value..
> >> Blue collar working class folks (the kind who post to newsgroups) are not
> >> intellectuals and do not know how to discuss anything dispassionately.
> >> These
> >> types barely even know how to talk to anyone. They should confine their
> >> discussion to things (objects), not persons or, heaven forbid, ideas.
>
> > Diversion duly noted. Who do you think really gives a shit about your
> > opinionated distortion of reality and your twisted, pompous dogma?
>
> The one thing I care least about in this world are your personal hang-ups.
> That is why I broaden the discussion whether you like it or not. I write for
> a universe of readers.
Hangups? Here's is one. It is call delusion. You are delusional if
you think you have an audience beyond Mike V.
> You write only for yourself. But I can clearly see
> that higher education was wasted on you. You never got out of the working
> class despite your years at Loyola.
Errant opinion stated as fact by someone who matters not.
> Working class folks can only discuss objects. Folks with a little education
> can discuss objects and people. But only intellectuals like Ed Dolan the
> Great can discuss ideas as well as objects and people. Now you know why I am
> Great and the rest of you aren't.
Keep repeating your nonsense and one day even you may believe it.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3fa725c3-1aaa-4d7a...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> What a truly disgusting spectacle. I felt the shame you
> >> should have felt. For that, I can never forgive you!
> >> [...]
>
> > You can't forgive me because you felt shame that I should have felt?
> > Sounds like an issue you need to address with your therapist.
>
> Let us say you are walking down the street and a guy is coming at you with
> his fly open. Are you embarrassed for him or do you think it is funny? I
> would simply tell him that his fly is open since that is what I would want
> someone to do for me. You would keep quiet and laugh at him behind his back.
> Why the difference? Because you have no shame. Not for yourself and not for
> others. It is why you went on and on with Ed Gin when any fool would have
> told him to go fuck himself. It is also why you stalk. You have no shame and
> you cannot be embarrassed because of it. Let's face it, you are just barely
> human.
> [...]
An amalgam of assumptions and gibberish.
Edward Dolan
>> Why would ANYONE bother posting anything to Usenet if he did not want an
>> audience? You only want an audience of one, namely ME! That is not enough
>> for One so Great as Myself!
>
> To obtain information about something, to provide information about
> something, to exchange ideas, etc., but what would you know about the
> customary an proper use of a Usenet forum. It isn;t all about you and
> your imagined audience.
Usenet is the worst possible place in the world to obtain information. Hells
Bells, I don't even trust Wikipedia all that much. Even exchanging ideas
doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Without a moderator, nothing is possible.
Usenet is strictly for fools and charlatans, idiots and imbeciles, knaves
and scoundrels. You and Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll, proved that to me
long ago. Fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault!
The one and only purpose of Usenet is to entertain and to amuse. I do that
better than anyone else in cyberspace. It is why I am Great and you aren't.
Edward Dolan
Nope, all one thing, but you do not have the intellect to make the
connections. That is always the way it is when one person is a genius and
the other person is an idiot.
Edward Dolan
>> You generated the Ed Gin episode by NOT telling him to go fuck himself as
>> I
>> suggested you should.
>
> I suggest that Conan the Librarian look up the definition of the word
> GENERATE. Allow
If you had not been here, neither would he. Once here, you egged him on with
your imploring. You made me want to puke!
>> If you had done so, that would have ended it.
>
> Yeah, that approach worked real well for you with Johnny NoCom now
> didn't it?
They did not hang around much when all they got out of me was a lot of name
calling. Fire has to be fought with fire, not words of supplication. There
is something wrong with the way your brain functions.
[...]
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:555d001e-7c03-4488...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:27 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Why would ANYONE bother posting anything to Usenet if he did not want an
> >> audience? You only want an audience of one, namely ME! That is not enough
> >> for One so Great as Myself!
>
> > To obtain information about something, to provide information about
> > something, to exchange ideas, etc., but what would you know about the
> > customary an proper use of a Usenet forum. It isn;t all about you and
> > your imagined audience.
>
> Usenet is the worst possible place in the world to obtain information. Hells
> Bells, I don't even trust Wikipedia all that much. Even exchanging ideas
> doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Without a moderator, nothing is possible.
>
> Usenet is strictly for fools and charlatans, idiots and imbeciles, knaves
> and scoundrels. You and Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll, proved that to me
> long ago. Fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault!
>
> The one and only purpose of Usenet is to entertain and to amuse. I do that
> better than anyone else in cyberspace. It is why I am Great and you aren't.
Thanks for making my point. You are a myopic visionary who kbows
nothing of the original design intent ofUsenet, preferring to
transform it into ABUSENET .. a personal cyber-playpen and showcase
for your unharnessed ego.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:00a99b01-c613-4b0f...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 9, 9:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> You generated the Ed Gin episode by NOT telling him to go fuck himself as
> >> I
> >> suggested you should.
>
> > I suggest that Conan the Librarian look up the definition of the word
> > GENERATE. Allow
>
> If you had not been here, neither would he. Once here, you egged him on with
> your imploring. You made me want to puke!
So, I am to be held accountable for my presence and for his porting a
squable over into cyber-space , and I am also to be held accountable
for defending myself? That is utter nonsense. How many time must you
be told this before it sinks into that thick head of yours?
> >> If you had done so, that would have ended it.
>
> > Yeah, that approach worked real well for you with Johnny NoCom now
> > didn't it?
>
> They did not hang around much when all they got out of me was a lot of name
> calling.
They were her for quite some time with vile posts. Is your memory
failing you?
Fire has to be fought with fire, not words of supplication. There
> is something wrong with the way your brain functions.
> [...]
Says the cretin with atrophied gray matter.
JimmyMac
It is so unlike you to sell yourself short. You more than just an
idiot, You are a delusional egomaniac too. The only connection
you've ever made is with Mike V. Draw your own conclusions.
Edward Dolan
> nothing of the original design intent of Usenet, preferring to
> transform it into ABUSENET .. a personal cyber-playpen and showcase
> for your unharnessed ego.
JimmyMac and I are FINALLY in agreement. Usenet is indeed ABUSENET. If the
rest of you weren't so naive, that is how you would see it too. All human
discussion groups MUST have a moderator. This is as true of a community of
scholars as it is true of a community of scofflaws. Democracies are in
essence Republics with lots of law and order thrown into the mix.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> It is so unlike you to sell yourself short. You more than just an
> idiot, You are a delusional egomaniac too. The only connection
> you've ever made is with Mike V. Draw your own conclusions.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mike Vandeman is a genius just like
Ed Dolan the Great is a genius. On the other hand JimmyMac belongs to a
universe of idiots, all of whom seem to want to post their idiotic messages
to Usenet. Jeez, don't they have wives they can talk to?
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 11, 7:14 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:00a99b01-c613-4b0f...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 9, 9:09 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> You generated the Ed Gin episode by NOT telling him to go fuck himself
>> >> as
>> >> I
>> >> suggested you should.
>>
>> > I suggest that Conan the Librarian look up the definition of the word
>> > GENERATE. Allow
>>
>> If you had not been here, neither would he. Once here, you egged him on
>> with
>> your imploring. You made me want to puke!
>
> So, I am to be held accountable for my presence and for his porting a
> squable over into cyber-space , and I am also to be held accountable
> for defending myself? That is utter nonsense. How many time must you
> be told this before it sinks into that thick head of yours?
All you had to do was follow my advice and the entire affair would have
ended quickly. Instead, you thought you had a good name to defend, which
only made matters infinitely worse. You simply had no clue with whom you
were dealing. It is impossible for me to believe that you ever knew him in
any depth.
I sized up Ed Gin in just a few posts as the criminal vandal troll that he
was. And that is all he was. He would be right at home on the kooks
newsgroup. Name calling is nothing as is trolling, no matter how dumb, but
forging names and addresses is criminal and marks one as such. I don't know
about you, but I do not have anything to do with criminals other than to
refer them to the police.
>> >> If you had done so, that would have ended it.
>>
>> > Yeah, that approach worked real well for you with Johnny NoCom now
>> > didn't it?
>>
>> They did not hang around much when all they got out of me was a lot of
>> name
>> calling.
>
> They were her for quite some time with vile posts. Is your memory
> failing you?
Hells Bells, they would all still be here with us today if it were left to
you! And freaking Tom Sherman would have stood by and been amused by it all.
He is easily amused when it is at someone else's expense.
[...]
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g5a90n$oqq$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mike Vandeman is a genius just like
Ed Dolan the Great is a genius. On the other hand JimmyMac belongs to a
universe of idiots, all of whom seem to want to post their idiotic messages
to Usenet. Jeez, don't they have wives they can talk to?
Tom Sherman wrote:
>> ...
>> The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mike Vandeman is a gen[]us just
>> like Ed Dolan the Gr[]at[e] is a gen[]us....
>
> Indeed, Ed and Mikey are in their own genus.
As long as you don't include yourself in our genus I am satisfied. We Great
Ones do not belong to the common run such as yourself. I put you above
JimmyMac, but only slightly.
JimmyMac
NONSENSE!!! We are not in agreement. I emphatically stated that you
have trasformed Usent into ABUSEnet (read misapproprieated its use as
your personal cyber-playpen to showcase your unharnessed ego).
JimmyMac
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g5a90n$oqq$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mike Vandeman is a genius just like
> Ed Dolan the Great is a genius. On the other hand JimmyMac belongs to a
> universe of idiots, all of whom seem to want to post their idiotic messages
> to Usenet. Jeez, don't they have wives they can talk to?
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> ...
> >> The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mike Vandeman is a gen[]us just
> >> like Ed Dolan the Gr[]at[e] is a gen[]us....
>
> > Indeed, Ed and Mikey are in their own genus.
>
> As long as you don't include yourself in our genus I am satisfied. We Great
> Ones do not belong to the common run such as yourself. I put you above
> JimmyMac, but only slightly.
Gee Tom ... I don't know how I should perceive our relative positions
in Dolan's imaginary hierarchy (read pecker, I mean pecking order) .
Truth be told, the man's opinion matters not because he matters not.
I certainly have no aspiration to ever be considered of the same
gen[]us as Ed or Mike. I mean why would one ever aspire to attain
achieve evolutionary regression?
Edward Dolan
>> JimmyMac and I are FINALLY in agreement. Usenet is indeed ABUSENET.
>
> NONSENSE!!! We are not in agreement. I emphatically stated that you
> have trasformed Usent into ABUSEnet (read misapproprieated its use as
> your personal cyber-playpen to showcase your unharnessed ego).
We have different views on what Usenet is all about. Your view is related to
offline behavior. My view is strictly an online behavior mode. Never the
twain shall meet.
[...]
Edward Dolan
Better watch yourself JimmyMac! Tom Sherman's middle name is treachery. You
would be well advised to align yourself with the Devil before you align
yourself with him. In any event, he will fall silent when the chips are
down. He is a coward and is a friend to Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll
who destroyed ARBR - aided and abetted by you of course.
Tom Sherman is smarter than JimmyMac, but JimmyMac is fairer and more open
and honest by far. Of the two, I much prefer JimmyMac. Tom Sherman has a
treasonous heart like all liberals and is never to be trusted. I sometimes
feel pity for JimmyMac, but never for Tom Sherman. He is my main enemy here
on ARBR, not JimmyMac.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7bc8249-9a1f-4cf1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 12, 12:38 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> JimmyMac and I are FINALLY in agreement. Usenet is indeed ABUSENET.
>
> > NONSENSE!!! We are not in agreement. I emphatically stated that you
> > your personal cyber-playpen to showcase your unharnessed ego).
>
> We have different views on what Usenet is all about. Your view is related to
> offline behavior. My view is strictly an online behavior mode. Never the
> twain shall meet.
> [...]
We do have a different take on the Usenet newsgroup, but not centered
upon differing online/offline views. Usenet has nothing to do with
offline anything. My view concerning Usenet is about a newsgroup's
dssign intent (focus) and how your ONLINE self=servoing, off-topic,
contentions behavior that you consider "style" fails to conform to the
design intent of the newsgroup. I trust that clarifies the matter.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Still offering unrequested, unwanted, unneeded advice that will AGAIN
be rejected?
> In any event, he will fall silent when the chips are
> down. He is a coward and is a friend to Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll
> who destroyed ARBR - aided and abetted by you of course.
ARBR is not destroyed. Ed Gin is past history. You are stuck in a
time-warp of the past obsessed with a man who, in his absence,
continues to exert control over you. Have you discussed your
obssesion with your therapist?
> Tom Sherman is smarter than JimmyMac, but JimmyMac is fairer and more open
> and honest by far. Of the two, I much prefer JimmyMac. Tom Sherman has a
> treasonous heart like all liberals and is never to be trusted. I sometimes
> feel pity for JimmyMac, but never for Tom Sherman. He is my main enemy here
> on ARBR, not JimmyMac.
I suspect that Tom cares about as much as I do about your opinion of
us ... that is not in the least.
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 12, 6:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f7bc8249-9a1f-4cf1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 12, 12:38 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> JimmyMac and I are FINALLY in agreement. Usenet is indeed ABUSENET.
>>
>> > NONSENSE!!! We are not in agreement. I emphatically stated that you
>> > have transformed Usent into ABUSEnet (read misappropriated its use as
>> > your personal cyber-playpen to showcase your unharnessed ego).
>>
>> We have different views on what Usenet is all about. Your view is related
>> to
>> offline behavior. My view is strictly an online behavior mode. Never the
>> twain shall meet.
>> [...]
>
> We do have a different take on the Usenet newsgroup, but not centered
> upon differing online/offline views. Usenet has nothing to do with
> offline anything.
Agreed! Offline is reality; online is fantasy. I know that, you don't!
My view concerning Usenet is about a newsgroup's
> design intent (focus) and how your ONLINE self=servoing, off-topic,
> contentions behavior that you consider "style" fails to conform to the
> design intent of the newsgroup. I trust that clarifies the matter.
You need to immerse yourself in my recent post entitled "Who is Ed Dolan and
what is he doing on Usenet?". Once you have understood what you read there,
you will be enlightened.
Usenet, regardless of its original design, has changed drastically over the
years. It is not now what it was intended to be. Human nature has changed it
into unpleasant chat rooms for contentious and argumentative commentators
like myself. All discussion groups if they are to be taken seriously MUST
have a moderator. There is no other way. Apparently, you are incapable of
learning anything from the Ed Gin episode. Just for the record, what did you
learn from the Ed Gin episode?
Edward Dolan
>> Tom Sherman is smarter than JimmyMac, but JimmyMac is fairer and more
>> open
>> and honest by far. Of the two, I much prefer JimmyMac. Tom Sherman has a
>> treasonous heart like all liberals and is never to be trusted. I
>> sometimes
>> feel pity for JimmyMac, but never for Tom Sherman. He is my main enemy
>> here
>> on ARBR, not JimmyMac.
>
> I suspect that Tom cares about as much as I do about your opinion of
> us ... that is not in the least.
It is important that others understand where they stand in Ed Dolan's grand
scheme of things. Ed Gin is at the bottom. He is total human scum. JimmyMac
is about average, but not a very good writer or thinker. Tom Sherman is
slightly above average, but is never to be trusted because of his liberalism
and quirky sense of humor. You have to keep an eye on him as you would a
rattlesnake.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9795b0ea-e194-4529...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 6:51 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f7bc8249-9a1f-4cf1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 12, 12:38 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> JimmyMac and I are FINALLY in agreement. Usenet is indeed ABUSENET.
>
> >> > NONSENSE!!! We are not in agreement. I emphatically stated that you
> >> > have transformed Usent into ABUSEnet (read misappropriated its use as
> >> > your personal cyber-playpen to showcase your unharnessed ego).
>
> >> We have different views on what Usenet is all about. Your view is related
> >> to
> >> offline behavior. My view is strictly an online behavior mode. Never the
> >> twain shall meet.
> >> [...]
>
> > We do have a different take on the Usenet newsgroup, but not centered
> > upon differing online/offline views. Usenet has nothing to do with
> > offline anything.
>
> Agreed! Offline is reality; online is fantasy. I know that, you don't!
What I know is that you don't know what I know.
> My view concerning Usenet is about a newsgroup's
>
> > design intent (focus) and how your ONLINE self=servoing, off-topic,
> > contentions behavior that you consider "style" fails to conform to the
> > design intent of the newsgroup. I trust that clarifies the matter.
>
> You need to immerse yourself in my recent post entitled "Who is Ed Dolan and
> what is he doing on Usenet?". Once you have understood what you read there,
> you will be enlightened.
You need to stop giving advice. Once you do so, I will consider you
to have been enlightened.
> Usenet, regardless of its original design, has changed drastically over the
> years. It is not now what it was intended to be. Human nature has changed it
> into unpleasant chat rooms for contentious and argumentative commentators
> like myself. All discussion groups if they are to be taken seriously MUST
> have a moderator. There is no other way. Apparently, you are incapable of
> learning anything from the Ed Gin episode. Just for the record, what did you
> learn from the Ed Gin episode?
Apparently, you are unable to free yourself from your obsession with
the Ed Gin episode.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70cfc60b-9b5a-4a2f...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 12, 7:40 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Tom Sherman is smarter than JimmyMac, but JimmyMac is fairer and more
> >> open
> >> and honest by far. Of the two, I much prefer JimmyMac. Tom Sherman has a
> >> treasonous heart like all liberals and is never to be trusted. I
> >> sometimes
> >> feel pity for JimmyMac, but never for Tom Sherman. He is my main enemy
> >> here
> >> on ARBR, not JimmyMac.
>
> > I suspect that Tom cares about as much as I do about your opinion of
> > us ... that is not in the least.
>
> It is important that others understand where they stand in Ed Dolan's grand
> scheme of things. Ed Gin is at the bottom. He is total human scum. JimmyMac
> is about average, but not a very good writer or thinker. Tom Sherman is
> slightly above average, but is never to be trusted because of his liberalism
> and quirky sense of humor. You have to keep an eye on him as you would a
> rattlesnake.
No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
you matter not.
Edward Dolan
[...]
>> Usenet, regardless of its original design, has changed drastically over
>> the
>> years. It is not now what it was intended to be. Human nature has changed
>> it
>> into unpleasant chat rooms for contentious and argumentative commentators
>> like myself. All discussion groups if they are to be taken seriously MUST
>> have a moderator. There is no other way. Apparently, you are incapable of
>> learning anything from the Ed Gin episode. Just for the record, what did
>> you
>> learn from the Ed Gin episode?
>
> Apparently, you are unable to free yourself from your obsession with
> the Ed Gin episode.
And you are unable to learn anything from anyone. It is why you are so
unsatisfactory as a correspondent. You actually write a little better than
you think. I suggest you write less and think more. You obviously do not
have a clue about what I mean by offline vs online and the implications
thereof. That is because you refuse to read anything with comprehension.
But you are par for the course on Usenet. It is why I enjoy talking to
myself in preference to talking to dolts such as Usenet furnishes.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
> you matter not.
Here is how you should have written the second sentence: Your jaded opinion
does not matter because you do not matter.
You employ sentence constructions that are quite queer to say the least. Is
that how the Jesuits taught you to write at Loyola?
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:330fc748-6ca5-414c...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> >> Usenet, regardless of its original design, has changed drastically over
> >> the
> >> years. It is not now what it was intended to be. Human nature has changed
> >> it
> >> into unpleasant chat rooms for contentious and argumentative commentators
> >> like myself. All discussion groups if they are to be taken seriously MUST
> >> have a moderator. There is no other way. Apparently, you are incapable of
> >> learning anything from the Ed Gin episode. Just for the record, what did
> >> you
> >> learn from the Ed Gin episode?
>
> > Apparently, you are unable to free yourself from your obsession with
> > the Ed Gin episode.
>
> And you are unable to learn anything from anyone. It is why you are so
> unsatisfactory as a correspondent. You actually write a little better than
> you think. I suggest you write less and think more.
And I suggest that you refrain from giving advice. No one cares what
you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
you matter not.
> You obviously do not
> have a clue about what I mean by offline vs online and the implications
> thereof. That is because you refuse to read anything with comprehension.
I understand perfectly. Offlline is just not pertinent to online.
Try to stay focused.
> But you are par for the course on Usenet. It is why I enjoy talking to
> myself in preference to talking to dolts such as Usenet furnishes.
Fine. So, talk to yourself like the kook that you are, Just don't
put your thoughts into test on Usenet. Problem solved.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:03dc647b-28ed-46bf...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
> > you matter not.
>
> Here is how you should have written the second sentence: Your jaded opinion
> does not matter because you do not matter.
What??? ... another opinion from he who matters NOT! You write your
way and I'll write mine.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:03dc647b-28ed-46bf...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
> > you matter not.
>
> Here is how you should have written the second sentence: Your jaded opinion
> does not matter because you do not matter.
AND, this criticism is from the very same jackass that mandated that I
should only address the content of his posts and not his style???
Dolan mistakenly assumes that he can make the rules and break the
rules. The conundrum continues.
> You employ sentence constructions that are quite queer to say the least.
You mean in you not so mumble opinion? I think you meant constructs
rather thatn constructions. Glad to help you with that.
> Is that how the Jesuits taught you to write at Loyola?
I knew how to write proficiently straight out of high school, but what
significance is there to the minutia concerning what university I
attended and/or who taught there?
Edward Dolan
>> But you are par for the course on Usenet. It is why I enjoy talking to
>> myself in preference to talking to dolts such as Usenet furnishes.
>
> Fine. So, talk to yourself like the kook that you are, Just don't
> put your thoughts into test on Usenet. Problem solved.
You obviously do not understand the concept of noblesse oblige even though I
have explained it many times. The reason you don't understand it is because
you have never been Great. Only us Great Ones carry the burden of noblesse
oblige. We owe it to our inferiors to let them in on our Universe.
Ed Dolan the Great musing on the nature of thing is a thousand times more
interesting and indeed necessary than anything the likes of Tom Sherman and
JimmyMac can ever dredge up. That is because they are dwarfs and mental
midgets whereas Ed Dolan the Great is Great! Greatness is as Greatness
thinks.
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 14, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:03dc647b-28ed-46bf...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>>
>> > No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
>> > you matter not.
>>
>> Here is how you should have written the second sentence: Your jaded
>> opinion
>> does not matter because you do not matter.
>
> AND, this criticism is from the very same jackass that mandated that I
> should only address the content of his posts and not his style???
> Dolan mistakenly assumes that he can make the rules and break the
> rules. The conundrum continues.
You write so badly sometimes that I wonder if English is your native
language.
>> You employ sentence constructions that are quite queer to say the least.
>
> You mean in you not so mumble opinion? I think you meant constructs
> rather than constructions. Glad to help you with that.
Nope, I meant constructions. I wonder, did you perhaps grow up in a
household where Polish was spoken? That would explain a lot. Very few Poles
can end up a Joseph Conrad.
>> Is that how the Jesuits taught you to write at Loyola?
>
> I knew how to write proficiently straight out of high school, but what
> significance is there to the minutia concerning what university I
> attended and/or who taught there?
The Jesuits are well known for the rigor of their instruction as well as
their religious brain washing. It is why Catholics make such good lawyers -
all that dotting of i's and crossing of t's.
In any event, follow my example and you will improve your writing 100%. The
main thing is to always take my advice. If you do that, it is possible that
you may be Great someday like I am.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:febacce2-b6ac-4a84...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> But you are par for the course on Usenet. It is why I enjoy talking to
> >> myself in preference to talking to dolts such as Usenet furnishes.
>
> > Fine. So, talk to yourself like the kook that you are, Just don't
>
> You obviously do not understand the concept of noblesse oblige even though I
> have explained it many times. The reason you don't understand it is because
> you have never been Great. Only us Great Ones carry the burden of noblesse
> oblige. We owe it to our inferiors to let them in on our Universe.
"Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power
and prestige come responsibilities. You have none of those and if you
did, would not be shackled by any inherent responsibility. He who
asserts that he is noble, must conduct himself nobly. So when do you
intend to start? I comprehend the concept completely and it is one
that you fail to abide by completely.
> Ed Dolan the Great musing on the nature of thing is a thousand times more
> interesting and indeed necessary than anything the likes of Tom Sherman and
> JimmyMac can ever dredge up. That is because they are dwarfs and mental
> midgets whereas Ed Dolan the Great is Great! Greatness is as Greatness
> thinks.
Customary, boring drivel from the troll who does it best ... Y A W
N !!!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:36ed5714-9fb6-40d2...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:03dc647b-28ed-46bf...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> [...]
>
> >> > No one cares what you think. Your jaded opinion matters not because
> >> > you matter not.
>
> >> Here is how you should have written the second sentence: Your jaded
> >> opinion
> >> does not matter because you do not matter.
>
> > AND, this criticism is from the very same jackass that mandated that I
> > should only address the content of his posts and not his style???
> > Dolan mistakenly assumes that he can make the rules and break the
> > rules. The conundrum continues.
>
> You write so badly sometimes that I wonder if English is your native
> language.
Flame bait duly noted. You opinion is irrelevant much like
yourself.
> >> You employ sentence constructions that are quite queer to say the least.
>
> > You mean in your not so humble opinion? I think you meant constructs
> > rather than constructions. Glad to help you with that.
>
> Nope, I meant constructions. I wonder, did you perhaps grow up in a
> household where Polish was spoken? That would explain a lot. Very few Poles
> can end up a Joseph Conrad.
No, but what does ethnicity have to do with anything? Polish was
spoken in my wifes household and she is an excellent writer. Though
English is her second language, she can write circles around you sorry
Irish, native born ass.
> >> Is that how the Jesuits taught you to write at Loyola?
>
> > I knew how to write proficiently straight out of high school, but what
> > significance is there to the minutia concerning what university I
> > attended and/or who taught there?
>
> The Jesuits are well known for the rigor of their instruction as well as
> their religious brain washing. It is why Catholics make such good lawyers -
> all that dotting of i's and crossing of t's.
>
> In any event, follow my example and you will improve your writing 100%. The
> main thing is to always take my advice. If you do that, it is possible that
> you may be Great someday like I am.
Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
regression.
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 16, 9:05 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:febacce2-b6ac-4a84...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 14, 1:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> But you are par for the course on Usenet. It is why I enjoy talking to
>> >> myself in preference to talking to dolts such as Usenet furnishes.
>>
>> > Fine. So, talk to yourself like the kook that you are, Just don't
>> > put your thoughts into text on Usenet. Problem solved.
>>
>> You obviously do not understand the concept of noblesse oblige even
>> though I
>> have explained it many times. The reason you don't understand it is
>> because
>> you have never been Great. Only us Great Ones carry the burden of
>> noblesse
>> oblige. We owe it to our inferiors to let them in on our Universe.
>
> "Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power
> and prestige come responsibilities. You have none of those and if you
> did, would not be shackled by any inherent responsibility. He who
> asserts that he is noble, must conduct himself nobly. So when do you
> intend to start? I comprehend the concept completely and it is one
> that you fail to abide by completely.
Nonsense, I am Great and always have been. I am also a Great Saint. I
inhabit spheres that the average common earth denizen cannot even
comprehend. It is noblesse oblige on my part that I even deign to notice the
existence of others, let alone speak to them. I think I am of a different
and far superior species of being than that of homo saps.
>> Ed Dolan the Great musing on the nature of things is a thousand times
>> more
>> interesting and indeed necessary than anything the likes of Tom Sherman
>> and
>> JimmyMac can ever dredge up. That is because they are dwarfs and mental
>> midgets whereas Ed Dolan the Great is Great! Greatness is as Greatness
>> thinks.
>
> Customary, boring drivel from the troll who does it best ... Y A W
> N !!!
My Greatness even overwhelms ME!
Edward Dolan
>> Nope, I meant constructions. I wonder, did you perhaps grow up in a
>> household where Polish was spoken? That would explain a lot. Very few
>> Poles
>> can end up a Joseph Conrad.
>
> No, but what does ethnicity have to do with anything? Polish was
> spoken in my wifes household and she is an excellent writer. Though
> English is her second language, she can write circles around you sorry
> Irish, native born ass.
Why not have your wife proof read your sorry writings. She can't be any
worse than you.
I think the Poles, like the Irish, have a blighted DNA. It probably comes
from being too put upon by more powerful neighbors.
[...]
>> In any event, follow my example and you will improve your writing 100%.
>> The
>> main thing is to always take my advice. If you do that, it is possible
>> that
>> you may be Great someday like I am.
>
> Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
> regression.
Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
JimmyMac
And to think that all along you led me to blieve that you were both
the former and the latter.
> >> Ed Dolan the Great musing on the nature of things is a thousand times
> >> more
> >> interesting and indeed necessary than anything the likes of Tom Sherman
> >> and
> >> JimmyMac can ever dredge up. That is because they are dwarfs and mental
> >> midgets whereas Ed Dolan the Great is Great! Greatness is as Greatness
> >> thinks.
>
> > Customary, boring drivel from the troll who does it best ... Y A W
> > N !!!
>
> My Greatness even overwhelms ME!
AND ... ONLY YOU!!!!!
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e27ded13-fba0-4d8f...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:26 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Nope, I meant constructions. I wonder, did you perhaps grow up in a
> >> household where Polish was spoken? That would explain a lot. Very few
> >> Poles
> >> can end up a Joseph Conrad.
>
> > No, but what does ethnicity have to do with anything? Polish was
> > spoken in my wifes household and she is an excellent writer. Though
> > English is her second language, she can write circles around you sorry
> > Irish, native born ass.
>
> Why not have your wife proof read your sorry writings. She can't be any
> worse than you.
Why not refrain from giving advice.
> I think the Poles, like the Irish, have a blighted DNA. It probably comes
> from being too put upon by more powerful neighbors.
> [...]
No one cares what you think.
> >> In any event, follow my example and you will improve your writing 100%.
> >> The
> >> main thing is to always take my advice. If you do that, it is possible
> >> that
> >> you may be Great someday like I am.
>
> > Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
> > regression.
>
> Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
Only fool thtink they are perfect. One is never too old to learn
something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he know it
all.
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Only fool
JimmyMac
> something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he knows it
> all.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> > aka
> > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Typos corrected.
Edward Dolan
> On Jul 16, 9:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
>> > regression.
>>
>> Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
>
> Only fool thtink they are perfect. One is never too old to learn
> something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he know it
> all.
There is no fool like an old fool and that is what you are at age 68. I have
been too old to learn anything new for the past 40 years. That is the
advantage of being a know-it-all like ME.
Has your poor long suffering wife served you with divorce papers yet? That
will be a new learning experience for you no doubt. Aye, you will then just
be left with your poor old long suffering hound dog. But never fear, I will
be here to piss on your grave since you are likely to precede me in death.
All that stress from the divorce you know.
Edward Dolan
Why bother? No one is reading your crap except me and I am used to your bad
writing and bad thinking by now.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:643f2220-7b34-4b5b...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
> >> > regression.
>
> >> Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
>
> > Only fool thtink they are perfect. One is never too old to learn
> > something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he know it
> > all.
>
> There is no fool like an old fool and that is what you are at age 68. I have
> been too old to learn anything new for the past 40 years. That is the
> advantage of being a know-it-all like ME.
Since it is so important to you, at least get it right. I'm 62. You
have been unable to learn anything new for the past 40 years because
you haven't had an open mind for that long.
> Has your poor long suffering wife served you with divorce papers yet? That
> will be a new learning experience for you no doubt. Aye, you will then just
> be left with your poor old long suffering hound dog. But never fear, I will
> be here to piss on your grave since you are likely to precede me in death.
> All that stress from the divorce you know.
I have two dogs, both better behaved than you. My wife is not long-
suffering and no divorce is imminent, no matter how many times you
utter your nonsense.
JimmyMac
Typos do not constitute bad writing and you are a poor judge of
writing and thinking since you can't formulate your thoughts
logically. No wonder you write so poorly.
Edward Dolan
On Jul 17, 3:52 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:643f2220-7b34-4b5b...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
> >> > regression.
>
> >> Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
>
> > Only fool thtink they are perfect. One is never too old to learn
> > something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he know it
> > all.
>
> There is no fool like an old fool and that is what you are at age 68. I
> have
> been too old to learn anything new for the past 40 years. That is the
> advantage of being a know-it-all like ME.
>>>> Since it is so important to you, at least get it right. I'm 62. You
have been unable to learn anything new for the past 40 years because
you haven't had an open mind for that long.
I know all I need to know about what matters to me. To think that you need
to go on learning all of your life is a fool's errand.
> Has your poor long suffering wife served you with divorce papers yet? That
> will be a new learning experience for you no doubt. Aye, you will then
> just
> be left with your poor old long suffering hound dog. But never fear, I
> will
> be here to piss on your grave since you are likely to precede me in death.
> All that stress from the divorce you know.
>>>> I have two dogs, both better behaved than you. My wife is not long-
suffering and no divorce is imminent, no matter how many times you
utter your nonsense.
Once she finds out what you have doing on Usenet, she will divorce you.
Women do not appreciate anyone who stalks. They think they are creeps - and
they are right to think that.
JimmyMac
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0e22dcc4-1093-42d1...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 3:52 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:643f2220-7b34-4b5b...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 16, 9:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> > >> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >> > Isn't delusion grand? I 'll pass. I'm into self-improvement... not
> > >> > regression.
>
> > >> Self-improvement at your age? Good grief! I perfected Myself ages ago.
>
> > > Only fool thtink they are perfect. One is never too old to learn
> > > something new ... not even a thick-head like you who thinks he know it
> > > all.
>
> > There is no fool like an old fool and that is what you are at age 68. I
> > have
> > been too old to learn anything new for the past 40 years. That is the
> > advantage of being a know-it-all like ME.
> >>>> Since it is so important to you, at least get it right. I'm 62. You
>
> have been unable to learn anything new for the past 40 years because
> you haven't had an open mind for that long.
>
> I know all I need to know about what matters to me. To think that you need
> to go on learning all of your life is a fool's errand.
I think you've hit on something here. You are probably right. You
probably have learned all about what matter to you since all the
matters to you ... IS YOU!!! The world never and never will revolve
around you no matter how much you insist that it does.
> > Has your poor long suffering wife served you with divorce papers yet? That
> > will be a new learning experience for you no doubt. Aye, you will then
> > just
> > be left with your poor old long suffering hound dog. But never fear, I
> > will
> > be here to piss on your grave since you are likely to precede me in death.
> > All that stress from the divorce you know.
> >>>> I have two dogs, both better behaved than you. My wife is not long-
>
> suffering and no divorce is imminent, no matter how many times you
> utter your nonsense.
>
> Once she finds out what you have doing on Usenet, she will divorce you.
If that were true, then divorce would have come to pass way back when
you first sunmitted this absurd suppositions which you continue to
repeat endlessly, but to no avail.
> Women do not appreciate anyone who stalks.
The misogynist troglodyte closet queen knows nothing about women let
alone the one I'm married to?