OFF TOPIC FUN - The TROLL, Rear-ended

Edward Dolan wrote:

The only place Ed Dolan is shipping out to is the local cemetary. He is
looking forward to resting in eternal peace.


Soon? I hope.

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
The only place Ed Dolan is shipping out to is the local cemetary. He is
looking forward to resting in eternal peace.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_glue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Mar 29, 2:27 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Mar 29, 11:53 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
[...]

Don't be so bold as to even presuppose that you are in any position to
lecture me. Innuendo and accusation are non synonyms. There is a
distinct difference between tongue-in-cheek innuendo and direct
accusation (read unsubstantiated allegation) and it is a given that
there is a substantial recognizable difference in severity and
magnitude between "dead weapon" and sodomy/pederasty and that is
neither open for discussion nor subject to debate.

Nope, no difference at all. Everyone knows what is meant when you
reference
boys. I simply returned the innuendo but I did it 100 times better than
you.
That is because I am 100 times smarter than you.

What you returned was not innuendo dullard, but rather deliberate,
unsubstantiated accusation deliberately intended to malign (sodomy/
pederasty ... libel ... defamation of character) ant that is a
prosecutable prescribed by law. I said this (definition of the law)
was no open for discussion or debate.

That is what our lawyers would argue about and that is what a judge would
dismiss as a lot of foolishness. Cry babies like you regularly get laughed
out of court.

If you would just recognize that what you did is simply wrong, the
there would not have been reason to entertain the notion of use of the
jurisprudence system. I guess you just don't understand what not open
to discussion or debate means. That you falsely accused me of
pederasty in a public is not open to discussion or debate. That you
deliberately and intentionally perpetrated a falsehood with the sole
intent to malign my character is not open to discussion or debate.
These are facts. That what you maliciously did is considered libel
(defamation of character) is not subject to discussion and debate,
since this is a given that specifically set forth and defined under
the law. Yes this too is a fact. So what would there be to argue
about. The offense was committed and the offense is specifically
defined by law. Arguing will not change that. I'd suggest that you
run that by your 4 lawyer family members and ask if they consider this
a just laughing matter. One day you will offend someone who will be
close at hand and a little street justice will be meted out that will
result in a well earned attitude adjustment. A trip to the wood shed
is long over due.

an
excellent litigator. Any suit of yours will immediately be met with a
countersuit. The judge will no doubt get a good laugh out of it but that
is
all that will ever happen.

You would have no grounds for a counter suit, but I have grounds for a
suit and the accusations you have publicly made are not taken as
lightly as you might think. Just ask the lawyers in your family.
The only thing that just might spare you a lawsuit is the fact that
your complete lack of credibility does not impose a threat to my
character or reputation. No one take you at your word her anymore.

Everyone in the world KNOWS that you are an Asshole! You prove that every
time you post a message to Usenet.

Now how does that quantum leap in logic follow? Listen up everyone,
Ed Dolan has usurped the right to speak on behalf of you all.

The only character or reputation you have
is one of an Asshole!

Opinion stated as fact. You do not define what and who I am, but you
vile and vulgar posts define what you who you are.

But I can make it much worse for you than that if you
persist in making innuendoes about boys or any other sexual subjects that
are taboo.

Le me see now, you can say whatever you wish about others (Little
Meow, Wayne Liggett, myself just to name a few), but reserve the right
to exempt yourself from like treatment? Well good luck with that
one.

I would have as much ground for a countersuit as you think you have for a
suit. It is not possible to reference a boy like you did without implying
pederasty and most likely sodomy. See you in court - as a lawyer would say..
[...]

As you will recall I specifically mentioned one in particularlyl
(MV). Is he a boy? Anyone with any common sense would have realized
that I had taken literary license with the term "boy" to merely denote
the male gender. The implication was obvious. Little Mewo need not
be threatened since she is of the fairer sex, a gender that a
mysoninist woudl have no interest in. Neither sodomy nor pederasty
was even implied let alone specifically mention as ye did. You are
alway instruction other to read between the line and yet are unable to
do so yourself. If this was the best attempt that you can muster to
justify what you said in response to what I said, you have failed
miserably.

Stay off the sexual innuendo or I will
crucify you.

You really should not protest so loudly or someone just might get the
wrong idea about you and you wouldn't want that now would you?

I spent 4 years in the Navy as an enlisted man and I know
everything there is to know about our human natures. You get into a name
calling contest with me, one with sexual overtones, and I promise you
that
you will lose big time.

Give me time to work up a tremble. Do you think that you are the only
one who spent time in the military? The difference is that I do not
consider the time spent in the military to have taught me all that
there is to know of human nature. This much I know, I am embarrassed
to admit that we belong to the same species.

Enlisted guys in the Navy were into 24 hour gutter language, most of it
sexual in nature. I heard it solid for 4 years. You are a naïf and in over
your head if you think you can out-gutter me.

I spent a couple of years in the Army so I understand, but trust me I
have no intention of entering into a competition to "out-gutter" you.
That is a competition I care not to engage in nor would be proud to be
the winner of. I'll leave that area of expertise to swine like you
who revel in the pleasure of wallowing about in the muck of
depravity. Have you no pride or class at all? Never mind ...
rhetorical. What a simple peasant.

PS. Show this post to your wife and see what she thinks of it. She can't
be
as big a baby as you are.

My wife has indicate that she wants to see no more of this (meant "your") ****.

Well Hells Bells, she at least is not an asshole like you. I suggest you try
to stay on her good side and not make any more references to boys. She might
get the wrong idea about you if you continue to do that.

I corrected the above from "this" to "your" which is what I meant to
type. Make more sense to you now? The only one who continues to
fixate on boys is you and I find that rather telling. Move beyond
your fantasy. You are embarrassing yourself. I thought you
championed celibacy? Me, I like women. Try one some time. You might
even find that you like it. Yeah I know ... fornication ... sex only
for procreation, etc. Heard all your babbling bull**** before ... ad
nauseum. Who cares what you think anyways.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Mar 29, 2:48 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...

On Mar 29, 1:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Ed Gin and McNamara - two peas in a pod! At least Ed Gin was not a
whiner -
and he didn't stalk anyone for years at a time either. Apparently, you
have
no idea what a revulsion you are to any normal decent person.
[...]

And how would you now since you are not a normal decent person?

I never stalk anyone and I never reference boys out of nowhere like you do.
[...]

It is in your own best intetest to stop toking about boy or someone
might get the wrong impression about you.

You are a pest and that is all you are. I will increasingly ignore you in
the future since you are incapable of ever adding anything to the
conversation.

You really know how to hurt a guy. Is that a promise ... I mean one
that you will uncharacteristically keep for a change. I look forward
to you ignoring me. Can't say that I can guarantee the same. One of
your pearls of wisdom said it all ... "Jim McNamara, you are my
perennial stalker. How would I ever get though the week without you
here to remind me of what a jackass I am."

The above is ancient history now that you have resorted to sexual innuendo.
I now put you right along side of Ed Gin, although to his credit, he was
never a whiner like you are. He was at least a man's man, no matter how
criminal and scurrilous.

You raving an ranting is characteristic of a man mad. If that's the
image you mean to portray, then by all means continue. It seems to be
working.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Mar 29, 2:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Mar 29, 2:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...

On Mar 29, 11:14 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
This from an asshole who makes sexual innuendos. He must have
perderasty
and
sodomy on his mind since he is always making reverences to boys. I
urge
McNamara to stop thinking about these things. They are illegal and he
will
go in prison where he will end up someone's bitch. Hey, you do not
want
to
end up having someone like Ed Gin ****ing you, do you? Or do you!

A L W A Y S ??? Pray tell, how does a single, solitary qualify as
"always". Where are all these other references you refer to? Please
provie the links. Do you ever say anything that you can prove as
factual? The unsubstantiated assertion has become a trademark tool in
your arsenal of the absurd. You want to know what is on my mind?
What is on my mind is that you are ... out of yours

Once is quite enough. But my question to you is why is a sexagenarian
like
you saying anything at all about boys? Even once?

BUT ... BUT ... BUT your contended that there were many references by
implication (read ALWAYS). Dunderhead, rather that extracting
something completely out of context, why not revisit the original
reference that addressed your disinterest in the female gender ...
mysogynist that you are. The reference in no way denoted my sexual
preference regardless of what knid of spin you vainly attempted to put
on it. Gee you're so dumb as to be pitiful.

You were attempting to denote MY sexual preferences. I am waiting for your
apology.
[...]

You think?

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
Minnesota

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:50:31 -0800, James Connell
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

The only place Ed Dolan is shipping out to is the local cemetary. He is
looking forward to resting in eternal peace.


Soon? I hope.

I see age hasn't improved you, in the least.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

dolan, I told you to commit sucide, now go and do it.
You first!

=v= Fab, no! We need you here!
_Jym_

---------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==--------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 2:27 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Mar 29, 11:53 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
[...]

Don't be so bold as to even presuppose that you are in any position
to
lecture me. Innuendo and accusation are non synonyms. There is a
distinct difference between tongue-in-cheek innuendo and direct
accusation (read unsubstantiated allegation) and it is a given that
there is a substantial recognizable difference in severity and
magnitude between "dead weapon" and sodomy/pederasty and that is
neither open for discussion nor subject to debate.

Nope, no difference at all. Everyone knows what is meant when you
reference
boys. I simply returned the innuendo but I did it 100 times better than
you.
That is because I am 100 times smarter than you.

What you returned was not innuendo dullard, but rather deliberate,
unsubstantiated accusation deliberately intended to malign (sodomy/
pederasty ... libel ... defamation of character) ant that is a
prosecutable prescribed by law. I said this (definition of the law)
was no open for discussion or debate.

That is what our lawyers would argue about and that is what a judge would
dismiss as a lot of foolishness. Cry babies like you regularly get laughed
out of court.

If you would just recognize that what you did is simply wrong, the
there would not have been reason to entertain the notion of use of the
jurisprudence system. I guess you just don't understand what not open
to discussion or debate means. That you falsely accused me of
pederasty in a public is not open to discussion or debate. That you
deliberately and intentionally perpetrated a falsehood with the sole
intent to malign my character is not open to discussion or debate.
These are facts. That what you maliciously did is considered libel
(defamation of character) is not subject to discussion and debate,
since this is a given that specifically set forth and defined under
the law. Yes this too is a fact. So what would there be to argue
about. The offense was committed and the offense is specifically
defined by law. Arguing will not change that. I'd suggest that you
run that by your 4 lawyer family members and ask if they consider this
a just laughing matter. One day you will offend someone who will be
close at hand and a little street justice will be meted out that will
result in a well earned attitude adjustment. A trip to the wood shed
is long over due.

an
excellent litigator. Any suit of yours will immediately be met with a
countersuit. The judge will no doubt get a good laugh out of it but
that
is
all that will ever happen.

You would have no grounds for a counter suit, but I have grounds for a
suit and the accusations you have publicly made are not taken as
lightly as you might think. Just ask the lawyers in your family.
The only thing that just might spare you a lawsuit is the fact that
your complete lack of credibility does not impose a threat to my
character or reputation. No one take you at your word her anymore.

Everyone in the world KNOWS that you are an Asshole! You prove that every
time you post a message to Usenet.

Now how does that quantum leap in logic follow? Listen up everyone,
Ed Dolan has usurped the right to speak on behalf of you all.

The only character or reputation you have
is one of an Asshole!

Opinion stated as fact. You do not define what and who I am, but you
vile and vulgar posts define what you who you are.

But I can make it much worse for you than that if you
persist in making innuendoes about boys or any other sexual subjects that
are taboo.

Le me see now, you can say whatever you wish about others (Little
Meow, Wayne Liggett, myself just to name a few), but reserve the right
to exempt yourself from like treatment? Well good luck with that
one.

I would have as much ground for a countersuit as you think you have for a
suit. It is not possible to reference a boy like you did without implying
pederasty and most likely sodomy. See you in court - as a lawyer would
say.
[...]

As you will recall I specifically mentioned one in particularlyl
(MV). Is he a boy? Anyone with any common sense would have realized
that I had taken literary license with the term "boy" to merely denote
the male gender. The implication was obvious. Little Mewo need not
be threatened since she is of the fairer sex, a gender that a
mysoninist woudl have no interest in. Neither sodomy nor pederasty
was even implied let alone specifically mention as ye did. You are
alway instruction other to read between the line and yet are unable to
do so yourself. If this was the best attempt that you can muster to
justify what you said in response to what I said, you have failed
miserably.

Stay off the sexual innuendo or I will
crucify you.

You really should not protest so loudly or someone just might get the
wrong idea about you and you wouldn't want that now would you?

I spent 4 years in the Navy as an enlisted man and I know
everything there is to know about our human natures. You get into a
name
calling contest with me, one with sexual overtones, and I promise you
that
you will lose big time.

Give me time to work up a tremble. Do you think that you are the only
one who spent time in the military? The difference is that I do not
consider the time spent in the military to have taught me all that
there is to know of human nature. This much I know, I am embarrassed
to admit that we belong to the same species.

Enlisted guys in the Navy were into 24 hour gutter language, most of it
sexual in nature. I heard it solid for 4 years. You are a naïf and in over
your head if you think you can out-gutter me.

I spent a couple of years in the Army so I understand, but trust me I
have no intention of entering into a competition to "out-gutter" you.
That is a competition I care not to engage in nor would be proud to be
the winner of. I'll leave that area of expertise to swine like you
who revel in the pleasure of wallowing about in the muck of
depravity. Have you no pride or class at all? Never mind ...
rhetorical. What a simple peasant.

PS. Show this post to your wife and see what she thinks of it. She
can't
be
as big a baby as you are.

My wife has indicate that she wants to see no more of this (meant
"your") ****.

Well Hells Bells, she at least is not an asshole like you. I suggest you
try
to stay on her good side and not make any more references to boys. She
might
get the wrong idea about you if you continue to do that.

I corrected the above from "this" to "your" which is what I meant to
type. Make more sense to you now? The only one who continues to
fixate on boys is you and I find that rather telling. Move beyond
your fantasy. You are embarrassing yourself. I thought you
championed celibacy? Me, I like women. Try one some time. You might
even find that you like it. Yeah I know ... fornication ... sex only
for procreation, etc. Heard all your babbling bull**** before ... ad
nauseum. Who cares what you think anyways.

Did you say something?

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
Minnesota

On Mar 29, 2:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Mar 29, 2:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...

On Mar 29, 11:14 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
This from an asshole who makes sexual innuendos. He must have
perderasty
and
sodomy on his mind since he is always making reverences to boys. I
urge
McNamara to stop thinking about these things. They are illegal and he
will
go in prison where he will end up someone's bitch. Hey, you do not
want
to
end up having someone like Ed Gin ****ing you, do you? Or do you!

A L W A Y S ??? Pray tell, how does a single, solitary qualify as
"always". Where are all these other references you refer to? Please
provie the links. Do you ever say anything that you can prove as
factual? The unsubstantiated assertion has become a trademark tool in
your arsenal of the absurd. You want to know what is on my mind?
What is on my mind is that you are ... out of yours

Once is quite enough. But my question to you is why is a sexagenarian
like
you saying anything at all about boys? Even once?

BUT ... BUT ... BUT your contended that there were many references by
implication (read ALWAYS). Dunderhead, rather that extracting
something completely out of context, why not revisit the original
reference that addressed your disinterest in the female gender ...
misogynist that you are. The reference in no way denoted my sexual
preference regardless of what knid of spin you vainly attempted to put
on it. Gee you're so dumb as to be pitiful.

You were attempting to denote MY sexual preferences. I am waiting for your
apology.
[...]

Within the human soul resides mysteries dark and deep about our
frailties, our fears, our shame. Perhaps a dormant, awakened
subconscious inflicted a torment of acceptance?

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
Minnesota

On Mar 29, 2:54 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...



On Mar 29, 2:00 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...

On Mar 29, 11:14 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
This from an asshole who makes sexual innuendos. He must have
perderasty
and
sodomy on his mind since he is always making reverences to boys. I
urge
McNamara to stop thinking about these things. They are illegal and he
will
go in prison where he will end up someone's bitch. Hey, you do not
want
to
end up having someone like Ed Gin ****ing you, do you? Or do you!

A L W A Y S ??? Pray tell, how does a single, solitary qualify as
"always". Where are all these other references you refer to? Please
provie the links. Do you ever say anything that you can prove as
factual? The unsubstantiated assertion has become a trademark tool in
your arsenal of the absurd. You want to know what is on my mind?
What is on my mind is that you are ... out of yours

Once is quite enough. But my question to you is why is a sexagenarian
like
you saying anything at all about boys? Even once?

BUT ... BUT ... BUT your contended that there were many references by
implication (read ALWAYS). Dunderhead, rather that extracting
something completely out of context, why not revisit the original
reference that addressed your disinterest in the female gender ...
misogynist that you are. The reference in no way denoted my sexual
preference regardless of what knid of spin you vainly attempted to put
on it. Gee you're so dumb as to be pitiful.

You were attempting to denote MY sexual preferences. I am waiting for your
apology.
[...]

Within the human soul resides mysteries dark and deep about our
frailties, our fears, our shame. Perhaps a dormant, awakened
subconscious inflicted a torment of acceptance?

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows -
Minnesota