Reminder to the cycling newsgroups from Ed Dolan the Great - IX

Ed (yep I'm addressing you personally and top posting too),

I see you've run out of material again and have resorted to
recycling. You may have noticed that fewer and fewer people are even
taking notice of your tedious, repetitious, regurgitated, copy and
paste boilerplate, but I'm be here for you, that is until I just lose
interest myself like everyone else. Then you'll have no one and
you'll be back to contemplating your navel and drowning your
"perpetual sorrows" in that cheap wine you slug down.

Unlike you, I actually fulfill a useful cyberspace function as a
frequent contributor on the DellTalk technical support forum. Many
have benefited from my helpful posts. You should emulate me. After
all of what benefit are your obnoxious spam troll posts? Never mind.
That was a rhetorical question.

Jim McNamara

On Oct 6, 4:55 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
You may have noticed that I am now posting my seminal messages to quite a
few of the cycling newsgroups. If and when you want to respond to any of my
messages, be sure that they get to ARBR. The rest of the cycling newsgroups
are just too ****ing stupid for me to ever look in on them. I am not known
far and wide as Ed Dolan the Great for nothing.

One other thing, if and when you post your odious messages to a newsgroup
other than ARBR, they will not come to my attention and so will not be
answered with the contempt they so richly deserve. It is up to you if you
merely want to mutter things to yourself or if you want to engage a mighty
intellect. Post to ARBR or get lost!

Regards,

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

PS. You do not want to ever engage Saint Edward the Great on matters of
morality. He is a very Great Saint indeed and even Ed Dolan the Great fears
Him. Nay, it is best to let a sleeping Saint lie.

On Oct 8, 6:43 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

ups.com...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Ed (yep I'm addressing you personally and top posting too),

I see you've run out of material again and have resorted to
recycling. You may have noticed that fewer and fewer people are even
taking notice of your tedious, repetitious, regurgitated, copy and
paste boilerplate, but I'm be here for you, that is until I just lose
interest myself like everyone else. Then you'll have no one and
you'll be back to contemplating your navel and drowning your
"perpetual sorrows" in that cheap wine you slug down.

It would appear that I have finally gotten rid of all the liberal scofflaws
and other human detritus that was cluttering up this newsgroup, otherwise
known as ARBR. Good riddance to the lot of them - or would you rather have
good old Slugger back here among us?

Why pay more for alcohol than you have to? After all, hooch is hooch. I
highly recommend Livingston Cellars Red Rose to one and all. I think it is a
Gallo wine from the execrable state of California.

If Jim McNamara spent more time contemplating his own navel instead of
stalking on Usenet, we would all be a lot better off.

We??? The delusional one now thinks he speaks for the entire
readership??? Quit your whining, already. You have only yourself to
blame for the "stalking" that you have fallen victim of from your many
adversaries. You intentionally go trolling for fights. When you
encounter a tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself
hopelessly embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in
desperation, you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to discredit
and dismiss your adversary by labeling him or her as a stalker. This
thinly disguised ploy of yours has failed countless times. If you
really want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma, then turn tail and
slither on out of here.

Unlike you, I actually fulfill a useful cyberspace function as a
frequent contributor on the DellTalk technical support forum. Many
have benefited from my helpful posts. You should emulate me. After
all of what benefit are your obnoxious spam troll posts? Never mind.
That was a rhetorical question.

I suggest you stay on your little techie forum and not bother us big boys
here on these cycling newsgroups. There is no greater function that one can
perform for another than to tell him what an idiot he is.

Opinion state as fact.

I should send you
a bill for my services for at least a couple of thousand dollars. I KNOW you
have surrounded yourself with sycophants all of your life and I am most
likely the only one to ever tell you what an idiot you are.

Opinion stated as fact.

You should at least be thanking me if nothing else.

Yeah right ... when hell freezes over. On the topic of idiots, you'd
be a complete idiot if you didn't have a few screws missing.

Jim McNamara

Regards,

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

On Oct 6, 4:55 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
You may have noticed that I am now posting my seminal messages to quite a
few of the cycling newsgroups. If and when you want to respond to any of
my
messages, be sure that they get to ARBR. The rest of the cycling
newsgroups
are just too ****ing stupid for me to ever look in on them. I am not
known
far and wide as Ed Dolan the Great for nothing.

One other thing, if and when you post your odious messages to a newsgroup
other than ARBR, they will not come to my attention and so will not be
answered with the contempt they so richly deserve. It is up to you if you
merely want to mutter things to yourself or if you want to engage a
mighty
intellect. Post to ARBR or get lost!

Regards,

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

PS. You do not want to ever engage Saint Edward the Great on matters of
morality. He is a very Great Saint indeed and even Ed Dolan the Great
fears
Him. Nay, it is best to let a sleeping Saint lie.

On Oct 10, 2:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 8, 6:43 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

roups.com...

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

ALL PROTESTERS OF TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS! OK, there may be an
exception. Ed Dolan is not a complete idiot because he has a few
screws missing.

Ed (yep I'm addressing you personally and top posting too),

I see you've run out of material again and have resorted to
recycling. You may have noticed that fewer and fewer people are even
taking notice of your tedious, repetitious, regurgitated, copy and
paste boilerplate, but I'm be here for you, that is until I just lose
interest myself like everyone else. Then you'll have no one and
you'll be back to contemplating your navel and drowning your
"perpetual sorrows" in that cheap wine you slug down.

It would appear that I have finally gotten rid of all the liberal
scofflaws
and other human detritus that was cluttering up this newsgroup, otherwise
known as ARBR. Good riddance to the lot of them - or would you rather
have
good old Slugger back here among us?

[...]

If Jim McNamara spent more time contemplating his own navel instead of
stalking on Usenet, we would all be a lot better off.

We??? The delusional one now thinks he speaks for the entire
readership??? Quit your whining, already. You have only yourself to
blame for the "stalking" that you have fallen victim of from your many
adversaries. You intentionally go trolling for fights. When you
encounter a tenacious, formidable adversary, and find yourself
hopelessly embroiled in an embarrassing no-win cyber-skirmish, in
desperation, you move to disencumber yourself by seeking to discredit
and dismiss your adversary by labeling him or her as a stalker. This
thinly disguised ploy of yours has failed countless times. If you
really want to escape your self-inflicted dilemma, then turn tail and
slither on out of here.

Here is Jim McNamara yet once again making a perfect fool of himself. Not
only does he admit to being a stalker, but he is proud of it. Apparently, he
has no sense of shame at all.

Whose really the fool here??? Apparently, Ed did not realize that in
placing the word stalker in quotation marks I was obviously qualifying
the word that he took literary license with. Furthermore, regardless
of his assertion to the contrary, I made no such admission to being a
stalker. This is yet another example of Ed Dolan stating an opinion
as fact. If the dunderhead were to go back and read what I wrote he
would note that I referred his "many adversaries". His conclusion
that I have no shame is merely a logical fallacy in which Ed drew a
conclusion that does not strictly follow from the premise (non
sequitor). Ed should wish that he were half as good at this game that
he plays as he imagines himself to be.

I will say this much - being a troll can't compared to being a stalker. There is no honor in stalking at all.

The errant implication is that there is honor in bing a troll which is
ludicrous ... preposterous ... absurd!!! Ed Dolan is in need of some
education here. He once stated, "I think there are good trolls and
there are bad trolls. It goes without saying of course that I am a
good troll."

NO ... there are just Trolls. There is nothing either explicit or
implicit in the definition of a troll that can possibly be
misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an oxymoron. The American
Psychiatric Association considers the internet troll to be a form of
mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is there anything good
about that?

Trolls are often socially disenfranchised, devoid of interpersonal
interaction skills. They generally have no substantive connection to
the cyber-community they troll and view the internet as a convenient,
delocalized communication conduit for their bizarre anti-social
behavior. The internet is their cyber-playpen ... a mirror into which
they can gaze in narcissistic rapture. A troll delights in upsetting
people and creating discord. Trolls post inflammatory, rude,
offensive, repetitious messages deliberately crafted to annoy,
antagonize and infuriate or to disrupt the flow of discussion. Trolls
post attention-seeking, provocative messages hoping to bait and entice
other users into angry and/or fruitless responses. Trolls are
impervious to criticism. One cannot negotiate with a troll. One
cannot cause a troll to feel shame, compassion or remorse. Trolls do
not feel that they are bound or constrained by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. When one tries to reason with a troll, the
troll wins. When one insults a troll, the troll wins.

Here are just but a few trademarks of the internet troll that are
exemplified by Ed Dolan...

- a grandiose sense of self-importance (his signature speaks volumes)
- preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited brilliance (a virtual
trademark)
- off topic messages (most everything)
- cross posting (a tool often employed)
- racist, sexist, classist comments (too many examples to even cite)
- messages expressing unsubstantiated opinions as though they were
facts not requiring proof or evidence (extremely common practice)
- messages containing a self-referential appeal to status (a virtual
pastime)
- politically contentious messages (attacks on liberals come to mind)
- attacking another's point of view (favorite pastime) and generally
affixing a label to the person attacked (frequently employed tactic)
- attempt to make one's personality the center of every discussion
(ARBR, Usenet, the universe ... his "GREATNESS" knows no limits)
- derive perverse pleasure from causing frustration, anger and pain
(only one of several assumed, and stated, motives)
- self-proclaimed trolls suggest that trolling is their way of
improving forum discussion (rationalizing "housekeeping" rhetoric
comes to mind)
- enjoys the knowledge that they waste others' time at comparatively
little effort on their behalf (regurgitated cut and paste boilerplate
is an indication of this)
- self-promotion (no comment should even be necessary)
- feigning to be a misunderstood humorist (commonplace)
- deliberately using ambiguous language to obfuscate meaning
(commonplace)

If the above cited elements sound like a portrait of Ed Dolan, it very
well should. His own words betray his malicious intentions ... "I am
merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create some
mayhem". With each and every post, Ed Dolan replenishes his identity
as ARBR's quintessential TROLL.

Trolls crave attention, be it positive or negative. The one thing
that a troll can't accept or tolerate is to be ignored. There is
wisdom in the often cited advice ... Please don't feed the troll.
Perhaps it would be best then to ignore the obnoxious, geriatric
juvenile ... HEAD SWOLLEN Ed Dolan. In the greater scheme of things,
he matters not. He is insignificant and irrelevant.

An intelligent troll may well
contribute something to the group. I put Jim McNamara right next to Ed Gin,
the criminal vandal troll who destroyed ARBR.

Ed Dolan is admittedly a TROLL, but intelligent is a matter open for
debate. If he were intelligent, he should be able to comprehend what
I wrote above regarding trolls and recognize himself for what and who
he is ... a TROLL!!! Ed Dolan is a therapists dream, or should I say
nightmare???

Jim McNamara.

[...]

Regards,

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

On Oct 11, 4:57 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Here is Jim McNamara yet once again making a perfect fool of himself. Not
only does he admit to being a stalker, but he is proud of it. Apparently,
he
has no sense of shame at all.

Whose really the fool here??? Apparently, Ed did not realize that in
placing the word stalker in quotation marks I was obviously qualifying
the word that he took literary license with. Furthermore, regardless
of his assertion to the contrary, I made no such admission to being a
stalker.

Whether you admit it or not, a stalker is what you are.

This is yet another example of Ed Dolan stating an opinion

At least you admit to formulating an opinion ... progress!

as fact. If the dunderhead were to go back and read what I wrote, he
would note that I referred his "many adversaries". His conclusion
that I have no shame is merely a logical fallacy in which Ed drew a
conclusion that does not strictly follow from the premise (non
sequitor). Ed should wish that he were half as good at this game that
he plays as he imagines himself to be.

Spare us your feeble attempts to explain reasoning (logical or otherwise) to
us. We are all idiots here including you first and foremost.

I should have realized that logic was wasted on the likes of you, but
some I am certain got the message.

I will say this much - being a troll can't compared to being a stalker.
There is no honor in stalking at all.

The errant implication is that there is honor in bing a troll which is
ludicrous ... preposterous ... absurd!!! Ed Dolan is in need of some
education here. He once stated, "I think there are good trolls and
there are bad trolls. It goes without saying of course that I am a
good troll."

NO ... there are just Trolls. There is nothing either explicit or
implicit in the definition of a troll that can possibly be
misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an oxymoron. The American
Psychiatric Association considers the internet troll to be a form of
mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is there anything good
about that?

I am not only a good troll, but a great one.

There is nothing either explicit or implicit in the definition of a
troll that can possibly be misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an
oxymoron. The American Psychiatric Association considers the internet
troll to be a form of mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is
there anything good about that?

You should use a spell checker ... you meant GRATE troll, did you not?

As such I contribute to the group

Care to take a poll?

whereas all you do is stalk individuals. Like I said before, you have no shame.

Like you are here for Tom Sherman, I am here for you. Someone should
be here to balance things out and to be just as big a pain in the ass
as you are to everyone else. Fear not though I may just grow weary of
all this before you croak. You'd probably would even miss me like you
do Tom.

Trolls are often socially disenfranchised, devoid of interpersonal
interaction skills. They generally have no substantive connection to
the cyber-community they troll and view the internet as a convenient,
delocalized communication conduit for their bizarre anti-social
behavior. The internet is their cyber-playpen ... a mirror into which
they can gaze in narcissistic rapture. A troll delights in upsetting
people and creating discord. Trolls post inflammatory, rude,
offensive, repetitious messages deliberately crafted to annoy,
antagonize and infuriate or to disrupt the flow of discussion. Trolls
post attention-seeking, provocative messages hoping to bait and entice
other users into angry and/or fruitless responses. Trolls are
impervious to criticism. One cannot negotiate with a troll. One
cannot cause a troll to feel shame, compassion or remorse. Trolls do
not feel that they are bound or constrained by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. When one tries to reason with a troll, the
troll wins. When one insults a troll, the troll wins.

All of the above describes Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll who destroyed
ARBR and who was once a friend of Jim McNamara's. In any event, Usenet is a
madhouse fit only for madmen. I delight in calling idiots idiots. Hells
Bells, if I didn't do it, who would?

Diversion duly noted. Though you often insert the man into a thread,
this has nothing to do with Ed Gin. It is time long overdue for some
introspective self-evaluation. If you do not recognize those traits
above as your own, then you are in denial.

Here are just but a few trademarks of the internet troll that are
exemplified by Ed Dolan...

- a grandiose sense of self-importance (his signature speaks volumes)
- preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited brilliance (a virtual
trademark)
- off topic messages (most everything)
- cross posting (a tool often employed)
- racist, sexist, classist comments (too many examples to even cite)
- messages expressing unsubstantiated opinions as though they were
facts not requiring proof or evidence (extremely common practice)
- messages containing a self-referential appeal to status (a virtual
pastime)
- politically contentious messages (attacks on liberals come to mind)
- attacking another's point of view (favorite pastime) and generally
affixing a label to the person attacked (frequently employed tactic)
- attempt to make one's personality the center of every discussion
(ARBR, Usenet, the universe ... his "GREATNESS" knows no limits)
- derive perverse pleasure from causing frustration, anger and pain
(only one of several assumed, and stated, motives)
- self-proclaimed trolls suggest that trolling is their way of
improving forum discussion (rationalizing "housekeeping" rhetoric
comes to mind)
- enjoys the knowledge that they waste others' time at comparatively
little effort on their behalf (regurgitated cut and paste boilerplate
is an indication of this)
- self-promotion (no comment should even be necessary)
- feigning to be a misunderstood humorist (commonplace)
- deliberately using ambiguous language to obfuscate meaning
(commonplace)

It takes someone intelligent to pull off the above. A common blockhead and
dullard like you could never do it. You fall into the Ed Gin class, not the
Ed Dolan class. Try to get a clue why don't you?

So then is that admission that you are intelligent enough to do so?
The fact of the matter is that intelligence is not required ... just
what The American Psychiatric Association considers the internet to be
a form of mental illness ... a personality disorder on which you
possess as ARBR's resident, sociopathic, quintessential TROLL!

If the above cited elements sound like a portrait of Ed Dolan, it very
well should. His own words betray his malicious intentions ... "I am
merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create some
mayhem". With each and every post, Ed Dolan replenishes his identity
as ARBR's quintessential TROLL.

Trolls crave attention, be it positive or negative. The one thing
that a troll can't accept or tolerate is to be ignored. There is
wisdom in the often cited advice ... Please don't feed the troll.
Perhaps it would be best then to ignore the obnoxious, geriatric
juvenile ... HEAD SWOLLEN Ed Dolan. In the greater scheme of things,
he matters not. He is insignificant and irrelevant.

It does not matter to me whether I get any responses or not since they will
be idiotic in any event. I post for the enjoyment of the few intelligent
readers who may exist on these cycling newsgroups. Rest assured, you are not
among them.

For once we agree. I count myself among the masses that do not enjoy
your posts. As concerns intelligence, even those of less than average
intelligence cannot fail to recognize that the target audience for
whom you post is the one and ONLY ... Head Dolan the GRATE! Get
real. Everyone knows that you post for you own personal enjoyment.
Why would you think otherwise or expect the readership to think
otherwise?

An intelligent troll may well
contribute something to the group. I put Jim McNamara right next to Ed
Gin,
the criminal vandal troll who destroyed ARBR.
Ed Dolan is admittedly a TROLL, but intelligent is a matter open for
debate. If he were intelligent, he should be able to comprehend what
I wrote above regarding trolls and recognize himself for what and who
he is ... a TROLL!!! Ed Dolan is a therapists dream, or should I say
nightmare???

"An intelligent troll may well contribute something to the group." - Ed Dolan

Need I remind you, that preoccupation with with fantasies of
unlimited brilliance, is troll trademark? Trust me. Everyone
recognizes what a troll contributes ... insults, turmoil, disruption,
discord, grief etc. ... in other words, nothing of substance or
value. Put your alleged intelligence to good use and even you might
just figure that one out ... duh!!!

Jim McNamara

Regards,

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

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:57:06 -0700, JimmyMac
wrote:

On Oct 11, 4:57 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Here is Jim McNamara yet once again making a perfect fool of himself. Not
only does he admit to being a stalker, but he is proud of it. Apparently,
he
has no sense of shame at all.

Whose really the fool here??? Apparently, Ed did not realize that in
placing the word stalker in quotation marks I was obviously qualifying
the word that he took literary license with. Furthermore, regardless
of his assertion to the contrary, I made no such admission to being a
stalker.

Whether you admit it or not, a stalker is what you are.

This is yet another example of Ed Dolan stating an opinion

At least you admit to formulating an opinion ... progress!

as fact. If the dunderhead were to go back and read what I wrote, he
would note that I referred his "many adversaries". His conclusion
that I have no shame is merely a logical fallacy in which Ed drew a
conclusion that does not strictly follow from the premise (non
sequitor). Ed should wish that he were half as good at this game that
he plays as he imagines himself to be.

Spare us your feeble attempts to explain reasoning (logical or otherwise) to
us. We are all idiots here including you first and foremost.

I should have realized that logic was wasted on the likes of you, but
some I am certain got the message.

I will say this much - being a troll can't compared to being a stalker.
There is no honor in stalking at all.

The errant implication is that there is honor in bing a troll which is
ludicrous ... preposterous ... absurd!!! Ed Dolan is in need of some
education here. He once stated, "I think there are good trolls and
there are bad trolls. It goes without saying of course that I am a
good troll."

NO ... there are just Trolls. There is nothing either explicit or
implicit in the definition of a troll that can possibly be
misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an oxymoron. The American
Psychiatric Association considers the internet troll to be a form of
mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is there anything good
about that?

I am not only a good troll, but a great one.

There is nothing either explicit or implicit in the definition of a
troll that can possibly be misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an
oxymoron. The American Psychiatric Association considers the internet
troll to be a form of mental illness ... a personality disorder.

Citation? If this were true, you would have given a real bibliographic
citation.

Is
there anything good about that?

You should use a spell checker ... you meant GRATE troll, did you not?

As such I contribute to the group

Care to take a poll?

whereas all you do is stalk individuals. Like I said before, you have no shame.

Like you are here for Tom Sherman, I am here for you. Someone should
be here to balance things out and to be just as big a pain in the ass
as you are to everyone else. Fear not though I may just grow weary of
all this before you croak. You'd probably would even miss me like you
do Tom.

Trolls are often socially disenfranchised, devoid of interpersonal
interaction skills. They generally have no substantive connection to
the cyber-community they troll and view the internet as a convenient,
delocalized communication conduit for their bizarre anti-social
behavior. The internet is their cyber-playpen ... a mirror into which
they can gaze in narcissistic rapture. A troll delights in upsetting
people and creating discord. Trolls post inflammatory, rude,
offensive, repetitious messages deliberately crafted to annoy,
antagonize and infuriate or to disrupt the flow of discussion. Trolls
post attention-seeking, provocative messages hoping to bait and entice
other users into angry and/or fruitless responses. Trolls are
impervious to criticism. One cannot negotiate with a troll. One
cannot cause a troll to feel shame, compassion or remorse. Trolls do
not feel that they are bound or constrained by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. When one tries to reason with a troll, the
troll wins. When one insults a troll, the troll wins.

All of the above describes Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll who destroyed
ARBR and who was once a friend of Jim McNamara's. In any event, Usenet is a
madhouse fit only for madmen. I delight in calling idiots idiots. Hells
Bells, if I didn't do it, who would?

Diversion duly noted. Though you often insert the man into a thread,
this has nothing to do with Ed Gin. It is time long overdue for some
introspective self-evaluation. If you do not recognize those traits
above as your own, then you are in denial.

Here are just but a few trademarks of the internet troll that are
exemplified by Ed Dolan...

- a grandiose sense of self-importance (his signature speaks volumes)
- preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited brilliance (a virtual
trademark)
- off topic messages (most everything)
- cross posting (a tool often employed)
- racist, sexist, classist comments (too many examples to even cite)
- messages expressing unsubstantiated opinions as though they were
facts not requiring proof or evidence (extremely common practice)
- messages containing a self-referential appeal to status (a virtual
pastime)
- politically contentious messages (attacks on liberals come to mind)
- attacking another's point of view (favorite pastime) and generally
affixing a label to the person attacked (frequently employed tactic)
- attempt to make one's personality the center of every discussion
(ARBR, Usenet, the universe ... his "GREATNESS" knows no limits)
- derive perverse pleasure from causing frustration, anger and pain
(only one of several assumed, and stated, motives)
- self-proclaimed trolls suggest that trolling is their way of
improving forum discussion (rationalizing "housekeeping" rhetoric
comes to mind)
- enjoys the knowledge that they waste others' time at comparatively
little effort on their behalf (regurgitated cut and paste boilerplate
is an indication of this)
- self-promotion (no comment should even be necessary)
- feigning to be a misunderstood humorist (commonplace)
- deliberately using ambiguous language to obfuscate meaning
(commonplace)

It takes someone intelligent to pull off the above. A common blockhead and
dullard like you could never do it. You fall into the Ed Gin class, not the
Ed Dolan class. Try to get a clue why don't you?

So then is that admission that you are intelligent enough to do so?
The fact of the matter is that intelligence is not required ... just
what The American Psychiatric Association considers the internet to be
a form of mental illness ... a personality disorder on which you
possess as ARBR's resident, sociopathic, quintessential TROLL!

If the above cited elements sound like a portrait of Ed Dolan, it very
well should. His own words betray his malicious intentions ... "I am
merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create some
mayhem". With each and every post, Ed Dolan replenishes his identity
as ARBR's quintessential TROLL.

Trolls crave attention, be it positive or negative. The one thing
that a troll can't accept or tolerate is to be ignored. There is
wisdom in the often cited advice ... Please don't feed the troll.
Perhaps it would be best then to ignore the obnoxious, geriatric
juvenile ... HEAD SWOLLEN Ed Dolan. In the greater scheme of things,
he matters not. He is insignificant and irrelevant.

It does not matter to me whether I get any responses or not since they will
be idiotic in any event. I post for the enjoyment of the few intelligent
readers who may exist on these cycling newsgroups. Rest assured, you are not
among them.

For once we agree. I count myself among the masses that do not enjoy
your posts. As concerns intelligence, even those of less than average
intelligence cannot fail to recognize that the target audience for
whom you post is the one and ONLY ... Head Dolan the GRATE! Get
real. Everyone knows that you post for you own personal enjoyment.
Why would you think otherwise or expect the readership to think
otherwise?

An intelligent troll may well
contribute something to the group. I put Jim McNamara right next to Ed
Gin,
the criminal vandal troll who destroyed ARBR.
Ed Dolan is admittedly a TROLL, but intelligent is a matter open for
debate. If he were intelligent, he should be able to comprehend what
I wrote above regarding trolls and recognize himself for what and who
he is ... a TROLL!!! Ed Dolan is a therapists dream, or should I say
nightmare???

"An intelligent troll may well contribute something to the group." - Ed Dolan

Need I remind you, that preoccupation with with fantasies of
unlimited brilliance, is troll trademark? Trust me. Everyone
recognizes what a troll contributes ... insults, turmoil, disruption,
discord, grief etc. ... in other words, nothing of substance or
value. Put your alleged intelligence to good use and even you might
just figure that one out ... duh!!!

Jim McNamara

Regards,

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

--
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

On Oct 15, 4:19 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Oct 11, 4:57 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 10, 2:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Here is Jim McNamara yet once again making a perfect fool of himself.
Not
only does he admit to being a stalker, but he is proud of it.
Apparently,
he
has no sense of shame at all.

Whose really the fool here??? Apparently, Ed did not realize that in
placing the word stalker in quotation marks I was obviously qualifying
the word that he took literary license with. Furthermore, regardless
of his assertion to the contrary, I made no such admission to being a
stalker.

Whether you admit it or not, a stalker is what you are.

This is yet another example of Ed Dolan stating an opinion

At least you admit to formulating an opinion ... progress!

No, the above was your statement, not mine. Go back and look at the previous
message on this thread or see your following line below. That is what
happens when you break into a paragraph like I did.

However, I have stated over and over again that I am all about opinion and
nothing else. Of course, my opinions are superior to your opinions. That is
all that matters to me.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge an opinion. Dolan
takes solace from this because he is less likely to be proven
fallible ... a frailty of the human condition that he could not
possibly admit to. Ed Dolan, by his own admission is all about
opinion and is clamorously contemptuous of logic and facts. Dolan
emphatically insists upon being unencumbered by logic and unrestrained
by facts for two specific, though unexpressed, reasons. Logic is not
Dolan's strong suit and fact, by definition, is not subject to debate
(read not arguable), which precludes Ed's favorite pastime ...
argumentation. Ed is uncomfortable when bound by the confines of
logic and fact. So, what's a Dolan to do? Well, argue about
opinions, but there's problem with that too. Something cannot be
branded "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" when that something is
merely an expression of opinion. Nonetheless this is precisely what
Dolan endeavors to do ... debate the non-debatable (read opinion).
What is debatable are particulars such as values, policies, proposals
or propositions. What is also debatable is whether Ed Dolan will ever
be able to discern the distinction between fact and opinion and
determine what is and what is not subject to debate. Undoubtedly,
Dolan will reply with predictable, incoherent recycled babble to
refute as nonsense that which I have written, but the only nonsense
will be Dolan's response to that which is commonly accepted by persons
that are rational, a virtue that Ed Dolan has yet to master.

Jim McNamara

as fact. If the dunderhead were to go back and read what I wrote, he
would note that I referred his "many adversaries". His conclusion
that I have no shame is merely a logical fallacy in which Ed drew a
conclusion that does not strictly follow from the premise (non
sequitor). Ed should wish that he were half as good at this game that
he plays as he imagines himself to be.

Spare us your feeble attempts to explain reasoning (logical or otherwise)
to
us. We are all idiots here including you first and foremost.

I should have realized that logic was wasted on the likes of you, but
some I am certain got the message.

The only message anyone is getting on these newsgroups is that you are a
stalker.



I will say this much - being a troll can't compared to being a
stalker.
There is no honor in stalking at all.

The errant implication is that there is honor in bing a troll which is
ludicrous ... preposterous ... absurd!!! Ed Dolan is in need of some
education here. He once stated, "I think there are good trolls and
there are bad trolls. It goes without saying of course that I am a
good troll."

NO ... there are just Trolls. There is nothing either explicit or
implicit in the definition of a troll that can possibly be
misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an oxymoron. The American
Psychiatric Association considers the internet troll to be a form of
mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is there anything good
about that?

I am not only a good troll, but a great one.

There is nothing either explicit or implicit in the definition of a
troll that can possibly be misconstrued as good. GOOD TROLL is an
oxymoron. The American Psychiatric Association considers the internet
troll to be a form of mental illness ... a personality disorder. Is
there anything good about that?

The APA is made up of a bunch of numskulls who couldn't find their own
assholes. Hells Bells, they even think homos are OK and perfectly normal.
Just how dumb is that?

You should use a spell checker ... you meant GRATE troll, did you not?

My GREATNESS overwhelms me at times, I must admit.

As such I contribute to the group

Care to take a poll?

Who would you poll? There is no one left on this group except for you and
me - and a few pathetic newbie slobs who make pitiful inquiries about
recumbent bicycles. You and Ed Gin have destroyed ARBR!

whereas all you do is stalk individuals. Like I said before, you have no
shame.

Like you are here for Tom Sherman, I am here for you. Someone should
be here to balance things out and to be just as big a pain in the ass
as you are to everyone else. Fear not though I may just grow weary of
all this before you croak. You'd probably would even miss me like you
do Tom.

Tom Sherman is no longer worthy of me, but at least he has always behaved
honorably on Usenet. He never stalked except in a spirit of good fun.

Beware of wanting others dead before their time. All that does is summon up
the Grim Reaper ... for you!



Trolls are often socially disenfranchised, devoid of interpersonal
interaction skills. They generally have no substantive connection to
the cyber-community they troll and view the internet as a convenient,
delocalized communication conduit for their bizarre anti-social
behavior. The internet is their cyber-playpen ... a mirror into which
they can gaze in narcissistic rapture. A troll delights in upsetting
people and creating discord. Trolls post inflammatory, rude,
offensive, repetitious messages deliberately crafted to annoy,
antagonize and infuriate or to disrupt the flow of discussion. Trolls
post attention-seeking, provocative messages hoping to bait and entice
other users into angry and/or fruitless responses. Trolls are
impervious to criticism. One cannot negotiate with a troll. One
cannot cause a troll to feel shame, compassion or remorse. Trolls do
not feel that they are bound or constrained by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. When one tries to reason with a troll, the
troll wins. When one insults a troll, the troll wins.

All of the above describes Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll who
destroyed
ARBR and who was once a friend of Jim McNamara's. In any event, Usenet is
a
madhouse fit only for madmen. I delight in calling idiots idiots. Hells
Bells, if I didn't do it, who would?

Diversion duly noted. Though you often insert the man into a thread,
this has nothing to do with Ed Gin. It is time long overdue for some
introspective self-evaluation. If you do not recognize those traits
above as your own, then you are in denial.

Hells Bellls, you would not even be here if it were not for Ed Gin. But you
were childish enough take your personal dispute (vendetta) with him to this
newsgroup, thereby ruining it for everyone.
[...]

It does not matter to me whether I get any responses or not since they
will
be idiotic in any event. I post for the enjoyment of the few intelligent
readers who may exist on these cycling newsgroups. Rest assured, you are
not
among them.

For once we agree. I count myself among the masses that do not enjoy
your posts. As concerns intelligence, even those of less than average
intelligence cannot fail to recognize that the target audience for
whom you post is the one and ONLY ... Head Dolan the GRATE! Get
real. Everyone knows that you post for you own personal enjoyment.
Why would you think otherwise or expect the readership to think
otherwise?

I figure what I write for my own enjoyment will also appeal to others of my
intelligence. This lets you out.
[...]

"An intelligent troll may well contribute something to the group." - Ed
Dolan

Need I remind you, that preoccupation with with fantasies of
unlimited brilliance, is troll trademark? Trust me. Everyone
recognizes what a troll contributes ... insults, turmoil, disruption,
discord, grief etc. ... in other words, nothing of substance or
value. Put your alleged intelligence to good use and even you might
just figure that one out ... duh!!!

There is no cure for a humorless stalker like Jim McNamara except for an Ed
Gin type of character. Ed Gin was a criminal vandal troll and Jim McNamara
is a stalker, but not yet a criminal one. Tom Sherman is way above these two
juveniles.

Regards,

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

On Oct 19, 3:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...
[...]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge an opinion. Dolan
takes solace from this because he is less likely to be proven
fallible ... a frailty of the human condition that he could not
possibly admit to. Ed Dolan, by his own admission is all about
opinion and is clamorously contemptuous of logic and facts.

Jim McNamara would not know a fact if one jumped up and bit him in the ass.
But no one else does either. The truth is that ALL facts (such as they are)
are subject to interpretation. That is what I am here for - to interpret
them to blockheads like Jim McNamara. I wil tell you what to think in spite
of yourself.

Dolan

emphatically insists upon being unencumbered by logic and unrestrained
by facts for two specific, though unexpressed, reasons. Logic is not
Dolan's strong suit and fact, by definition, is not subject to debate
(read not arguable), which precludes Ed's favorite pastime ...
argumentation. Ed is uncomfortable when bound by the confines of
logic and fact.

Poor Jim got stuck with Thomistic philosophy (as well as lots of wasted
theology) when he went to a Catholic college in his long lost youth and he
has never recovered from it. Forget everything you ever learned about logic.
Just THINK! All you have to do is put your God given brain into gear.

So, what's a Dolan to do? Well, argue about

opinions, but there's problem with that too. Something cannot be
branded "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" when that something is
merely an expression of opinion. Nonetheless this is precisely what
Dolan endeavors to do ... debate the non-debatable (read opinion).

There is nothing under the sun that can't be debated (argued about).
Everything is a matter of opinion. Just ask any Muslim terrorist - or any
liberal apologist for them.

What is debatable are particulars such as values, policies, proposals
or propositions. What is also debatable is whether Ed Dolan will ever
be able to discern the distinction between fact and opinion and
determine what is and what is not subject to debate.

"Everything is a matter of opinion." - Ed Dolan

Undoubtedly,

Dolan will reply with predictable, incoherent recycled babble to
refute as nonsense that which I have written, but the only nonsense
will be Dolan's response to that which is commonly accepted by persons
that are rational, a virtue that Ed Dolan has yet to master.

There actually is no such thing as a rational person. Some are better than
others at argumentation. Tom Sherman no doubt thinks he is a rational
person, so how is it that he is wrong about most everything under the sun
... except recumbents!

Yep, Ed Doaln did not disappoint in providing recycle babble as
predicted. Why he finds it necessary to so very often drag other
people into his replies (Tom Sherman in this instance) is beyond me
unless the troll is just tossing out bait.

Regards,

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

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:34:43 -0700, JimmyMac
wrote:

On Oct 19, 3:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

oups.com...
[...]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge an opinion. Dolan
takes solace from this because he is less likely to be proven
fallible ... a frailty of the human condition that he could not
possibly admit to. Ed Dolan, by his own admission is all about
opinion and is clamorously contemptuous of logic and facts.

Jim McNamara would not know a fact if one jumped up and bit him in the ass.
But no one else does either. The truth is that ALL facts (such as they are)
are subject to interpretation. That is what I am here for - to interpret
them to blockheads like Jim McNamara. I wil tell you what to think in spite
of yourself.

Dolan

emphatically insists upon being unencumbered by logic and unrestrained
by facts for two specific, though unexpressed, reasons. Logic is not
Dolan's strong suit and fact, by definition, is not subject to debate
(read not arguable), which precludes Ed's favorite pastime ...
argumentation. Ed is uncomfortable when bound by the confines of
logic and fact.

Poor Jim got stuck with Thomistic philosophy (as well as lots of wasted
theology) when he went to a Catholic college in his long lost youth and he
has never recovered from it. Forget everything you ever learned about logic.
Just THINK! All you have to do is put your God given brain into gear.

So, what's a Dolan to do? Well, argue about

opinions, but there's problem with that too. Something cannot be
branded "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" when that something is
merely an expression of opinion. Nonetheless this is precisely what
Dolan endeavors to do ... debate the non-debatable (read opinion).

There is nothing under the sun that can't be debated (argued about).
Everything is a matter of opinion. Just ask any Muslim terrorist - or any
liberal apologist for them.

What is debatable are particulars such as values, policies, proposals
or propositions. What is also debatable is whether Ed Dolan will ever
be able to discern the distinction between fact and opinion and
determine what is and what is not subject to debate.

"Everything is a matter of opinion." - Ed Dolan

Undoubtedly,

Dolan will reply with predictable, incoherent recycled babble to
refute as nonsense that which I have written, but the only nonsense
will be Dolan's response to that which is commonly accepted by persons
that are rational, a virtue that Ed Dolan has yet to master.

There actually is no such thing as a rational person. Some are better than
others at argumentation. Tom Sherman no doubt thinks he is a rational
person, so how is it that he is wrong about most everything under the sun
... except recumbents!

Yep, Ed Doaln did not disappoint in providing recycle babble as
predicted. Why he finds it necessary to so very often drag other
people into his replies (Tom Sherman in this instance) is beyond me

What is your excuse for jumping at the bait? Providing pearls of
wisdom is obviously NOT the reason.

unless the troll is just tossing out bait.

Regards,

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

--
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

On Oct 28, 3:44 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:34:43 -0700, JimmyMac
wrote:



On Oct 19, 3:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

groups.com...
[...]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge an opinion. Dolan
takes solace from this because he is less likely to be proven
fallible ... a frailty of the human condition that he could not
possibly admit to. Ed Dolan, by his own admission is all about
opinion and is clamorously contemptuous of logic and facts.

Jim McNamara would not know a fact if one jumped up and bit him in the ass.
But no one else does either. The truth is that ALL facts (such as they are)
are subject to interpretation. That is what I am here for - to interpret
them to blockheads like Jim McNamara. I wil tell you what to think in spite
of yourself.

Dolan

emphatically insists upon being unencumbered by logic and unrestrained
by facts for two specific, though unexpressed, reasons. Logic is not
Dolan's strong suit and fact, by definition, is not subject to debate
(read not arguable), which precludes Ed's favorite pastime ...
argumentation. Ed is uncomfortable when bound by the confines of
logic and fact.

Poor Jim got stuck with Thomistic philosophy (as well as lots of wasted
theology) when he went to a Catholic college in his long lost youth and he
has never recovered from it. Forget everything you ever learned about logic.
Just THINK! All you have to do is put your God given brain into gear.

So, what's a Dolan to do? Well, argue about

opinions, but there's problem with that too. Something cannot be
branded "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" when that something is
merely an expression of opinion. Nonetheless this is precisely what
Dolan endeavors to do ... debate the non-debatable (read opinion).

There is nothing under the sun that can't be debated (argued about).
Everything is a matter of opinion. Just ask any Muslim terrorist - or any
liberal apologist for them.

What is debatable are particulars such as values, policies, proposals
or propositions. What is also debatable is whether Ed Dolan will ever
be able to discern the distinction between fact and opinion and
determine what is and what is not subject to debate.

"Everything is a matter of opinion." - Ed Dolan

Undoubtedly,

Dolan will reply with predictable, incoherent recycled babble to
refute as nonsense that which I have written, but the only nonsense
will be Dolan's response to that which is commonly accepted by persons
that are rational, a virtue that Ed Dolan has yet to master.

There actually is no such thing as a rational person. Some are better than
others at argumentation. Tom Sherman no doubt thinks he is a rational
person, so how is it that he is wrong about most everything under the sun
... except recumbents!

Yep, Ed Doaln did not disappoint in providing recycle babble as
predicted. Why he finds it necessary to so very often drag other
people into his replies (Tom Sherman in this instance) is beyond me

What is your excuse for jumping at the bait? Providing pearls of
wisdom is obviously NOT the reason.

A man who obviously knows nothing of pearls or wisdom should stick to
his quest of creating wildlife habitat. Should you make good your
quest, I hope that you and your beloved Ed have a "wildlife" together
in your own Personal Garden of Eden. SInce it would be off-limits to
humans you two shold have it all to yourselves.

Jim McNamara

unless the troll is just tossing out bait.

Regards,

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

--
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

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:56:22 -0700, JimmyMac
wrote:

On Oct 28, 3:44 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:34:43 -0700, JimmyMac
wrote:



On Oct 19, 3:43 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

groups.com...
[...]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge an opinion. Dolan
takes solace from this because he is less likely to be proven
fallible ... a frailty of the human condition that he could not
possibly admit to. Ed Dolan, by his own admission is all about
opinion and is clamorously contemptuous of logic and facts.

Jim McNamara would not know a fact if one jumped up and bit him in the ass.
But no one else does either. The truth is that ALL facts (such as they are)
are subject to interpretation. That is what I am here for - to interpret
them to blockheads like Jim McNamara. I wil tell you what to think in spite
of yourself.

Dolan

emphatically insists upon being unencumbered by logic and unrestrained
by facts for two specific, though unexpressed, reasons. Logic is not
Dolan's strong suit and fact, by definition, is not subject to debate
(read not arguable), which precludes Ed's favorite pastime ...
argumentation. Ed is uncomfortable when bound by the confines of
logic and fact.

Poor Jim got stuck with Thomistic philosophy (as well as lots of wasted
theology) when he went to a Catholic college in his long lost youth and he
has never recovered from it. Forget everything you ever learned about logic.
Just THINK! All you have to do is put your God given brain into gear.

So, what's a Dolan to do? Well, argue about

opinions, but there's problem with that too. Something cannot be
branded "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong" when that something is
merely an expression of opinion. Nonetheless this is precisely what
Dolan endeavors to do ... debate the non-debatable (read opinion).

There is nothing under the sun that can't be debated (argued about).
Everything is a matter of opinion. Just ask any Muslim terrorist - or any
liberal apologist for them.

What is debatable are particulars such as values, policies, proposals
or propositions. What is also debatable is whether Ed Dolan will ever
be able to discern the distinction between fact and opinion and
determine what is and what is not subject to debate.

"Everything is a matter of opinion." - Ed Dolan

Undoubtedly,

Dolan will reply with predictable, incoherent recycled babble to
refute as nonsense that which I have written, but the only nonsense
will be Dolan's response to that which is commonly accepted by persons
that are rational, a virtue that Ed Dolan has yet to master.

There actually is no such thing as a rational person. Some are better than
others at argumentation. Tom Sherman no doubt thinks he is a rational
person, so how is it that he is wrong about most everything under the sun
... except recumbents!

Yep, Ed Doaln did not disappoint in providing recycle babble as
predicted. Why he finds it necessary to so very often drag other
people into his replies (Tom Sherman in this instance) is beyond me

What is your excuse for jumping at the bait? Providing pearls of
wisdom is obviously NOT the reason.

A man who obviously knows nothing of pearls or wisdom should stick to
his quest of creating wildlife habitat. Should you make good your
quest, I hope that you and your beloved Ed have a "wildlife" together
in your own Personal Garden of Eden. SInce it would be off-limits to
humans you two shold have it all to yourselves.

Thank you for your non-pearl of non-wisdom.

Jim McNamara

unless the troll is just tossing out bait.

Regards,

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

--
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

--
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