Moderated Google Group?

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle"
wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 11:36 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
I would make the ideal moderator for a newsgroup since I would
immediately ban 99% of all posters.

That's what I've thought: You'd be assuming the role of God.

No, I would just be doing my job. These newsgroups are all over the map as
far as subject matter is concerned. But I would do more than just moderate.
I would edit as well. That would insure that a certain level of intelligence
would prevail. You posts for instance would never make it on group that I
would be in charge of because they border on being rants and are mostly
off-topic.

But why don't you create your own group?
"GreatEd.rec.bicycles.moderated"

Way too much work. I am the laziest man in the world. Moreover, no one
appreciates a moderator. It is a thankless job.

Moderated groups on Usenet do not work out at all well. I think most of us
like to be free to say whatever is on our mind. You are also free to do
that, but not at the expense of the newsgroup. Keep your posting confined to
mainly replies and no more than a couple of original posts per week. You
will find others responsive provided you are responsive.

If all you want to do is rant on your favorite subjects, then why not get
your own blog website? Newsgroups are about communicating with others, not
about shoving your pet peeves down everyone's throat.

Regards,

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

On Nov 22, 1:11*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 20, 4:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

You also need to work on that bruised ego of yours.
Opinion stated as fact. *I disagree with much of what you say and

take issue with how you conduct yourself. *Ego has nothing to do with
it.

When someone tells me they do not want to hear something, I can only
conclude that their ego is being threatened.

Well just because you conclude as such doesn't make your conclusion
valid. Why would you even conclude that? {erhaps someon just doesn't
care to listen to something about which they have long since made up
their mind and for which they hold an opposing viewpoint. Admittedly,
you are not a fan of the liberal, Islam (the Muslim). You mean to
tell me that if someone were to sing the praises of the liberal or
Isalm (the Muslim) that you would want to hear it, that is it? I
think not, however, when someone tel you they do not want to hear
something and cannot accept that and insist on pressing the matter,
that does indicate that an ego is threatened ... YOURS!!!!.

That is ever the hallmark of a
pseudo-intellectual who is afraid of words.

Not want to hear is not the same as fear.

It is why you can never argue
with working class folks unless you are also willing to fight them
physically.

Since your premise is invalid, no conclusion can even be drawn from
it. Furthermore, your assumption that one cannot argue with the
working class is just nonsense.

Regards,

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

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 1:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
When someone tells me they do not want to hear something, I can only
conclude that their ego is being threatened.

Well just because you conclude as such doesn't make your conclusion
valid. Why would you even conclude that? {erhaps someon just doesn't
care to listen to something about which they have long since made up
their mind and for which they hold an opposing viewpoint. Admittedly,
you are not a fan of the liberal, Islam (the Muslim). You mean to
tell me that if someone were to sing the praises of the liberal or
Isalm (the Muslim) that you would want to hear it, that is it? I
think not, however, when someone tel you they do not want to hear
something and cannot accept that and insist on pressing the matter,
that does indicate that an ego is threatened ... YOURS!!!!.

Nope, there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen, however briefly.
Rudeness goes hand in hand with self aggrandizement. It is what comes of
having too big an ego and of always getting your own way. I pity your poor
longsuffering wife.

That is ever the hallmark of a
pseudo-intellectual who is afraid of words.

Not want to hear is not the same as fear.

I think it is.

It is why you can never argue
with working class folks unless you are also willing to fight them
physically.

Since your premise is invalid, no conclusion can even be drawn from
it. Furthermore, your assumption that one cannot argue with the
working class is just nonsense.

Working class folks are anti-intellectual and have never learned how to
argue about anything, not even baseball facts which are simple enough to
look up. A working class bloke with a few beers under his belt is truly a
work of art. My contempt for them runneth over!

Regards,

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

Fun to (figuratively) poke with a stick.

=x= Duly noted that your idea of fun is as inane as your
attempts at humor, which is of course why you've earned
your place in so many killfiles.

=x= One can only hope that someday enough of your neurons
will accidentally collide ins such a manner that you're
able to grasp that not everyone is quite so dim, and are
profoundly bored by the endless repetition of gags that
were unfunny even when you first posted them in the 1980s.

=x= My killfile awaits your predictable attempt to reply
with an unfunny zing-free zinger.
_Jym_

On 11/27/2010 7:14 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:




Fun to (figuratively) poke with a stick.

=x= Duly noted that your idea of fun is as inane as your
attempts at humor, which is of course why you've earned
your place in so many killfiles.

And Mr. Dyer knows who has kill-filed whom?

=x= One can only hope that someday enough of your neurons
will accidentally collide ins such a manner that you're
able to grasp that not everyone is quite so dim, and are
profoundly bored by the endless repetition of gags that
were unfunny even when you first posted them in the 1980s.

I was posting this in the 1980's? Please stick to facts, not fiction.

=x= My killfile awaits your predictable attempt to reply
with an unfunny zing-free zinger.
_Jym_

Like Jym Dyer setting follow-up to a fake newsgroup address is humorous
or clever?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Nov 24, 1:21*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 22, 1:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

When someone tells me they do not want to hear something, I can only
conclude that their ego is being threatened.
Well just because you conclude as such doesn't make your conclusion

valid. *Why would you even conclude that? *Perhaps someone just doesn't
care to listen to something about which they have long since made up
their mind and for which they hold an opposing viewpoint. *Admittedly,
you are not a fan of the liberal, Islam (the Muslim). *You mean to
tell me that if someone were to sing the praises of the liberal or
Isalm (the Muslim) that you would want to hear it, that is it? *I
think not, however, when someone tell you they do not want to hear
something and cannot accept that and insist on pressing the matter,
that does indicate that an ego is threatened ... YOURS!!!!.

Nope, there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen, however briefly.

Diversion duly noted on the specific issues raised above. You confuse
hearing with listening. You may hear something that someone has to
say but rarely listen to what they have to say. And by the way, If
"there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen", you can quit
you bellyaching about me being a stalker when I take you to task for
you nonsense.

Rudeness goes hand in hand with self aggrandizement.

You are and expert at both. Even your superfluous egocentric,
delusional signature stands in testimony.

It is what comes of having too big an ego and of always getting your own way.

Well, I agree that you have too big an ego. Too bad though that you
don't always get your own way.

I pity your poor longsuffering wife.

She is doing just fine, but she thanks for your concern.

That is ever the hallmark of a
pseudo-intellectual who is afraid of words.
Not want to hear is not the same as fear.

I think it is.

Well then you are wrong about that.

It is why you can never argue
with working class folks unless you are also willing to fight them
physically.
Since your premise is invalid, no conclusion can even be drawn from

it. *Furthermore, your assumption that one cannot argue with the
working class is just nonsense.

Working class folks are anti-intellectual and have never learned how to
argue about anything, not even baseball facts which are simple enough to
look up. A working class bloke with a few beers under his belt is truly a
work of art. My contempt for them runneth over!

We have been down this road beofore dummy. Facts are not subject to
debate.

Readers, a fact is information about circumstances that are known to
exist or events that are known to have occurred. As such, facts are
not subject to debate and that's a fact ... not an opinion. Dolan
continues to misconstrue the none too subtle distinction between what
constitutes a fact and what constitutes an opinion. Dolan never has
and ever will know the distinction between the two. 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 to which he could not possibly admit. 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 nonsense in an effort to refute 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 has yet to master.


Regards,

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

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Nope, there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen, however
briefly.

Diversion duly noted on the specific issues raised above. You confuse
hearing with listening. You may hear something that someone has to
say but rarely listen to what they have to say. And by the way, If
"there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen", you can quit
you bellyaching about me being a stalker when I take you to task for
you nonsense.

Nope, I listen and then I disagree. You do not even listen. In fact, you
tell others that you do not want to hear. How can you listen if you don't
hear?

Rudeness goes hand in hand with self aggrandizement.

You are and expert at both. Even your superfluous egocentric,
delusional signature stands in testimony.

My signature is a masterstroke. It tells everyone what my manner will be.
You can either take it seriously like a fool, or laugh at it like I do.
[...]

Working class folks are anti-intellectual and have never learned how to
argue about anything, not even baseball facts which are simple enough to
look up. A working class bloke with a few beers under his belt is truly a
work of art. My contempt for them runneth over!

We have been down this road beofore dummy. Facts are not subject to
debate.

That is exactly what I said above. You do not read just like you do not
listen. Only morons argue about something so simple as baseball scores.

Readers, a fact is information about circumstances that are known to
exist or events that are known to have occurred. As such, facts are
not subject to debate and that's a fact ... not an opinion. Dolan
continues to misconstrue the none too subtle distinction between what
constitutes a fact and what constitutes an opinion. Dolan never has
and ever will know the distinction between the two. 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 to which he could not possibly admit. 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.

I think as logical as any person who has ever lived, but I don't worship
facts like some do. Facts are subject to interpretation and to being put in
their proper place. I am never ruled by facts. Facts can be argued about
just like opinions can. Anyone who takes refuge in facts is an intellectual
coward.

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.

Opinions can be debated just like everything else under the sun. Some
opinions are better than others. Facts may or may not be summoned to
buttress any opinion.

Opinions are like values. It is an art form. The opinions and values that
will prevail are those that are held by the elite of a society however that
elite is determined. Those who scramble after facts will be left in the
dustbin of history.

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 nonsense in an effort to refute 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 has yet to master.

Everything under the sun is subject to debate. What is rational is
determined by an elite. It can be almost anything.

Jim McNamara wants certainty when there is none. I attribute this to his
Catholic education. Those Jesuits know how to turn out students who think
they know something. I am not sure I know anything. Even our Western science
may be a delusion. Just because it seems to work proves nothing.

Regards,

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

On Dec 1, 11:29*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Nope, there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen, however
briefly.
Diversion duly noted on the specific issues raised above. *You confuse

hearing with listening. *You may hear something that someone has to
say but rarely listen to what they have to say. *And by the way, If
"there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen", you can quit
your bellyaching about me being a stalker when I take you to task for
your nonsense.

Nope, I listen and then I disagree. You do not even listen. In fact, you
tell others that you do not want to hear. How can you listen if you don't
hear?

What we have here is a classic coping mechanism at work ....
projection. That should have read ... Nope, I listen and then I
either agree or disagree. Leaving out the possibility of agreement
speaks volumes. Thanks for at least being honest.

How many times do I need to explain this to you? You still just don't
get it do you? I listen, but having heard something, I either agree
or disagree. If I disagree I make that known and if the person
persists, I merely request that we agree to disagree. If the person
continues to harp on and on about something, then at that juncture,
YES, I will tell them that I don't want to hear anymore, since asking
politely failed to get the message across. That is the juncture I
reached with you. You insisted on cramming your advice down my throat
after being requested to refrain from doing so. Your problem is that
you are unwilling and unable to agree to disagree. You cannot abide
by the fact that someone would reject your advice. By the way, you
are the only person I have ever encountered whom I have had to tell
over and over again that I don't want to hear any more. What you
don't seem to recognize is that not everyone will agree with you have
to learn accept that. The bottom line is that this is not my problem
but yours and only you can resolve it. Complaining about my
unwillingness to accept your advice does not and will not ever resolve
your problem. It is time long overdue for you to try another
approach.

One real significant difference between you and I is obvious. I
engage people in dialogue, whereas you engage people in monologue. I
"talk" TO people, whereas you "talk" AT people. I convey,
whereas you lecture. I communicate, whereas you pontificate. I
accept the notion that some will listen and take things on board and
some will not, whereas you do not. You demand that everyone listen
and take things on board, with no exception. I accept the possibility
of a difference of opinion, whereas you do not. You are a man in need
of an attitude adjustment. It is always all about you and the hell
with everyone else. This is not a character trait so much as a
character flaw.

Rudeness goes hand in hand with self aggrandizement.
You are and expert at both. *Even your superfluous egocentric,

delusional signature stands in testimony.

My signature is a masterstroke. It tells everyone what my manner will be.
You can either take it seriously like a fool, or laugh at it like I do.
[...]

Oh, I laugh at it, you can be assured. The only masterstroke you have
accomplished is in choking the chicken.

Working class folks are anti-intellectual and have never learned how to
argue about anything, not even baseball facts which are simple enough to
look up. A working class bloke with a few beers under his belt is truly a
work of art. My contempt for them runneth over!
We have been down this road before dummy. *Facts are not subject to

debate.

That is exactly what I said above.

NOPE. You said ... Everything under the sun is subject to debate ...
and ... Facts can be argued about. See I listen, You just can't
remember from paragraph to paragraph what you've said/written ...
DUH!!!

You do not read just like you do not
listen. Only morons argue about something so simple as baseball scores.

Readers, a fact is information about circumstances that are known to

exist or events that are known to have occurred. *As such, facts are
not subject to debate and that's a fact ... not an opinion. *Dolan
continues to misconstrue the none too subtle distinction between what
constitutes a fact and what constitutes an opinion. *Dolan never has
and ever will know the distinction between the two. *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 to which he could not possibly admit. *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.

I think as logical as any person who has ever lived, but I don't worship
facts like some do. Facts are subject to interpretation and to being put in
their proper place. I am never ruled by facts. Facts can be argued about
just like opinions can. Anyone who takes refuge in facts is an intellectual
coward.

Opinion sated as fact and an errant opinion it is too. facts cannot
be argued about, only opinions in relevance to facts. An opinion
coincides with fact only in direct relation to the degree with which
it is based in 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.

Opinions can be debated just like everything else under the sun. Some
opinions are better than others. Facts may or may not be summoned to
buttress any opinion.

Opinions are like values. It is an art form. The opinions and values that
will prevail are those that are held by the elite of a society however that
elite is determined. Those who scramble after facts will be left in the
dustbin of history.

What utter nonsense. A purveyor of disinformation, your opinions
are most often comprised of immaterial speculation and irrelevant
supposition. There is a immense difference between opinion and
conjecture. You are not, as often asserted, all about opinion. You
are all about conjecture ... a none too subtle distinction which
exceeds your poor powers of perception. The bottom line is that you
should stick to what you know, not to what you think.


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 nonsense in an effort to refute 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 has yet to master.

Everything under the sun is subject to debate. What is rational is
determined by an elite. It can be almost anything.

Repetition is no substitute for debate.

Jim McNamara wants certainty when there is none.

Opinion stated as fact. Why would you assume that I do no recognize
that the world is full of uncertainty?

I attribute this to his
Catholic education.

So then you fallacious attribute/conclude from a fallacious premise?
The conundrum continues. Allow me to quote you here ... There is
something wrong with the way your brain works.

Those Jesuits know how to turn out students who think
they know something. I am not sure I know anything. Even our Western science
may be a delusion. Just because it seems to work proves nothing.

Delusional babble about the Jesuits duly noted. At least you admit
though that you are not sure you know anything, but that has never
discouraged you from being the most opinionated jackass that I have
ever encountered.

Regards,

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

On Dec 1, 11:29 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

Nope, there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen, however
briefly.
Diversion duly noted on the specific issues raised above. You confuse

hearing with listening. You may hear something that someone has to
say but rarely listen to what they have to say. And by the way, If
"there is NEVER any reason for not wanting to listen", you can quit
your bellyaching about me being a stalker when I take you to task for
your nonsense.

Nope, I listen and then I disagree. You do not even listen. In fact, you
tell others that you do not want to hear. How can you listen if you don't
hear?

What we have here is a classic coping mechanism at work ....
projection. That should have read ... Nope, I listen and then I
either agree or disagree. Leaving out the possibility of agreement
speaks volumes. Thanks for at least being honest.

How many times do I need to explain this to you? You still just don't
get it do you? I listen, but having heard something, I either agree
or disagree. If I disagree I make that known and if the person
persists, I merely request that we agree to disagree. If the person
continues to harp on and on about something, then at that juncture,
YES, I will tell them that I don't want to hear anymore, since asking
politely failed to get the message across. That is the juncture I
reached with you. You insisted on cramming your advice down my throat
after being requested to refrain from doing so. Your problem is that
you are unwilling and unable to agree to disagree. You cannot abide
by the fact that someone would reject your advice. By the way, you
are the only person I have ever encountered whom I have had to tell
over and over again that I don't want to hear any more. What you
don't seem to recognize is that not everyone will agree with you have
to learn accept that. The bottom line is that this is not my problem
but yours and only you can resolve it. Complaining about my
unwillingness to accept your advice does not and will not ever resolve
your problem. It is time long overdue for you to try another
approach.

One real significant difference between you and I is obvious. I
engage people in dialogue, whereas you engage people in monologue. I
"talk" TO people, whereas you "talk" AT people. I convey,
whereas you lecture. I communicate, whereas you pontificate. I
accept the notion that some will listen and take things on board and
some will not, whereas you do not. You demand that everyone listen
and take things on board, with no exception. I accept the possibility
of a difference of opinion, whereas you do not. You are a man in need
of an attitude adjustment. It is always all about you and the hell
with everyone else. This is not a character trait so much as a
character flaw.

Rudeness goes hand in hand with self aggrandizement.
You are and expert at both. Even your superfluous egocentric,

delusional signature stands in testimony.

My signature is a masterstroke. It tells everyone what my manner will be.
You can either take it seriously like a fool, or laugh at it like I do.
[...]

Oh, I laugh at it, you can be assured. The only masterstroke you have
accomplished is in choking the chicken.

Working class folks are anti-intellectual and have never learned how to
argue about anything, not even baseball facts which are simple enough to
look up. A working class bloke with a few beers under his belt is truly a
work of art. My contempt for them runneth over!
We have been down this road before dummy. Facts are not subject to

debate.

That is exactly what I said above.

NOPE. You said ... Everything under the sun is subject to debate ...
and ... Facts can be argued about. See I listen, You just can't
remember from paragraph to paragraph what you've said/written ...
DUH!!!

You do not read just like you do not
listen. Only morons argue about something so simple as baseball scores.

Readers, a fact is information about circumstances that are known to

exist or events that are known to have occurred. As such, facts are
not subject to debate and that's a fact ... not an opinion. Dolan
continues to misconstrue the none too subtle distinction between what
constitutes a fact and what constitutes an opinion. Dolan never has
and ever will know the distinction between the two. 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 to which he could not possibly admit. 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.

I think as logical as any person who has ever lived, but I don't worship
facts like some do. Facts are subject to interpretation and to being put in
their proper place. I am never ruled by facts. Facts can be argued about
just like opinions can. Anyone who takes refuge in facts is an intellectual
coward.

Opinion sated as fact and an errant opinion it is too. facts cannot
be argued about, only opinions in relevance to facts. An opinion
coincides with fact only in direct relation to the degree with which
it is based in 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.

Opinions can be debated just like everything else under the sun. Some
opinions are better than others. Facts may or may not be summoned to
buttress any opinion.

Opinions are like values. It is an art form. The opinions and values that
will prevail are those that are held by the elite of a society however that
elite is determined. Those who scramble after facts will be left in the
dustbin of history.

What utter nonsense. A purveyor of disinformation, your opinions
are most often comprised of immaterial speculation and irrelevant
supposition. There is a immense difference between opinion and
conjecture. You are not, as often asserted, all about opinion. You
are all about conjecture ... a none too subtle distinction which
exceeds your poor powers of perception. The bottom line is that you
should stick to what you know, not to what you think.


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 nonsense in an effort to refute 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 has yet to master.

Everything under the sun is subject to debate. What is rational is
determined by an elite. It can be almost anything.

Repetition is no substitute for debate.

Jim McNamara wants certainty when there is none.

Opinion stated as fact. Why would you assume that I do no recognize
that the world is full of uncertainty?

I attribute this to his
Catholic education.

So then you fallacious attribute/conclude from a fallacious premise?
The conundrum continues. Allow me to quote you here ... There is
something wrong with the way your brain works.

Those Jesuits know how to turn out students who think
they know something. I am not sure I know anything. Even our Western science
may be a delusion. Just because it seems to work proves nothing.

Delusional babble about the Jesuits duly noted. At least you admit
though that you are not sure you know anything, but that has never
discouraged you from being the most opinionated jackass that I have
ever encountered.

Regards,

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

On 12/6/2010 3:14 AM, Jym Dyer wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
profoundly bored by the endless repetition of gags that
were unfunny even when you first posted them in the 1980s.
I was posting this in the 1980's? Please stick to facts,
not fiction.

=x= As comprehending as an automaton, and just as interesting.
You have so much to learn about humor, if you're able to.

I do not believe anyone else found it humorous - at least not enough to
be worth commenting on.

By the way, what does "=x=" mean?

=x= I forgot to mention Tom Sherman's little stunt of altering
his username (and using moronic typos in Subject: headers) to
elude spam filters. Probably thinks that's "fun," too.
_Jym_

Not as much fun as Jym Dyer's setting followup-to: alt.shut.the.hell.up.geek

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.