Moderated Google Group?

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
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.

If I agree I see no reason for saying so, most especially to someone like
you. Usenet is about disagreeing, something I do better than anyone else in
the universe.

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.

I am not accustomed to being dictated to by anyone. Your number one problem
is that you do not know how to move a discussion along. You are permanently
stuck in quagmires of your own making. Not wanting to hear what I have to
say - indeed! What effrontery!

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.

I am only interested in hearing what someone else has to say if I respect
their intelligence, something I have never found on Usenet. Since that is
the case, they can listen to what I have to say or else go fly a kite! Yea,
it is a burden being the smartest bloke on Usenet.
[...]

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 were following on the specific paragraph above, not on my more general
comments. Read it again and see if you can come to a different conclusion.
[...]

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.

Elites determine what opinions matter and what facts matter. They mutually
reinforce one another, but both differ in different societies according to
different elites. There are never any right opinions anymore than there are
any right facts. Time and circumstance rules over all. Not to recognize this
means you are a provincial and not a man of the world. Sociology 101 and
Anthropology 101.
[...]

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?

Because you cannot agree to disagree. Try to become humble and self-effacing
like ME!

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.

Anyone who would subject themselves to the Jesuits for 4 years is lost to
reason. The one thing the Jesuits do best is sophistry. That is all you know
how to do also.

Regards,

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

On Dec 6, 6:04*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
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.

If I agree I see no reason for saying so, most especially to someone like
you. *Usenet is about disagreeing, something I do better than anyone else in
the universe.

From your warped perspective and in your errant opinion you mean.
Usenet is not about disagreeing and your saying it is so does not make
it so.

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.

I am not accustomed to being dictated to by anyone. Your number one problem
is that you do not know how to move a discussion along. You are permanently
stuck in quagmires of your own making. Not wanting to hear what I have to
say - indeed! What effrontery!

The man who masticates and regurgitates his mantra ad nauseum has the
gall to accuse others of not moving a discussion along. What a joke.
I will try this one last time to seek if I can penetrate that thick
skull of yours. You fail recognize the difference from a request and
being dictated to. A polite request inevitably evolves into a demand
solely because of your inflexible, obstinate persistence. You are
intolerant of a difference of opinion and will not honor a request to
cease and desist. You also cannot and will not recognize or accept
that when on has listened and heard what you have to say that it is
within the realm of possibility that anyone would be so blasphemous as
to be not accepting of your opinion or your advice. The fact that,
years after, you continue to harp on this particular issue stands in
testimony that YOU ARE STUCK IN A QUAGMIRE, UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO
MOVE A DISCUSSION ALONG!!! Objectivity is just not your strong suit
is it? Your ego screams effrontery because you cannot and will not
accept that anyone would be so bold as to hold an opposing view and/or
inform you that there is no need for you to persist trying to change
their mind. Like I said before ... this is YOUR problem to resolve
and yours alone.

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.

I am only interested in hearing what someone else has to say if I respect
their intelligence, something I have never found on Usenet. Since that is
the case, they can listen to what I have to say or else go fly a kite! Yea,
it is a burden being the smartest bloke on Usenet.
[...]

Delusion is grand is it not? Yeah, I know, no one but you has any
degree of intelligence. Listen up megalomaniac. There are plenty of
people out here that are as smart as or smarter than you. If there is
no one intelligent enough to be of interest for you to listen to, then
why not take leave of Usenet.

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 were following on the specific paragraph above, not on my more general
comments. *Read it again and see if you can come to a different conclusion.
[...]

Nope ... I was quoting what you contradicting yourself. Read it again
and came to the same conclusion. You have mastered the art of self-
contradiction ... plain and simple.

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.

Elites determine what opinions matter and what facts matter. They mutually
reinforce one another, but both differ in different societies according to
different elites. There are never any right opinions anymore than there are
any right facts. Time and circumstance rules over all. Not to recognize this
means you are a provincial and not a man of the world. Sociology 101 and
Anthropology 101.


Like I said before, you will never recognize what a FACT is. Conan
the Librarian, by definition, there is no such thing as a right or
wrong fact. In this context however, there is such a thing as an
errant opinion ... YOURS!

[...]

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?

Because you cannot agree to disagree. Try to become humble and self-effacing
like ME!

1. Your reply does not address the question (a bad habit of yours) and
2. If you could learn to agree to disagree (and you most certainly
have not demonstrated that capacity), then you would not be
regurgitating your displeasure with me for suggesting that we do just
that ... agree to disagree and more specifically for requesting you to
no longer insist that I abide by your opinion and take your advice. I
don't know who the hell you think you are, but you sure have an over-
inflated sense of self-importance. That much is a given.

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.

Anyone who would subject themselves to the Jesuits for 4 years is lost to
reason. The one thing the Jesuits do best is sophistry. That is all you know
how to do also.

Opinion stated as fact, and as usual, your opinion is a waste of
bandwidth just as you are a waste of space.


Regards,

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

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 6:04 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
I am not accustomed to being dictated to by anyone. Your number one
problem
is that you do not know how to move a discussion along. You are
permanently
stuck in quagmires of your own making. Not wanting to hear what I have to
say - indeed! What effrontery!

The man who masticates and regurgitates his mantra ad nauseum has the
gall to accuse others of not moving a discussion along. What a joke.
I will try this one last time to seek if I can penetrate that thick
skull of yours. You fail recognize the difference from a request and
being dictated to. A polite request inevitably evolves into a demand
solely because of your inflexible, obstinate persistence. You are
intolerant of a difference of opinion and will not honor a request to
cease and desist. You also cannot and will not recognize or accept
that when on has listened and heard what you have to say that it is
within the realm of possibility that anyone would be so blasphemous as
to be not accepting of your opinion or your advice. The fact that,
years after, you continue to harp on this particular issue stands in
testimony that YOU ARE STUCK IN A QUAGMIRE, UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO
MOVE A DISCUSSION ALONG!!! Objectivity is just not your strong suit
is it? Your ego screams effrontery because you cannot and will not
accept that anyone would be so bold as to hold an opposing view and/or
inform you that there is no need for you to persist trying to change
their mind. Like I said before ... this is YOUR problem to resolve
and yours alone.

Anyone who does not want to hear what I have to say and says so is beyond
the pale. From that moment forward, you ceased to be human and became
nothing but an object of derision.
[...]

I am only interested in hearing what someone else has to say if I respect
their intelligence, something I have never found on Usenet. Since that is
the case, they can listen to what I have to say or else go fly a kite!
Yea,
it is a burden being the smartest bloke on Usenet.
[...]

Delusion is grand is it not? Yeah, I know, no one but you has any
degree of intelligence. Listen up megalomaniac. There are plenty of
people out here that are as smart as or smarter than you. If there is
no one intelligent enough to be of interest for you to listen to, then
why not take leave of Usenet.

Then Tom Sherman would lord it over everyone. That I must prevent at all
costs. I am also hanging around for a while longer to kick the asses of
criminal idiot mountain bikers, at least until Mr. Vandeman is back and
again doing the Lord's work.
[...]

Elites determine what opinions matter and what facts matter. They mutually
reinforce one another, but both differ in different societies according to
different elites. There are never any right opinions anymore than there
are
any right facts. Time and circumstance rules over all. Not to recognize
this
means you are a provincial and not a man of the world. Sociology 101 and
Anthropology 101.

Like I said before, you will never recognize what a FACT is. Conan
the Librarian, by definition, there is no such thing as a right or
wrong fact. In this context however, there is such a thing as an
errant opinion ... YOURS!

No, facts are whatever the elites say they are. For instance, witchcraft was
a fact in certain periods of place and time. It is not so regarded now, but
it was then. In a religious society dominated by priests, God is a fact of
life. In a secular society dominated by scientists, God is not a fact of
life. It all depends on who is determining what.

We are no more enlightened than than our most primitive forefathers. I do
not believe in progress, only change. And in the end, even the changes are
circular. That is why there is never anything new under the sun.
[...]

Regards,

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