Just let them do it without saying a word or else.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> *driving*, you drooling dip****.

What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. For
instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
single response from you.

On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> single response from you.

Because it was actually on-topic?

Nah, that can't be it.

E.P.

On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>
>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> single response from you.
>
> Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> Nah, that can't be it.

What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

On 2008-10-08, Brent P > wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>>> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>>> single response from you.
>>
>> Because it was actually on-topic?
>>
>> Nah, that can't be it.
>
> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

ack... convergence thread...

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:

>> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. For
>> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> single response from you.

> Because it was actually on-topic?

Your point? My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent. Or is there
another reason why you don't participate in other threads (some of which
are actually on-topic)?

I don't agree with everything that everyone else posts here, but that
doesn't result in me participating in meta-subthreads where I just
engage in name calling.

On Oct 8, 12:03*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
> >> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>
> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> >> single response from you.
>
> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> > Nah, that can't be it.
>
> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.

Actually, it was that until you whined about namecalling in another
thread. But nice attempt at shifting the blame. LOL.

E.P.

On Oct 8, 12:19*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
> >> single response from you.
> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>
> Your point? *My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
> group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent.

I used to post a lot, when the group actually had use. But then it
degenerated into half driving, half political bull****.

The VAST majority of OT B.S. comes from Brent. All you need to do is
read the last 2 years of the newsgroup to see that.

Remember all those great guys that used to post about driving? A lot
of them sought greener pastures right about the time Brent ratchetted
up his political B.S.

Call it a coincidence if you like.

> Or is there
> another reason why you don't participate in other threads (some of which
> are actually on-topic)?

Why bother when it is almost inevitable that we get yet another dose
of tinfoilhattery?

> I don't agree with everything that everyone else posts here, but that
> doesn't result in me participating in meta-subthreads where I just
> engage in name calling.

JLEDI, IOW.

That's fine, and your choice. But bitching about me is lame
considering the very small volume of anything I post here.

E.P.

On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:03*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-08, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 10:09*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> >> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > Your idiotic tinfoilhatted tangents is what takes it away from
>> >> > *driving*, you drooling dip****.
>>
>> >> What I don't understand is why you only respond to threads started by
>> >> Brent and going on and on and on about your obsession with "tinfoil
>> >> hattery" and not any of the other on-topic threads in this group. *For
>> >> instance, I started a thread titled "UDOT trying out new technique to
>> >> reduce red light running" a couple of weeks ago and didn't even see a
>> >> single response from you.
>>
>> > Because it was actually on-topic?
>>
>> > Nah, that can't be it.
>>
>> What is off topic on a MFFY,'just let them do it', 'road rage',
>> conversion thread? Which is what this was until you came in to it.
>
> Actually, it was that until you whined about namecalling in another
> thread. But nice attempt at shifting the blame. LOL.

Again, I taunted you with 'is that all you got?' Of course in your
reality you call that a 'whine'.

Again, what was off topic about *THIS* thread before you touched it?

On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

>> Your point? *My point was that all you appear to do is just post to this
>> group to continue your long standing dispute with Brent.

> I used to post a lot, when the group actually had use. But then it
> degenerated into half driving, half political bull****.

> The VAST majority of OT B.S. comes from Brent. All you need to do is
> read the last 2 years of the newsgroup to see that.

Totally false. The *VAST* majority comes from the xposted treads from
'judy' et all. My contribution is tiny unless you decide to magnify it
by creating the very 'problem' you complain about. Even then the noise
contribution is fraction of what comes from the x-posted threads from
'judy' and 'don' alone. Of course you can't prove your theory with
logic or data, either.

> Remember all those great guys that used to post about driving? A lot
> of them sought greener pastures right about the time Brent ratchetted
> up his political B.S.

And you have proof of this connection you're making? Sounds like you are
doing the exact same thing you complain about it. The hyprocrisy.

> Call it a coincidence if you like.

All my fault... lol. The death of usenet is *my* fault. How come those
people no longer frequent usenet at all? If a group goes bad most people
just stop with *that* group. Furthermore if your thesis were true you
should be able to point to the same thing in *other* groups I frequent.
A simple check of google groups show they completely left usenet. For
instance, Brandon Sommerville followed rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled.
I never touched that group, he hasn't posted to since nov 2005, and
before that he had not posted since aug 2004, when still following rad
and vw groups. C.R. left usenet entirely as well. He used to follow the
groups alt.autos.audi and rec.models.scale along with bmw and jaguar and
music groups. He fell off of usenet as well, all at the same time in all
groups. Scott has disappeared from all groups he frequented as well. I
could go on but your thesis is falling apart rapidly. Maybe you should
have bothered to spend a minute or so trying to back it up before
spewing it forth.

I used to play backup for some of those 'great guys' in countless
threads. Or maybe you forgot that. Guys like Jim Walker who would
discuss his experiences in the political arena wrt driving.

If you really want threads on technical things, feel free to *START*
some Ed. I just don't come across much of a technical nature
these days. The threads I've started on the pluses and minus of
cars I've been considering didn't go to far. Maybe that's because
you ignored them? Instead what you do is contribute noise in the name of
fighting *noise*.

> That's fine, and your choice. But bitching about me is lame
> considering the very small volume of anything I post here.

Take away my posts and the 'noise' you complain about from me drops to
nearly nothing. You'd get about 100 times more bank for your buck
fighting the 'noise' from judy alone.

On 2008-10-09, Brent P > wrote:
> Take away _your_ posts and the 'noise' you complain about from me
drops to nearly nothing. You'd get about 100 times more bank for your buck
fighting the 'noise' from judy alone.

correction underlined.