If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 8, 5:24*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> 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? My first reply in this thread was on-topic. YOUR reply to me was thread convergence. Thank's for playing! E.P. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 8, 5:59*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> 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. Totally true. At least Xeton's posts, while totally stupid, have to do with DRIVING. > > 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? Who says there's a connection? I even say the word COINCIDENCE. > > Call it a coincidence if you like. > > All my fault... lol. Or, you could claim you have no part in it. OK, if it makes you feel better, fine by me. > If you really want threads on technical things, feel free to *START* > some Ed. Nah - that won't change the amount of drivel you post, so it's a waste of my time. If I'm going to waste my time, I'm going to waste it in a way that I prefer, rather than a way *you* prefer. > I just don't come across much of a technical nature > these days. Yeah, you don't contribute much, either. In the vast sea of noise you create, there may be some reasonable content. But who can find it? And even when there's something to contribute, there always has to be some extra OT weight about **** that's not related AT ALL to driving. (Well, maybe in a "six dgrees of separation" way, but still.) > > 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. Except that's even more a waste of time. Some time in the past - 5 years ago or more, your contribution to this group was mostly car-related. His stuff has mostly been car-related trolling. Now your stuff is mostly babble, with some car stuff thrown in. Xeton's stuff still sucks, but seem less egregious than the Pride of America crappola from the past. Pointing your fingers to "hey, he's doing it too" or "hey, he's doing it more" is very lame. Maybe it's because of your past that I hold you to higher standard. Maybe you just don't deserve that... E.P. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On Oct 8, 6:18*pm, Brent P > wrote:
> 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. It was bull**** before you corrected it, and is bull**** after. The noise I have created over your OT babble is less than 1% of the total OT babble you spew. Well, if you are using word count. And again, metadiscussions about topicality are topical, by definition. Just remember, I'm not forcing your to reply to my critiques, and I'm not a JLEDI, so your responses to me get counted in there. The "you're MAKING me do it!" defense? Not valid. E.P. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 5:24*pm, Brent P > wrote: >> 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? > > My first reply in this thread was on-topic. > YOUR reply to me was thread convergence. Thank's for playing! You're complaining I am posting off topic HERE. Where's the off topic? Or do you have a different standard of name calling irl than you do on usenet? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:19 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote: >> 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. So you'd rather I waste my time arguing with, for instance, the x-posting troll that's infested this group for the last several years? How would that make a difference? FYI, the standard way of dealing with trolls is to ignore them. > That's fine, and your choice. But bitching about me is lame > considering the very small volume of anything I post here. Except that the "small volume" of your posts (since September 28th) is entirely unnecessary noise IMO. Take that as you will, but I'm not going to waste anymore of my time continuing this pointless discussion. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 5:59*pm, Brent P > wrote: >> 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. > > Totally true. At least Xeton's posts, while totally stupid, have to > do with DRIVING. All the ones about D vs. R politics and cross posted to like a dozen news groups are about driving? LOL. But let's examine your little double standard again. I post about the interaction with police with regard to using the roads while driving or with regard to bicyclist-motorist & motorist-motorist interaction and that's *off-topic*. 'judy' posts about the political action to limit driving in some way and that's on-topic. I post an article about the government tracking driving, taxing it, limiting it, or whatever and it's tin-foil-hat nonsense. LOL. It's about me Ed. To the point where you try to bait me into thread that I am not even participating in. I'll clue you in Ed. I saw you doing that shiat so I posted the somewhat OT thread just to **** you off. >> > 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? > Who says there's a connection? I even say the word COINCIDENCE. LOL. 'if you like'. You're trying to construct a connection and you damn well know it. But you didn't even spend 30 seconds to try and get some *EVIDENCE* for it. Where's your evidence Ed? >> > Call it a coincidence if you like. >> >> All my fault... lol. > > Or, you could claim you have no part in it. OK, if it makes you feel > better, fine by me. LOL. Glad to know you think I'm so important. >> If you really want threads on technical things, feel free to *START* >> some Ed. > Nah - that won't change the amount of drivel you post, so it's a waste > of my time. If I'm going to waste my time, I'm going to waste it in a > way that I prefer, rather than a way *you* prefer. I'm much more important to you than what you consider 'proper' content. It's not like your obsessed or anything. >> I just don't come across much of a technical nature >> these days. > Yeah, you don't contribute much, either. In the vast sea of noise you > create, there may be some reasonable content. But who can find it? > And even when there's something to contribute, there always has to be > some extra OT weight about **** that's not related AT ALL to driving. > (Well, maybe in a "six dgrees of separation" way, but still.) What are you acheving besides adding to noise? The reason I keep replying to you is that it creates and magnifies the very problem you complain about. You could ignore the few threads I create each month or just the one or two that get you bitching and that would be that. But it's not about 'noise' it's about 'me'. If it were about 'noise' you'd be complaining about 'judy's' threads on oil prices and D vs. R politics that are cross posted to a bunch of political groups. >> > 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. > > Except that's even more a waste of time. > Some time in the past - 5 years ago or more, your contribution to this > group was mostly car-related. His stuff has mostly been car-related > trolling. > Now your stuff is mostly babble, with some car stuff thrown in. > Xeton's stuff still sucks, but seem less egregious than the Pride of > America crappola from the past. > Pointing your fingers to "hey, he's doing it too" or "hey, he's doing > it more" is very lame. The point is your action is not compatible with your stated goal. 'judy' x-posts something that is often barely driving related here to a bunch of political newsgroups. It quickly degenerates into D vs R political battles. It goes on for hundreds posts. You don't complain. I make one post, not xposted. Maybe would generate 2-3 replies when *OT* or *somewhat OT* except when you get involved to complain about the *noise*. So either your stated goal is not your goal, or you're going about it in the most idiotic and counterproductive way. Oddly you didn't complain about the *OT* threads on ISP's ending usenet service, one which is mine. You might not even see another post from me after the 25th. > Maybe it's because of your past that I hold you to higher standard. > Maybe you just don't deserve that... Maybe it's because it's your obsession. It isn't like it was a decade ago Ed. The 'game' against driving freely is more than a cop sitting behind a billboard or a sudden speed limit drop of 20mph or 55mph NMSL these days. That's just the tip of the iceberg now. One has to at least touch upon the basic corruption that drives the whole government system that has it preying upon drivers. I find it amusing that you have no complaint about 'judy's' simplistic D vs. R threads on oil prices and the wars so involved but if I make an off comment on the nature of war and the state itself you get your panties in a bunch. The narrow focus you want will prevent any real examination of the issues that trouble driving. I started with a narrow focus that has expanded over time to start examination of the structures that created the problems for driving. Why do the police forces prey on drivers? For the revenue. What's the revenue for? What enables the government's police forces to prey upon drivers? Ask deeper questions than just, 'do low speed limits increase safety?' That question was asked and answered in this group to a tiring extent. But it seems you want it to be the same re-runs here from 1997. Maybe you can get Lloyd Parker back to argue the merits of ABS systems too. There aren't any real solutions to be found by showing yet again that red light cameras and underposted speed limits are a fraud. Yeah, they're a fraud. Now why is this fraud there? Why doesn't it end? Proving these things doesn't solve the problems we face driving. The government entities already know it is a fraud. The sales presentation from companies that sell the RLC systems tell them that in not so many words. So fine, prove it's a fraud again, it's not going to do a damn bit of good to change anything. So what? At best some people think those in government were misguided but meant well. The 'well meaning' government then just adds another fraud, more tracking of drivings, more tickets, more and more and more. There is no reversing that without an examination of the nature of the institutions behind making our driving experience worse with each successive year. If you don't want to discuss the bigger issues from a driving perspective, fine. Use your kill file. But if all this group is going to be is repeats of arguments on the 85th percentile being used to set speed limits forever and forever, I can join the others that got bored and left. Complain if you will but at least I've made the attempt to cover some more ground in the next steps beyond tickets-are-for-revenue area. I'll make a deal with you, if you add content, make new threads, I'll stop. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Just let them do it without saying a word or else.
On 2008-10-09, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> The noise I have created over your OT babble is less than 1% of the > total OT babble you spew. Ever notice that I might start one or two threads a month and they die quickly without your noise? > Well, if you are using word count. And > again, metadiscussions about topicality are topical, by definition. Let's discuss how to set a speed limit properly again for the 1,900th time since 1997! So exciting. So much more exciting than the deeper examination of why the government is lawless and doesn't set the speed limit properly. Much more exciting than covering any *NEW* ground! > Just remember, I'm not forcing your to reply to my critiques, and I'm > not a JLEDI, so your responses to me get counted in there. The > "you're MAKING me do it!" defense? Not valid. I'm replying just to make your efforts counterproductive. Duh. Thought you would have figured that out by now. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
And now, a word about snow tires... | Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B | Technology | 15 | March 10th 08 05:51 AM |
is "voltimeter" even a word?!?! | nashjeff | Ford Explorer | 15 | September 6th 05 11:43 AM |
Corvette's word origin | Bob Sexton | Corvette | 3 | August 26th 05 01:41 AM |
EA will need lots of word of mouth! | AlenlorDRot | Simulators | 1 | December 29th 04 01:16 AM |