And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
I'm curious. Why not??
Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
directly??
Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
Why the sudden hesitation??
Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
I'll keep checking my inbox.
On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article
> <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
you, Doug, but ....
Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
online ww sites -- this one included.
When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
response to be?
I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
reasonable shot at answering this one?
On Feb 28, 12:34=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 28, 11:57=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> >> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > In article
> >> > > > > > > <[email protected]=
oups.com>,
>
> >> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my=
wonderful
> >> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> > > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> >> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> >> > > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane=
answer from
> >> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> >> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a coup=
le of
> >> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> >> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you =
expect his
> >> > > > > > response to be?
>
> >> > > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> >> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't=
as thick,
> >> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> >> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a leg=
it, direct,
> >> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> >> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you ar=
e). =A0
>
> >> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally be=
reft
> >> > > > of evidence.
>
> >> > > > Not surprising.
>
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known=
about
> >> > > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first p=
laces
> >> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodwor=
king.
> >> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =
=A0He
> >> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spe=
w back, I
> >> > > > > will stick to this position.
>
> >> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has res=
ponded:
> >> > > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "b=
ashed" my
> >> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> >> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you=
are
> >> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> >> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =
=A0I
> >> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions,=
while
> >> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> >> > > > insults.
>
> >> > > > Neat, huh?
>
> >> > > > > They were right. =A0If you
> >> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bo=
ttom line
> >> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly no=
t on the
> >> > > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is b=
ecause God
> >> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect=
;
> >> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name =
are a
> >> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> >> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> >> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> >> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> >> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised =
that
> >> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you=
.
>
> >> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with th=
e kind
> >> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number o=
f
> >> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes=
that
> >> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> >> > > > Nobody.
>
> >> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> >> > > > Care to try?
>
> >> > > > Still listening.
>
> >> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> >> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take yo=
u
> >> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst in=
to
> >> > > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt=
to
> >> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and yo=
ur
> >> > > wishes.
>
> >> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of th=
em
> >> > > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> >> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> >> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
> >> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A sel=
f-
> >> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> >> > Rrrrrrright.
>
> >> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> >> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> >> > Uh ..... no.
>
> >> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pis=
ses
> >> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworki=
ng
> >> > > will die on its own.
>
> >> > Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be yo=
u
> >> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> >> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> >> > That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of t=
he
> >> > Coptic Church.
>
> >> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally calle=
d
> >> > > you. =A0
>
> >> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> >> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> >> > I do? =A0Where??
>
> >> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had sai=
d
> >> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> >> > fun :-)
>
> >> > > debatable but even
> >> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a=
shame
> >> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ev=
er
> >> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> >> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> >> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> >> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to resp=
ond
> >> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> >> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> >> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> >> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> >> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> >> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> >> > Wow.
>
> >> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
> >> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
> >> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
> >> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>
> >> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>
> >Should I really? =A0There are bunched of the that can be found on the
> >Internet.
>
> >There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>
> >There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>
> >Lots more where those come from. =A0Neil can read them all.
>
> Of course, I won't. =A0I'm simply not interested.
>
> But ... you're "Christian?"
>
> I'm asking.
>
> Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
> offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
> -- who lost a baby, last year --
he just CLAIMED he did...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:36:25 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <dcedb2c3-f29b-4c8b-960c-1f486389b0d6@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>PDFTFT
Thin-skinned, Doug??
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 11:40 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 28, 10:31 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34 pm, Dave Balderstone
>>
>> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> > > > > > > > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>>
>> > > > > > Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
>> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>>
>> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
>> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>>
>> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
>> > > > > > response to be?
>>
>> > > > > > I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
>>
>> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
>> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>>
>> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
>> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>>
>> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are).
>>
>> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
>> > > > of evidence.
>>
>> > > > Not surprising.
>>
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
>> > > > > this news group for a long time. This is one of the first places
>> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
>> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. He
>> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spew back, I
>> > > > > will stick to this position.
>>
>> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
>> > > > > Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
>> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>>
>> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
>> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in.
>>
>> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. I
>> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
>> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
>> > > > insults.
>>
>> > > > Neat, huh?
>>
>> > > > > They were right. If you
>> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bottom line
>> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
>> > > > > side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is because God
>> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
>> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name are a
>> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
>> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>>
>> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>>
>> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>>
>> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
>> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>>
>> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
>> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
>> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
>> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>>
>> > > > Nobody.
>>
>> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>>
>> > > > Care to try?
>>
>> > > > Still listening.
>>
>> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>>
>> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
>> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
>> > > the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
>> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
>> > > wishes.
>>
>> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
>> > > moderated, why not just go to them?
>>
>> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>>
>> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
>> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A self-
>> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>>
>> > Rrrrrrright.
>>
>> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
>> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>>
>> > Uh ..... no.
>>
>> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
>> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
>> > > will die on its own.
>>
>> > Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
>> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>>
>> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>>
>> > That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
>> > Coptic Church.
>>
>> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
>> > > you.
>>
>> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>>
>> > I do? Where??
>>
>> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
>> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
>> > fun :-)
>>
>> > > debatable but even
>> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a shame
>> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
>> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>>
>> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>>
>> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>>
>> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
>> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>>
>> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
>> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
>> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>>
>> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
>> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>>
>> > Wow.
>>
>> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
>> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
>> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
>> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>>
>> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>
>Should I really? There are bunched of the that can be found on the
>Internet.
>
>There are a ton here: http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>
>There are more here: http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>
>Lots more where those come from. Neil can read them all.
Of course, I won't. I'm simply not interested.
But ... you're "Christian?"
I'm asking.
Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
-- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
if they drop by for WW info?
Wow.
On Feb 28, 12:34=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 28, 11:57=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> >> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > In article
> >> > > > > > > <[email protected]=
oups.com>,
>
> >> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my=
wonderful
> >> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> > > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> >> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> >> > > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane=
answer from
> >> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> >> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a coup=
le of
> >> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> >> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you =
expect his
> >> > > > > > response to be?
>
> >> > > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> >> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't=
as thick,
> >> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> >> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a leg=
it, direct,
> >> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> >> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you ar=
e). =A0
>
> >> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally be=
reft
> >> > > > of evidence.
>
> >> > > > Not surprising.
>
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known=
about
> >> > > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first p=
laces
> >> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodwor=
king.
> >> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =
=A0He
> >> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spe=
w back, I
> >> > > > > will stick to this position.
>
> >> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has res=
ponded:
> >> > > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "b=
ashed" my
> >> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> >> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you=
are
> >> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> >> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =
=A0I
> >> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions,=
while
> >> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> >> > > > insults.
>
> >> > > > Neat, huh?
>
> >> > > > > They were right. =A0If you
> >> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bo=
ttom line
> >> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly no=
t on the
> >> > > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is b=
ecause God
> >> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect=
;
> >> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name =
are a
> >> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> >> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> >> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> >> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> >> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised =
that
> >> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you=
.
>
> >> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with th=
e kind
> >> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number o=
f
> >> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes=
that
> >> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> >> > > > Nobody.
>
> >> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> >> > > > Care to try?
>
> >> > > > Still listening.
>
> >> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> >> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take yo=
u
> >> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst in=
to
> >> > > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt=
to
> >> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and yo=
ur
> >> > > wishes.
>
> >> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of th=
em
> >> > > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> >> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> >> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
> >> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A sel=
f-
> >> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> >> > Rrrrrrright.
>
> >> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> >> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> >> > Uh ..... no.
>
> >> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pis=
ses
> >> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworki=
ng
> >> > > will die on its own.
>
> >> > Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be yo=
u
> >> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> >> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> >> > That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of t=
he
> >> > Coptic Church.
>
> >> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally calle=
d
> >> > > you. =A0
>
> >> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> >> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> >> > I do? =A0Where??
>
> >> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had sai=
d
> >> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> >> > fun :-)
>
> >> > > debatable but even
> >> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a=
shame
> >> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ev=
er
> >> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> >> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> >> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> >> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to resp=
ond
> >> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> >> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> >> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> >> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> >> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> >> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> >> > Wow.
>
> >> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
> >> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
> >> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
> >> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>
> >> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>
> >Should I really? =A0There are bunched of the that can be found on the
> >Internet.
>
> >There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>
> >There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>
> >Lots more where those come from. =A0Neil can read them all.
>
> Of course, I won't. =A0I'm simply not interested.
>
> But ... you're "Christian?"
>
> I'm asking.
>
> Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
> offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
> -- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
> if they drop by for WW info?
>
> Wow.
It is posted here because it is a public forum. It is not a moderated
forum. If you want that, go join one.
If you friend would like these jokes, what is his e-mail address?
They can be sent to him.
In article
<d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> I'm curious. Why not??
Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
On Feb 28, 12:11=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:06:40 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >You are a Christian in deeds....you are right: you know nothing about
> >being a Christian. =A0Just because you act like you are on moral high
> >ground in one area but are a rude, bigoted,
>
> Bigoted??
>
> I'll just blithely ask you to defend that statement, and await your
> response :-)
>
> > offensive person in so
> >many others, you aren't "acting" like a Christian. =A0Actually, a lot of
> >people who believe they are "good" and "nice" and what have you but
> >claim they are agnostic are going to go straight to hell.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Not believing in Hell, I don't find that particularly daunting.
>
> Not believing in Hell, in fact, I tend to try to keep the scorecard
> clean, while I'm here.
>
> >Oh, well, as long as I can keep you arguing with me, the rest of the
> >group is off the hook.
>
> It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> You're rather fond of those, aren't you??
Not believing in Hell does not mean it does not exist. :o)
And, yes, I believe you are a bigot. I have to say, I have been on
the Internet the last coupe of days is because I am laid up with
pneumonia. Neil, I think you have too much time on your hands.
And, as far as it goes, if this group is repulsive to all you *good*
people, then all you *good* people would go someplace else. But, of
course, you are a modern day Elliott Ness and your job is to clean up
rec.woodworking. Ha!
Well, Neil, it has been fun but I can't give you anymore time or
energy. I am sick enough as it is not to have to read your blithering
nonsense. You see, I will employ what others here have been telling
you that you should do: Ignore the posters you want to ignore. I
happen to use Google Groups, so I need to manually skip your
comments. Others have it easier whenever they filter their newsgroups
using their e-mail. But is is really a quite simple thing to do. Try
it. You will be surprised.
And I hope Lew, Rotaboy, Doug, and all the rest still post the same
way as they always have because their jokes do not bother people who
have thick skins and can take it with a grain of salt. I am glad they
are not the wussy-type like you are Neil. You are probably a hoot to
be around. Hell, I would rather be around my sister's Pet Rock she
bought whenever we were kids in the 70's--it has a lot more
personality than you!
Bye, Neil.
On Feb 28, 12:38=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bye, Neil.
>
> I hope that means you're done feeding the troll.
>
> Please. Just. Stop. Feeding. It.
Yes, I am done.
In article <a64c9c5f-52b2-4f10-8ba8-b06b74c5a286@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Bye, Neil.
I hope that means you're done feeding the troll.
Please. Just. Stop. Feeding. It.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:00:38 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:40 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 9:16 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 10:31 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 28, 12:06 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34 pm, Dave Balderstone
>>
>> > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> > > > > > > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>>
>> > > > > Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
>> > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>>
>> > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
>> > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>>
>> > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
>> > > > > response to be?
>>
>> > > > > I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
>>
>> > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
>> > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>>
>> > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
>> > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>>
>> > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are).
>>
>> > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
>> > > of evidence.
>>
>> > > Not surprising.
>>
>> > > > If
>> > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
>> > > > this news group for a long time. This is one of the first places
>> > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
>> > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. He
>> > > > either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spew back, I
>> > > > will stick to this position.
>>
>> > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
>> > > > Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
>> > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>>
>> > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
>> > > > polluting all the threads you respond in.
>>
>> > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. I
>> > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
>> > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
>> > > insults.
>>
>> > > Neat, huh?
>>
>> > > > They were right. If you
>> > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bottom line
>> > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
>> > > > side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is because God
>> > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
>> > > > something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name are a
>> > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
>> > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>>
>> > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>>
>> > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>>
>> > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
>> > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>>
>> > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
>> > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
>> > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
>> > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>>
>> > > Nobody.
>>
>> > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>>
>> > > Care to try?
>>
>> > > Still listening.
>>
>> > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>>
>> > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
>> > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
>> > the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
>> > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
>> > wishes.
>>
>> > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
>> > moderated, why not just go to them?
>>
>> It's not an either-or proposition.
>>
>> > Oh, because, like you said, you
>> > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A self-
>> > proclaimed oxymoron.
>>
>> Rrrrrrright.
>>
>> And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
>> DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>>
>> Uh ..... no.
>>
>> > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
>> > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
>> > will die on its own.
>>
>> Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
>> endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>>
>> The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>>
>> That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
>> Coptic Church.
>>
>> > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
>> > you.
>>
>> WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>> > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>>
>> I do? Where??
>>
>> If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
>> than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
>> fun :-)
>>
>> > debatable but even
>> > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a shame
>> > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
>> > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>>
>> Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>>
>> It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>>
>> > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
>> > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>>
>> You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
>> you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
>> those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>>
>> I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
>> pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>>
>> Wow.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
>> enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
>> will die on its own.
>
>Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
>endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
>
>Um, knucklehead, if this newsgroup is perceived to be such a
>horrendous place, it will die on its own. If it does not, that means
>people still enjoy to come in here. It is quite simple.
No. Your *explanation* is that simple.
It is also that wildly incorrect.
See my last. While the majority may find the KKK absolutely
repugnant, there is still a minority that will join their ranks.
If you need that typed more slowly, I am more than happy to oblige.
Just ask ;-)
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:06:40 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You are a Christian in deeds....you are right: you know nothing about
>being a Christian. Just because you act like you are on moral high
>ground in one area but are a rude, bigoted,
Bigoted??
I'll just blithely ask you to defend that statement, and await your
response :-)
> offensive person in so
>many others, you aren't "acting" like a Christian. Actually, a lot of
>people who believe they are "good" and "nice" and what have you but
>claim they are agnostic are going to go straight to hell.
Ouch.
Not believing in Hell, I don't find that particularly daunting.
Not believing in Hell, in fact, I tend to try to keep the scorecard
clean, while I'm here.
>Oh, well, as long as I can keep you arguing with me, the rest of the
>group is off the hook.
It's not an either-or proposition.
You're rather fond of those, aren't you??
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
>>should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
>>of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
>>continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>
>
> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>
> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>
> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
> about "upside?"
I seriousely hope you never have anything of any benefit to actually
contrute to this group because I will miss it.
On Feb 28, 12:21=A0pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:57=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <[email protected]=
ups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my =
wonderful
> > > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane =
answer from
> > > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a coupl=
e of
> > > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you e=
xpect his
> > > > > > > response to be?
>
> > > > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't =
as thick,
> > > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legi=
t, direct,
> > > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are=
). =A0
>
> > > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally ber=
eft
> > > > > of evidence.
>
> > > > > Not surprising.
>
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known =
about
> > > > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first pl=
aces
> > > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodwork=
ing.
> > > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =
=A0He
> > > > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew=
back, I
> > > > > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has resp=
onded:
> > > > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "ba=
shed" my
> > > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you =
are
> > > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =
=A0I
> > > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, =
while
> > > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > > > > insults.
>
> > > > > Neat, huh?
>
> > > > > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bot=
tom line
> > > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not=
on the
> > > > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is be=
cause God
> > > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name a=
re a
> > > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised t=
hat
> > > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the=
kind
> > > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes =
that
> > > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > > > > Nobody.
>
> > > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > > > > Care to try?
>
> > > > > Still listening.
>
> > > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> > > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> > > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst int=
o
> > > > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt =
to
> > > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and you=
r
> > > > wishes.
>
> > > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of the=
m
> > > > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> > > It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> > > > Oh, because, like you said, you
> > > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self=
-
> > > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> > > Rrrrrrright.
>
> > > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> > > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> > > Uh ..... no.
>
> > > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it piss=
es
> > > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworkin=
g
> > > > will die on its own.
>
> > > Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
> > > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> > > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> > > That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of th=
e
> > > Coptic Church.
>
> > > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> > > > you. =A0
>
> > > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> > > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> > > I do? =A0Where??
>
> > > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
> > > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> > > fun :-)
>
> > > > debatable but even
> > > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a =
shame
> > > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will eve=
r
> > > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> > > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> > > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> > > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respo=
nd
> > > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> > > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> > > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> > > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> > > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> > > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> > > Wow.
>
> > "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
> > Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
> > from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
> > screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>
> > Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>
> Should I really? =A0There are bunched of the that can be found on the
> Internet.
>
> There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>
> There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>
> Lots more where those come from. =A0Neil can read them all.
*I* won't be reading them as I don't like them, but that doesn't give
FuckNutsneil the right to tell me whether or not I should read them. I
do love Jewish humour so I will tell them to those who like them.
I am my own censor, somehow FuckNutsneil doesn't trust me with my own
judgement..and I find that appalling.
On Feb 27, 4:21=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> > directly??
>
> > Robatoy? =A0Doug? =A0Mike Marlow??
>
> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> > Jack?? =A0I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>
> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>
> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> appreciate it?
>
> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
To a handful of people, perhaps.
What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
year?
What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
humor?
Isn't this a woodworking site?
Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
jokes that make fun of others?
Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
You really *can't* win this argument.
Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
side of the angels," on this issue.
It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
to things like libel and slander charges.
I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
*exceedingly* easy.
On Feb 27, 7:54=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you of the superiority of my
> position and I'm certainly not susceptible to your exegesis. One differen=
ce
> is I accept that you are offended, though I don't care, but you seem unab=
le
> to accept the reverse.
Nah. That's where you're wrong.
I'm not offended.
The collective you, OTOH, ARE offensive.
You want your little clubhouse where you can be as horrid as you want,
whether or not it dissuades others from participating.
But you don't want to GET a clubhouse. You like the public park.
> > Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> > side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> I'm proud of you. Of course every adversary on every position says they a=
re
> on God's side and that God approves of their stalwart stands.
Defend the opposing point of view, in THIS case.
I wish you luck!
>
> > I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. =A0That makes my job
> > *exceedingly* easy.
>
> I'm a little unclear as to what "job" you refer and, for the life of me, =
I
> can't comprehend how tilting a windmills is "easy."
Ah, but it is. Your "less well endowed" compatriots, here, throw out
arguments in Kindergarten fashion.
Being on the side of the angels -- like never being dishonest --
means never having to think for even a *second* before answering :-)
On Feb 27, 7:10=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Ray Kinzler" <bus.=
[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> >>> appreciate it?
>
> >>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
> >>To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> >>What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
> >>You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> >>Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> >>side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> >>It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
> >>to things like libel and slander charges.
>
> >>I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. =A0That makes my job
> >>*exceedingly* easy.
>
> >Well, don't read the jokes then. =A0Do not subscribe to the newsgroup. =
=A0Choose
> >to ignore. =A0There are a lot of things you can do if something offends =
you.
> >There are a lot of wood working groups out there--read them instead.
>
> PDFTFT.
Pity Doug Failed The Fairness Test.
Agreed.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>
>> >> Show some initiative. Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
>>
>> >I just did, apparently the question is too deep for you.
>>
>> Then you didn't find it.
>>
>> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>
>Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
>like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
You're funny, Buddy!
WHOOPS!!
On Feb 28, 12:51=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
> >> Show some initiative. =A0Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
>
> >I just did, =A0apparently the question is too deep for you.
>
> Then you didn't find it.
>
> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <[email protected].=
com>,
>
> > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wond=
erful
> > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answ=
er from
> > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expec=
t his
> > > > > response to be?
>
> > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as t=
hick,
> > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, d=
irect,
> > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =
=A0
>
> > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
> > > of evidence.
>
> > > Not surprising.
>
> > > > If
> > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known abou=
t
> > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew bac=
k, I
> > > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responde=
d:
> > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed=
" my
> > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0I
> > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, whil=
e
> > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > > insults.
>
> > > Neat, huh?
>
> > > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom =
line
> > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on =
the
> > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is becaus=
e God
> > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
> > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kin=
d
> > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
> > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > > Nobody.
>
> > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > > Care to try?
>
> > > Still listening.
>
> > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
> > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
> > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
> > wishes.
>
> > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
> > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> > Oh, because, like you said, you
> > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self-
> > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> Rrrrrrright.
>
> And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> Uh ..... no.
>
> > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> > will die on its own.
>
> Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
> endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
> Coptic Church.
>
> > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> > you. =A0
>
> WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> I do? =A0Where??
>
> If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
> than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> fun :-)
>
> > debatable but even
> > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a sham=
e
> > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
> > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> Wow.
You are a Christian in deeds....you are right: you know nothing about
being a Christian. Just because you act like you are on moral high
ground in one area but are a rude, bigoted, offensive person in so
many others, you aren't "acting" like a Christian. Actually, a lot of
people who believe they are "good" and "nice" and what have you but
claim they are agnostic are going to go straight to hell.
Oh, well, as long as I can keep you arguing with me, the rest of the
group is off the hook.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
> No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
> incredibly narrow demographic.
>
> Shame.
Perhaps if you let us in on your secret. WTF are you yammering about.
On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
> you, Doug, but ....
>
> Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
> response to be?
>
> I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
> or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
> reasonable shot at answering this one?
Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). If
this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
this news group for a long time. This is one of the first places
people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. He
either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spew back, I
will stick to this position.
And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
polluting all the threads you respond in. They were right. If you
are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bottom line
is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is because God
instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name are a
millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:34:34 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
>offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
>-- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
>if they drop by for WW info?
You read this group so it would depend upon the retention of the
usenet provider they select. In other words everything.
Problem with your questions is that the answers are right before
everyone.
Those answers will not change because you want them to.
Take a 24 hour break from usenet go and enjoy something else for a
bit.
Mark
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:44:37 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:21 pm, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 11:40 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 28, 10:31 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 28, 12:06 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34 pm, Dave Balderstone
>>
>> > > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> > > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> > > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>>
>> > > > > > > Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
>> > > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>>
>> > > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
>> > > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>>
>> > > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
>> > > > > > > response to be?
>>
>> > > > > > > I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
>>
>> > > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
>> > > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>>
>> > > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
>> > > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>>
>> > > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are).
>>
>> > > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
>> > > > > of evidence.
>>
>> > > > > Not surprising.
>>
>> > > > > > If
>> > > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
>> > > > > > this news group for a long time. This is one of the first places
>> > > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
>> > > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. He
>> > > > > > either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spew back, I
>> > > > > > will stick to this position.
>>
>> > > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
>> > > > > > Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
>> > > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>>
>> > > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
>> > > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in.
>>
>> > > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. I
>> > > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
>> > > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
>> > > > > insults.
>>
>> > > > > Neat, huh?
>>
>> > > > > > They were right. If you
>> > > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bottom line
>> > > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
>> > > > > > side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is because God
>> > > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
>> > > > > > something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name are a
>> > > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
>> > > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>>
>> > > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>>
>> > > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>>
>> > > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
>> > > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>>
>> > > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
>> > > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
>> > > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
>> > > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>>
>> > > > > Nobody.
>>
>> > > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>>
>> > > > > Care to try?
>>
>> > > > > Still listening.
>>
>> > > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>>
>> > > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
>> > > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
>> > > > the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
>> > > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
>> > > > wishes.
>>
>> > > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
>> > > > moderated, why not just go to them?
>>
>> > > It's not an either-or proposition.
>>
>> > > > Oh, because, like you said, you
>> > > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A self-
>> > > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>>
>> > > Rrrrrrright.
>>
>> > > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
>> > > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>>
>> > > Uh ..... no.
>>
>> > > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
>> > > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
>> > > > will die on its own.
>>
>> > > Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
>> > > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>>
>> > > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>>
>> > > That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
>> > > Coptic Church.
>>
>> > > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
>> > > > you.
>>
>> > > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>> > > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>>
>> > > I do? Where??
>>
>> > > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
>> > > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
>> > > fun :-)
>>
>> > > > debatable but even
>> > > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a shame
>> > > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
>> > > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>>
>> > > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>>
>> > > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>>
>> > > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
>> > > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>>
>> > > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
>> > > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
>> > > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>>
>> > > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
>> > > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>>
>> > > Wow.
>>
>> > "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
>> > Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
>> > from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
>> > screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>>
>> > Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>>
>> Should I really? There are bunched of the that can be found on the
>> Internet.
>>
>> There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>>
>> There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>>
>> Lots more where those come from. Neil can read them all.
>
>*I* won't be reading them as I don't like them, but that doesn't give
>FuckNutsneil the right to tell me whether or not I should read them.
Gosh, Bobby. I don't recall EVER telling you whether or not you
should read them.
Keep making it up as you go along, though....
>I
>do love Jewish humour so I will tell them to those who like them.
>I am my own censor, somehow FuckNutsneil doesn't trust me with my own
>judgement..and I find that appalling.
Save the pseudo-political bumper-sticker stuff for ... well ... "Mark
& Juanita" ;-)
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:35:32 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:11 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:06:40 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You are a Christian in deeds....you are right: you know nothing about
>> >being a Christian. Just because you act like you are on moral high
>> >ground in one area but are a rude, bigoted,
>>
>> Bigoted??
>>
>> I'll just blithely ask you to defend that statement, and await your
>> response :-)
>>
>> > offensive person in so
>> >many others, you aren't "acting" like a Christian. Actually, a lot of
>> >people who believe they are "good" and "nice" and what have you but
>> >claim they are agnostic are going to go straight to hell.
>>
>> Ouch.
>>
>> Not believing in Hell, I don't find that particularly daunting.
>>
>> Not believing in Hell, in fact, I tend to try to keep the scorecard
>> clean, while I'm here.
>>
>> >Oh, well, as long as I can keep you arguing with me, the rest of the
>> >group is off the hook.
>>
>> It's not an either-or proposition.
>>
>> You're rather fond of those, aren't you??
>
>Not believing in Hell does not mean it does not exist. :o)
>
>And, yes, I believe you are a bigot. I have to say, I have been on
>the Internet the last coupe of days is because I am laid up with
>pneumonia. Neil, I think you have too much time on your hands.
And that's YOUR definition of a bigot?
Fascinating!
>And, as far as it goes, if this group is repulsive to all you *good*
>people, then all you *good* people would go someplace else. But, of
>course, you are a modern day Elliott Ness and your job is to clean up
>rec.woodworking. Ha!
>
>Well, Neil, it has been fun but I can't give you anymore time or
>energy. I am sick enough as it is not to have to read your blithering
>nonsense. You see, I will employ what others here have been telling
>you that you should do: Ignore the posters you want to ignore. I
>happen to use Google Groups, so I need to manually skip your
>comments. Others have it easier whenever they filter their newsgroups
>using their e-mail. But is is really a quite simple thing to do. Try
>it. You will be surprised.
Not interested, but ... thanks.
Hope you're on antibiotics, and have a speedy recovery!
>And I hope Lew, Rotaboy, Doug, and all the rest still post the same
>way as they always have because their jokes do not bother people who
>have thick skins and can take it with a grain of salt.
Ohhhhhhhh, the hypocrisy!
> I am glad they
>are not the wussy-type like you are Neil.
Ouch.
Weak. Coward. Wussy-type.
I'm reeling....
> You are probably a hoot to
>be around. Hell, I would rather be around my sister's Pet Rock she
>bought whenever we were kids in the 70's--it has a lot more
>personality than you!
Ouch.
>Bye, Neil.
On Feb 28, 12:40=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> >> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> > I'm curious. Why not??
>
> >> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> >> > directly??
>
> >> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>
> >> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> >> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> >> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>
> >> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> >> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>
> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> >> appreciate it?
>
> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
> >What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
> >suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
> >year?
>
> >What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
> >who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
> >What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
> >humor?
>
> >Isn't this a woodworking site?
>
> >Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>
> >So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
>
> >Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
> >forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
> >jokes that make fun of others?
>
> >Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>
> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>
> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. =A0That makes my job
> >*exceedingly* easy.
>
> >Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
> >should not see? =A0Are you a communist? =A0Wake up, your neighbors are c=
apable
> >of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
> >continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>
> a) Why does it matter. =A0It's either a valid point or it isn't.
To use YOUR line...MUST things be black or white?
>
> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. =A0It
> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>
> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
> about "upside?"
I will answer that as soon as you clearly prove there NEEDS to be an
'upside'.
On Feb 28, 12:52=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:50:37 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]=
...
> >> >On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> >> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderfu=
l
> >> >> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> >> > I'm curious. Why not??
>
> >> >> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> >> >> > directly??
>
> >> >> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>
> >> >> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> >> >> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> >> >> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>
> >> >> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> >> >> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>
> >> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> >> >> appreciate it?
>
> >> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
> >> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> >> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
> >> >What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
> >> >suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
> >> >year?
>
> >> >What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
> >> >who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
> >> >What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
> >> >humor?
>
> >> >Isn't this a woodworking site?
>
> >> >Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>
> >> >So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing.=
"
>
> >> >Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
> >> >forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
> >> >jokes that make fun of others?
>
> >> >Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>
> >> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> >> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> >> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> >> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
> >> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>
> >> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
> >> >*exceedingly* easy.
>
> >> >Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think th=
ey
> >> >should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capa=
ble
> >> >of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they c=
an
> >> >continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>
> >> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>
> >To use YOUR line...MUST things be black or white?
>
> Give me a few examples of the gray area.
>
> >> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
> >> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
> >> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>
> >> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
> >> about "upside?"
>
> >I will answer that as soon as you clearly prove there NEEDS to be an
> >'upside'.
>
> There doesn't need to be ANY upside to you injecting yourself with a
> high dose of insulin.
>
> If you're not interested in looking at the risk:reward equation, may I
> mail you a hypodermic full??
Are you wishing me dead?
On Feb 28, 11:57=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <[email protected]=
s.com>,
>
> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wo=
nderful
> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane an=
swer from
> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple =
of
> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you exp=
ect his
> > > > > > response to be?
>
> > > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as=
thick,
> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit,=
direct,
> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are).=
=A0
>
> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally beref=
t
> > > > of evidence.
>
> > > > Not surprising.
>
> > > > > If
> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known ab=
out
> > > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first plac=
es
> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworkin=
g.
> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0=
He
> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew b=
ack, I
> > > > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has respon=
ded:
> > > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bash=
ed" my
> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you ar=
e
> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0=
I
> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, wh=
ile
> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > > > insults.
>
> > > > Neat, huh?
>
> > > > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Botto=
m line
> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not o=
n the
> > > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is beca=
use God
> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are=
a
> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised tha=
t
> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the k=
ind
> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes th=
at
> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > > > Nobody.
>
> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > > > Care to try?
>
> > > > Still listening.
>
> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
> > > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
> > > wishes.
>
> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
> > > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self-
> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> > Rrrrrrright.
>
> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> > Uh ..... no.
>
> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> > > will die on its own.
>
> > Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> > That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
> > Coptic Church.
>
> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> > > you. =A0
>
> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> > I do? =A0Where??
>
> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> > fun :-)
>
> > > debatable but even
> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a sh=
ame
> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> > Wow.
>
> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>
> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
Should I really? There are bunched of the that can be found on the
Internet.
There are a ton here: http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
There are more here: http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
Lots more where those come from. Neil can read them all.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
> Show some initiative. Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
I just did, apparently the question is too deep for you.
In news:[email protected],
Doug Miller <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Ray Kinzler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>>>> appreciate it?
>>>>
>>>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>>
>>> To a handful of people, perhaps.
>>>
>>> What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>>>
>>> You really *can't* win this argument.
>>>
>>> Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on
>>> the side of the angels," on this issue.
>>>
>>> It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate
>>> defense" to things like libel and slander charges.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>>> *exceedingly* easy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, don't read the jokes then. Do not subscribe to the newsgroup.
>> Choose to ignore. There are a lot of things you can do if something
>> offends you. There are a lot of wood working groups out there--read
>> them instead.
>>
>
> PDFTFT.
AMEN to that
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> I'm curious. Why not??
>
> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> directly??
This post does say a lot about you though.
On Feb 28, 3:49=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:48=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:27=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 28, 1:05=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 28, 12:51=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]=
net>
> > > >> >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <lcb11...@swbell.=
dotnet>
>
> > > >> >> >> Show some initiative. =A0Do two minutes of inquiry on your o=
wn :-)
>
> > > >> >> >I just did, =A0apparently the question is too deep for you.
>
> > > >> >> Then you didn't find it.
>
> > > >> >> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>
> > > >> >Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts i=
s
> > > >> >like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
>
> > > >> I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
>
> > > >> That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
>
> > > >> You're funny, Buddy!
>
> > > >> WHOOPS!!
>
> > > >Yea... now that you're clearly boxed into a corner
>
> > > "Boxed into a corner?"
>
> > > ROTFLMFAO!!!!
>
> > Yup... boxed into a corner. You're bleeding, and you remind of the
> > knight who said "Ni!"
>
> Wrong knight.
>
> You *really* ought to do your homework.
How about that... after allll your drivel, you finally got one thing
right.
On Feb 28, 1:27=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 1:05=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 28, 12:51=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]=
et>
>
> >> >> >> Show some initiative. =A0Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :=
-)
>
> >> >> >I just did, =A0apparently the question is too deep for you.
>
> >> >> Then you didn't find it.
>
> >> >> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>
> >> >Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
> >> >like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
>
> >> I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
>
> >> That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
>
> >> You're funny, Buddy!
>
> >> WHOOPS!!
>
> >Yea... now that you're clearly boxed into a corner
>
> "Boxed into a corner?"
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!!
>
Yup... boxed into a corner. You're bleeding, and you remind of the
knight who said "Ni!"
On Feb 28, 1:48=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:27=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Feb 28, 1:05=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 28, 12:51=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]=
t>
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> > >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]=
tnet>
>
> > >> >> >> Show some initiative. =A0Do two minutes of inquiry on your own=
:-)
>
> > >> >> >I just did, =A0apparently the question is too deep for you.
>
> > >> >> Then you didn't find it.
>
> > >> >> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>
> > >> >Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
> > >> >like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
>
> > >> I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
>
> > >> That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
>
> > >> You're funny, Buddy!
>
> > >> WHOOPS!!
>
> > >Yea... now that you're clearly boxed into a corner
>
> > "Boxed into a corner?"
>
> > ROTFLMFAO!!!!
>
> Yup... boxed into a corner. You're bleeding, and you remind of the
> knight who said "Ni!"
Wrong knight.
You *really* ought to do your homework.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 1:05 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>
>> >> >> Show some initiative. Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
>>
>> >> >I just did, apparently the question is too deep for you.
>>
>> >> Then you didn't find it.
>>
>> >> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>>
>> >Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
>> >like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
>>
>> I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
>>
>> That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
>>
>> You're funny, Buddy!
>>
>> WHOOPS!!
>
>Yea... now that you're clearly boxed into a corner
"Boxed into a corner?"
ROTFLMFAO!!!!
> you try to play
>nice?
I'm not "playing nice" with you! You're just playing with yourself!!
> Fuck you, neil.
Please wear a condom. Think of the children!
On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <[email protected].=
com>,
>
> > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wond=
erful
> > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answ=
er from
> > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expec=
t his
> > > > > response to be?
>
> > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as t=
hick,
> > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, d=
irect,
> > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =
=A0
>
> > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
> > > of evidence.
>
> > > Not surprising.
>
> > > > If
> > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known abou=
t
> > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew bac=
k, I
> > > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responde=
d:
> > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed=
" my
> > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0I
> > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, whil=
e
> > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > > insults.
>
> > > Neat, huh?
>
> > > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom =
line
> > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on =
the
> > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is becaus=
e God
> > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
> > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kin=
d
> > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
> > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > > Nobody.
>
> > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > > Care to try?
>
> > > Still listening.
>
> > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
> > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
> > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
> > wishes.
>
> > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
> > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> > Oh, because, like you said, you
> > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self-
> > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> Rrrrrrright.
>
> And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> Uh ..... no.
>
> > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> > will die on its own.
>
> Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
> endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
> Coptic Church.
>
> > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> > you. =A0
>
> WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> I do? =A0Where??
>
> If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
> than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> fun :-)
>
> > debatable but even
> > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a sham=
e
> > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
> > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> Wow.
"And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer fro=
m
> > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
> > response to be?
>
> > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
> > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
> > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =A0
Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
of evidence.
Not surprising.
> If
> this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
> this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew back, I
> will stick to this position.
>
> And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
> Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
> ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. I
notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
insults.
Neat, huh?
> They were right. =A0If you
> are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom line
> is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
> side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is because God
> instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
I'm NOT a religious person.
I used that expression ... as an expression.
Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
-- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
many of you seem limited to telling.
Nobody.
Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
Care to try?
Still listening.
And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
.
> I'll give you this much: you are a heartless, soulless, sadistic fuck.
>
> You WILL let me know, won't you, what your "hell" is like?
>
> Just bought yourself a Coach class ticket....
You may like this one, too, Neil:
Did you hear about the Chinese couple that had a black baby?
They named him "Sum Ting Wong"
On Feb 28, 5:42=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d0a0ef80-3799-4607-a0fb-dff128a8cc17@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I'll give you this much: you are a heartless, soulless, sadistic fuck=
.
>
> > > You WILL let me know, won't you, what your "hell" is like?
>
> > > Just bought yourself a Coach class ticket....
> > :o)
>
> Busbus - you've hit on the key. =A0He's starting to explode....
>
Yea.. neil is losing it.t
On Feb 28, 12:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 28, 12:34 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 28, 11:40 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Feb 28, 10:31 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34 pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> >> >> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > In article
> >> >> > > > > > > <[email protected]=
egroups.com>,
>
> >> >> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of=
my wonderful
> >> >> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> >> > > > > > > > I'm curious. Why not??
>
> >> >> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> >> >> > > > > > Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane=
answer from
> >> >> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> >> >> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a c=
ouple of
> >> >> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> >> >> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do y=
ou expect his
> >> >> > > > > > response to be?
>
> >> >> > > > > > I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
>
> >> >> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin is=
n't as thick,
> >> >> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> >> >> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a leg=
it, direct,
> >> >> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> >> >> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you=
are).
>
> >> >> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally=
bereft
> >> >> > > > of evidence.
>
> >> >> > > > Not surprising.
>
> >> >> > > > > If
> >> >> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has kn=
own about
> >> >> > > > > this news group for a long time. This is one of the first p=
laces
> >> >> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in wood=
working.
> >> >> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been her=
e. He
> >> >> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spe=
w back, I
> >> >> > > > > will stick to this position.
>
> >> >> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has =
responded:
> >> >> > > > > Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "b=
ashed" my
> >> >> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> >> >> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like =
you are
> >> >> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in.
>
> >> >> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shi=
t. I
> >> >> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questio=
ns, while
> >> >> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juven=
ile
> >> >> > > > insults.
>
> >> >> > > > Neat, huh?
>
> >> >> > > > > They were right. If you
> >> >> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bo=
ttom line
> >> >> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly=
not on the
> >> >> > > > > side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is b=
ecause God
> >> >> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and resp=
ect;
> >> >> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name =
are a
> >> >> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and ha=
ve
> >> >> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> >> >> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> >> >> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> >> >> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surpris=
ed that
> >> >> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on =
you.
>
> >> >> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with=
the kind
> >> >> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any numbe=
r of
> >> >> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jo=
kes that
> >> >> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> >> >> > > > Nobody.
>
> >> >> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> >> >> > > > Care to try?
>
> >> >> > > > Still listening.
>
> >> >> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> >> >> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take=
you
> >> >> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst=
into
> >> >> > > the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt=
to
> >> >> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and=
your
> >> >> > > wishes.
>
> >> >> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of=
them
> >> >> > > moderated, why not just go to them?
>
> >> >> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> >> >> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
> >> >> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A sel=
f-
> >> >> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> >> >> > Rrrrrrright.
>
> >> >> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> >> >> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> >> >> > Uh ..... no.
>
> >> >> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it =
pisses
> >> >> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodwo=
rking
> >> >> > > will die on its own.
>
> >> >> > Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be yo=
u
> >> >> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> >> >> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> >> >> > That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of t=
he
> >> >> > Coptic Church.
>
> >> >> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally ca=
lled
> >> >> > > you.
>
> >> >> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> >> >> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> >> >> > I do? Where??
>
> >> >> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had =
said
> >> >> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> >> >> > fun :-)
>
> >> >> > > debatable but even
> >> >> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a=
shame
> >> >> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will=
ever
> >> >> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> >> >> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> >> >> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> >> >> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to r=
espond
> >> >> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> >> >> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response =
...
> >> >> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts=
of
> >> >> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> >> >> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be =
a
> >> >> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> >> >> > Wow.
>
> >> >> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of o=
ur
> >> >> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdo=
ms
> >> >> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking a=
nd
> >> >> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>
> >> >> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>
> >> >Should I really? There are bunched of the that can be found on the
> >> >Internet.
>
> >> >There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>
> >> >There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>
> >> >Lots more where those come from. Neil can read them all.
>
> >> Of course, I won't. I'm simply not interested.
>
> >> But ... you're "Christian?"
>
> >> I'm asking.
>
> >> Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
> >> offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
> >> -- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
> >> if they drop by for WW info?
>
> >> Wow.
>
> >It is posted here because it is a public forum. =A0It is not a moderated
> >forum. =A0If you want that, go join one.
>
> If YOU want one that EXCLUDES those who don't like 'tasteless' jokes,
> then [wait for it] ... why don't YOU start one?
>
> >If you friend would like these jokes, what is his e-mail address?
> >They can be sent to him.
>
> I'll give you this much: you are a heartless, soulless, sadistic fuck.
>
> You WILL let me know, won't you, what your "hell" is like?
>
> Just bought yourself a Coach class ticket....
:o)
"busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d0a0ef80-3799-4607-a0fb-dff128a8cc17@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'll give you this much: you are a heartless, soulless, sadistic fuck.
> >
> > You WILL let me know, won't you, what your "hell" is like?
> >
> > Just bought yourself a Coach class ticket....
> :o)
Busbus - you've hit on the key. He's starting to explode....
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Feb 28, 1:06=A0pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:49:46 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Nope. =A0Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
>
> No need to though, no one can control what anyone posts here.
> Therefore "tasteless humor" will continue to be posted here.
In all honesty, tasteless humour is relatively rare here.
> Anyone who would want to moderate the forum ain't gonna get the job.
> No one else wants the job, except perhaps yourself which disqualifies
> you.
>
> So continue on and I will let them folks in AUK we got a live one
> here, someone there would absolutely love you.
>
> Mark
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:49:46 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Nope. Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
No need to though, no one can control what anyone posts here.
Therefore "tasteless humor" will continue to be posted here.
Anyone who would want to moderate the forum ain't gonna get the job.
No one else wants the job, except perhaps yourself which disqualifies
you.
So continue on and I will let them folks in AUK we got a live one
here, someone there would absolutely love you.
Mark
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:45:14 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:34:34 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
>>offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
>>-- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
>>if they drop by for WW info?
>
>You read this group so it would depend upon the retention of the
>usenet provider they select. In other words everything.
>
>Problem with your questions is that the answers are right before
>everyone.
Nope. Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
>Those answers will not change because you want them to.
>
>Take a 24 hour break from usenet go and enjoy something else for a
>bit.
I had a very full day, yesterday, and will have another very full day,
today.
But thanks!
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:40:38 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:34 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), busbus <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 28, 11:57 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 28, 11:40 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Feb 28, 10:31 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Feb 28, 12:06 am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 9:48 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34 pm, Dave Balderstone
>>
>> >> > > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > In article
>> >> > > > > > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> >> > > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Alright. I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
>> >> > > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>>
>> >> > > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
>> >> > > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>>
>> >> > > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
>> >> > > > > > response to be?
>>
>> >> > > > > > I know what it will be. Tears and horror.
>>
>> >> > > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
>> >> > > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>>
>> >> > > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
>> >> > > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>>
>> >> > > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are).
>>
>> >> > > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
>> >> > > > of evidence.
>>
>> >> > > > Not surprising.
>>
>> >> > > > > If
>> >> > > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
>> >> > > > > this news group for a long time. This is one of the first places
>> >> > > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
>> >> > > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. He
>> >> > > > > either liked it or he didn't. No matter what poison you spew back, I
>> >> > > > > will stick to this position.
>>
>> >> > > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
>> >> > > > > Take a joke. There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
>> >> > > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>>
>> >> > > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
>> >> > > > > polluting all the threads you respond in.
>>
>> >> > > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. I
>> >> > > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
>> >> > > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
>> >> > > > insults.
>>
>> >> > > > Neat, huh?
>>
>> >> > > > > They were right. If you
>> >> > > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... Bottom line
>> >> > > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
>> >> > > > > side of the angels. The main reason you are full of it is because God
>> >> > > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
>> >> > > > > something that is very foreign to you. Insults in His Name are a
>> >> > > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
>> >> > > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>>
>> >> > > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>>
>> >> > > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>>
>> >> > > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
>> >> > > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>>
>> >> > > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
>> >> > > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
>> >> > > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
>> >> > > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>>
>> >> > > > Nobody.
>>
>> >> > > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>>
>> >> > > > Care to try?
>>
>> >> > > > Still listening.
>>
>> >> > > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>>
>> >> > > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
>> >> > > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
>> >> > > the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
>> >> > > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
>> >> > > wishes.
>>
>> >> > > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
>> >> > > moderated, why not just go to them?
>>
>> >> > It's not an either-or proposition.
>>
>> >> > > Oh, because, like you said, you
>> >> > > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A self-
>> >> > > proclaimed oxymoron.
>>
>> >> > Rrrrrrright.
>>
>> >> > And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
>> >> > DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>>
>> >> > Uh ..... no.
>>
>> >> > > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
>> >> > > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
>> >> > > will die on its own.
>>
>> >> > Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
>> >> > endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>>
>> >> > The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>>
>> >> > That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
>> >> > Coptic Church.
>>
>> >> > > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
>> >> > > you.
>>
>> >> > WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>>
>> >> > > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>>
>> >> > I do? Where??
>>
>> >> > If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
>> >> > than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
>> >> > fun :-)
>>
>> >> > > debatable but even
>> >> > > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a shame
>> >> > > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
>> >> > > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>>
>> >> > Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>>
>> >> > It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>>
>> >> > > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
>> >> > > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>>
>> >> > You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
>> >> > you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
>> >> > those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>>
>> >> > I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
>> >> > pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>>
>> >> > Wow.
>>
>> >> "And with that "Wow" from neil, we have come to the conclusion of our
>> >> Special Needs programming. Those of you who want to hear more wisdoms
>> >> from neil, please stay tuned as he will no doubt get into kicking and
>> >> screaming when we no longer reply to him/it/her."
>>
>> >> Now, for the Dead Baby Special, heeeeeeeeeere's BUSBUS!!!
>>
>> >Should I really? There are bunched of the that can be found on the
>> >Internet.
>>
>> >There are a ton here:http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
>>
>> >There are more here:http://www.skrause.org/humor/deadbaby.shtml
>>
>> >Lots more where those come from. Neil can read them all.
>>
>> Of course, I won't. I'm simply not interested.
>>
>> But ... you're "Christian?"
>>
>> I'm asking.
>>
>> Second question: since this is a public venue, what is the upside to
>> offering up such jokes, when people like my dear woodworking neighbor
>> -- who lost a baby, last year -- might well be expected to see them,
>> if they drop by for WW info?
>>
>> Wow.
>
>
>It is posted here because it is a public forum. It is not a moderated
>forum. If you want that, go join one.
If YOU want one that EXCLUDES those who don't like 'tasteless' jokes,
then [wait for it] ... why don't YOU start one?
>If you friend would like these jokes, what is his e-mail address?
>They can be sent to him.
I'll give you this much: you are a heartless, soulless, sadistic fuck.
You WILL let me know, won't you, what your "hell" is like?
Just bought yourself a Coach class ticket....
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:04:13 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:00:40 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>>>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>>>
>>>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>>>> directly??
>>>
>>>This post does say a lot about you though.
>>
>>Then you don't understand it.
>>
>>No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
>>incredibly narrow demographic.
>>
>>Shame.
>
>Take the fucking blinders off (or remove thy head from where the sun
>don't shine).
>
>You have single handedly blown up all but your own high ground you
>know?
>
>Mark
Nah. Still rock solid.
The only thing that hasn't changed is the audience. But I'm an
*incredibly* patient and tenacious individual!
Thanks, though!
On Feb 27, 4:49=A0pm, "Ray Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> >> appreciate it?
>
> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>
> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. =A0That makes my job
> >*exceedingly* easy.
>
> Well, don't read the jokes then. =A0Do not subscribe to the newsgroup. =
=A0Choose
> to ignore. =A0There are a lot of things you can do if something offends y=
ou.
> There are a lot of wood working groups out there--read them instead.
I LIKE this one.
I feel very comfortable, welcome, and loved, here.
I'm staying :-)
On Feb 28, 1:06=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:02:27 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 12:52=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:50:37 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected].=
com...
> >> >> >On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
> >> >> >> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonde=
rful
> >> >> >> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> >> >> >> > I'm curious. Why not??
>
> >> >> >> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> >> >> >> > directly??
>
> >> >> >> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>
> >> >> >> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> >> >> >> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> >> >> >> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer joke=
s.
>
> >> >> >> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> >> >> >> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>
> >> >> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would n=
ot
> >> >> >> appreciate it?
>
> >> >> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread jo=
y.
>
> >> >> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> >> >> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
> >> >> >What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
> >> >> >suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, las=
t
> >> >> >year?
>
> >> >> >What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brothe=
r,
> >> >> >who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
> >> >> >What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gall=
ows
> >> >> >humor?
>
> >> >> >Isn't this a woodworking site?
>
> >> >> >Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>
> >> >> >So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missi=
ng."
>
> >> >> >Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
> >> >> >forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
> >> >> >jokes that make fun of others?
>
> >> >> >Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>
> >> >> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>
> >> >> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on =
the
> >> >> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>
> >> >> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defen=
se"
> >> >> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>
> >> >> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
> >> >> >*exceedingly* easy.
>
> >> >> >Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think=
they
> >> >> >should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are c=
apable
> >> >> >of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group the=
y can
> >> >> >continue their search like any one else capable of making decision=
s.
>
> >> >> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>
> >> >To use YOUR line...MUST things be black or white?
>
> >> Give me a few examples of the gray area.
>
> >> >> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
> >> >> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
> >> >> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>
> >> >> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
> >> >> about "upside?"
>
> >> >I will answer that as soon as you clearly prove there NEEDS to be an
> >> >'upside'.
>
> >> There doesn't need to be ANY upside to you injecting yourself with a
> >> high dose of insulin.
>
> >> If you're not interested in looking at the risk:reward equation, may I
> >> mail you a hypodermic full??
>
> >Are you wishing me dead?
>
> Here ya' go, Buddy. =A0It's past time:
>
> http://www.rif.org/
Thank you for posting that link, neil. I'll waste no time clicking on
it.
On Feb 28, 1:05=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:01:32 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 12:51=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>
> >> >> Show some initiative. =A0Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
>
> >> >I just did, =A0apparently the question is too deep for you.
>
> >> Then you didn't find it.
>
> >> Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
>
> >Trying to find anything coherent from you in the last 300 posts is
> >like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.
>
> I can't tell Spruce from Pine from Fir, either.
>
> That doesn't mean there isn't an actual difference.
>
> You're funny, Buddy!
>
> WHOOPS!!
Yea... now that you're clearly boxed into a corner you try to play
nice? Fuck you, neil.
On Feb 27, 7:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer from
> you, Doug, but ....
>
> Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect his
> response to be?
>
> I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick,
> or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, direct,
> reasonable shot at answering this one?
Sorry. Dave. I used the wrong name, initially.
I don't mean to insult you by slight. I'd MUCH rather do it,
directly :-)
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:02:27 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:52 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:50:37 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> >> >> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> >> >> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> >> >> > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> >> >> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>> >> >> > directly??
>>
>> >> >> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>>
>> >> >> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>>
>> >> >> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
>> >> >> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>>
>> >> >> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>>
>> >> >> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>>
>> >> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> >> >> appreciate it?
>>
>> >> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>>
>> >> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>>
>> >> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>>
>> >> >What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
>> >> >suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
>> >> >year?
>>
>> >> >What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
>> >> >who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>>
>> >> >What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
>> >> >humor?
>>
>> >> >Isn't this a woodworking site?
>>
>> >> >Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>>
>> >> >So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
>>
>> >> >Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
>> >> >forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
>> >> >jokes that make fun of others?
>>
>> >> >Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>>
>> >> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>>
>> >> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>> >> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>>
>> >> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>> >> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>>
>> >> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>> >> >*exceedingly* easy.
>>
>> >> >Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
>> >> >should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
>> >> >of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
>> >> >continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>>
>> >> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>>
>> >To use YOUR line...MUST things be black or white?
>>
>> Give me a few examples of the gray area.
>>
>> >> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
>> >> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
>> >> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>>
>> >> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
>> >> about "upside?"
>>
>> >I will answer that as soon as you clearly prove there NEEDS to be an
>> >'upside'.
>>
>> There doesn't need to be ANY upside to you injecting yourself with a
>> high dose of insulin.
>>
>> If you're not interested in looking at the risk:reward equation, may I
>> mail you a hypodermic full??
>
>Are you wishing me dead?
Here ya' go, Buddy. It's past time:
http://www.rif.org/
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:41:12 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>>
>> Show some initiative. Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
>
>
>I just did, apparently the question is too deep for you.
Then you didn't find it.
Apparently, inquiry is beyond YOU ;-)
On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <[email protected].=
com>,
>
> > > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wond=
erful
> > > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answ=
er from
> > > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expec=
t his
> > > > > response to be?
>
> > > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as t=
hick,
> > > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, d=
irect,
> > > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =
=A0
>
> > > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
> > > of evidence.
>
> > > Not surprising.
>
> > > > If
> > > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known abou=
t
> > > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> > > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> > > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> > > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew bac=
k, I
> > > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responde=
d:
> > > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed=
" my
> > > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> > > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0I
> > > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, whil=
e
> > > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > > insults.
>
> > > Neat, huh?
>
> > > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom =
line
> > > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on =
the
> > > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is becaus=
e God
> > > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> > > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
> > > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kin=
d
> > > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
> > > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > > Nobody.
>
> > > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > > Care to try?
>
> > > Still listening.
>
> > > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> > Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> > serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
> > the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
> > listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
> > wishes.
>
> > There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
> > moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
>
> It's not an either-or proposition.
>
> > Oh, because, like you said, you
> > are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self-
> > proclaimed oxymoron.
>
> Rrrrrrright.
>
> And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
> DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
>
> Uh ..... no.
>
> > If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> > enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> > will die on its own.
>
> Uh ... no. =A0I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
> endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
>
> The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
>
> That's an analogy. =A0Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
> Coptic Church.
>
> > No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> > you. =A0
>
> WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
>
> > You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
>
> I do? =A0Where??
>
> If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
> than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
> fun :-)
>
> > debatable but even
> > Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a sham=
e
> > if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
> > "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
>
> Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
>
> It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
>
> > And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> > with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
>
> You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
> you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
> those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
>
> I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
> pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
>
> Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> will die on its own.
Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
Um, knucklehead, if this newsgroup is perceived to be such a
horrendous place, it will die on its own. If it does not, that means
people still enjoy to come in here. It is quite simple.
On Feb 28, 9:16=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <[email protected]=
m>,
>
> > > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonder=
ful
> > > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer=
from
> > > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect =
his
> > > > response to be?
>
> > > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thi=
ck,
> > > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, dir=
ect,
> > > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =A0
>
> > Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
> > of evidence.
>
> > Not surprising.
>
> > > If
> > > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
> > > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> > > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> > > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> > > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew back,=
I
> > > will stick to this position.
>
> > > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
> > > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed" =
my
> > > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> > > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> > Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0I
> > notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
> > the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> > insults.
>
> > Neat, huh?
>
> > > They were right. =A0If you
> > > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom li=
ne
> > > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on th=
e
> > > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is because =
God
> > > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> > > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> > I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> > I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> > Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
> > -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> > Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
> > of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> > woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
> > many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> > Nobody.
>
> > Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> > Care to try?
>
> > Still listening.
>
> > And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
>
> Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
> serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
> the newsgroup. =A0But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
> listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
> wishes.
>
> There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
> moderated, why not just go to them? =A0
It's not an either-or proposition.
> Oh, because, like you said, you
> are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. =A0A self-
> proclaimed oxymoron.
Rrrrrrright.
And when I accidentally get my thumb with a hammer, and say "God
DAMMIT," I'm not a practicing theist?
Uh ..... no.
> If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
> enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
> will die on its own.
Uh ... no. I'd be grateful to view the spectacle that WOULD be you
endeavoring to defend THAT statement.
The Klan is alive and well, and recruiting members.
That's an analogy. Using analogies doesn't mean I'm a member of the
Coptic Church.
> No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
> you. =A0
WHAAAAAAAAA!!!
> You claim you know a lot about woodworking:
I do? Where??
If you find it easier to argue against that which you wish I had said
than it is to argue against what I actually DO say, then ... have
fun :-)
> debatable but even
> Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. =A0It's a shame
> if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
> "hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
Take a moment and re-read what you just wrote.
It was entertaining to me, but ... not impressive.
> And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
You take offense to that which I've said, and so ... in response ...
you will do your damnedest to stick a burning knife into the guts of
those who have experienced unimaginable tragedy???
I'm an agnostic, but ... as I'm fond of saying .... I seem to be a
pretty damned Christian person, in deeds.
Wow.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:10:10 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 1:06 pm, Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:49:46 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Nope. Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
>>
>> No need to though, no one can control what anyone posts here.
>> Therefore "tasteless humor" will continue to be posted here.
>
>In all honesty, tasteless humour is relatively rare here.
All evidence to the contrary......
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:08:23 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:06:13 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:49:46 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
>>
>>No need to though, no one can control what anyone posts here.
>
>Except the posters, themselves, you mean.
Well there ya go, and if someone post something they probably do not
find it distasteful right. Unless it is done for shock value, like
bait.
Catch 22 applies all through anything futher you know?
Mark
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:34:31 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
>>
>> No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
>> incredibly narrow demographic.
>>
>> Shame.
>
>
>Perhaps if you let us in on your secret. WTF are you yammering about.
>
Show some initiative. Do two minutes of inquiry on your own :-)
On Feb 28, 10:31=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:06=A0am, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:48=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 7:34=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674...@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>=
,
>
> > > > Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderfu=
l
> > > > > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > > > > I'm curious. =A0Why not??
>
> > > > Because your neighbour isn't a fuck-head on usenet.
>
> > > Alright. =A0I could reasonably expect a preposterously inane answer f=
rom
> > > you, Doug, but ....
>
> > > Again ... I've forwarded info to him, recently, about a couple of
> > > online ww sites -- this one included.
>
> > > When he shows up, and sees the dead baby jokes, what do you expect hi=
s
> > > response to be?
>
> > > I know what it will be. =A0Tears and horror.
>
> > > So ... why exclude him, and the many others whose skin isn't as thick=
,
> > > or who are simply more evolved, than your little cabal?
>
> > > I used pretty small words, Dave. =A0Why don't YOU take a legit, direc=
t,
> > > reasonable shot at answering this one?
>
> > Because you are not telling the truth, Neil (or whoever you are). =A0
>
> Your gang is impressively loose with accusations, yet totally bereft
> of evidence.
>
> Not surprising.
>
> > If
> > this guy is such an accomplished woodworker, then he has known about
> > this news group for a long time. =A0This is one of the first places
> > people visit on the Internet if they are interested in woodworking.
> > If this guy exists, he knows of this place and has been here. =A0He
> > either liked it or he didn't. =A0No matter what poison you spew back, I
> > will stick to this position.
>
> > And I have to echo the opinions of everybody else that has responded:
> > Take a joke. =A0There have been many on this site that have "bashed" my
> > ancestry but, heck, they were funny.
>
> > Somewhere, in another thread, somebody said something like you are
> > polluting all the threads you respond in. =A0
>
> Actually -- like most here -- you are *factually* full of shit. =A0I
> notice that I seem to be jumping in, to respond to ww questions, while
> the rest of you ... I dunno ... search the web for more juvenile
> insults.
>
> Neat, huh?
>
> > They were right. =A0If you
> > are so high and mighty and are on a mission from God.... =A0Bottom line
> > is that you are NOT on a mission from God and are certainly not on the
> > side of the angels. =A0The main reason you are full of it is because Go=
d
> > instructed us to respond to others with gentleness and respect;
> > something that is very foreign to you. =A0Insults in His Name are a
> > millstone around the neck of the person spewing them and have
> > absolutely no effect on the receiving person.
>
> I'm NOT a religious person.
>
> I used that expression ... as an expression.
>
> Since you seem to BE a religious person, then I'm not surprised that
> -- well -- *nearly everything* I've said seems to be lost on you.
>
> Nobody, yet, has told me the upside of peppering this ng with the kind
> of jokes that could be reasonably expected to repel any number of
> woodworkers who simply don't find the humor in the sort of jokes that
> many of you seem limited to telling.
>
> Nobody.
>
> Not you -- chapter and verse, notwithstanding.
>
> Care to try?
>
> Still listening.
>
> And ... helping others with their ww inquiries, where I can.
Well, Neil, I can tell you this: There is nobody that will take you
serious in any way after the juvenile manner in which you burst into
the newsgroup. But, of course, you aren't going to even attempt to
listen to anybody unles we all cower down and kowtow to you and your
wishes.
There are oodles of other woodworking groups out there, most of them
moderated, why not just go to them? Oh, because, like you said, you
are on the side of the angels, yet you are not religious. A self-
proclaimed oxymoron.
If this newsgroup is peppered with such horrible stuff, and it pisses
enough people off so that they quit showing up, then rec.woodworking
will die on its own.
No, I think you are a troll like what people have originally called
you. You claim you know a lot about woodworking: debatable but even
Bay Area Dave attempted to answer woodworking questions. It's a shame
if you *do* know anything about woodworking because nobody will ever
"hear" a word you have to say on the subject.
And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:06:13 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:49:46 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Nope. Nobody's answered my questions, directly, yet.
>
>No need to though, no one can control what anyone posts here.
Except the posters, themselves, you mean.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:44:03 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
>>>should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
>>>of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
>>>continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>>
>>
>> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>>
>> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
>> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
>> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>>
>> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
>> about "upside?"
>
>
>I seriousely hope you never have anything of any benefit to actually
>contrute to this group because I will miss it.
Your loss.
When I answer the questions that others post here, they'll see the
answers.
BUT ... you bolster MY point.
Maybe others won't gain the WW knowledge, or stick around to find out
if they might, if THEY see the tasteless jokes -- humor SOLELY at the
expense of others -- that seems so tenaciously embraced among most of
you.
THANK you ... for making my point.
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>>
>>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>>
>>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>>> directly??
>>
>>This post does say a lot about you though.
>
> Then you don't understand it.
>
> No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
> incredibly narrow demographic.
>
Apparently not quite narrow enough, one too many has leaked through.
> Shame.
Yes it is really.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:00:40 -0700, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>>
>>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>>
>>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>>> directly??
>>
>>This post does say a lot about you though.
>
>Then you don't understand it.
>
>No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
>incredibly narrow demographic.
>
>Shame.
Take the fucking blinders off (or remove thy head from where the sun
don't shine).
You have single handedly blown up all but your own high ground you
know?
Mark
>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> appreciate it?
>>
>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
>What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
>You really *can't* win this argument.
>
>Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>side of the angels," on this issue.
>
>It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>to things like libel and slander charges.
>
>I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>*exceedingly* easy.
Well, don't read the jokes then. Do not subscribe to the newsgroup. Choose
to ignore. There are a lot of things you can do if something offends you.
There are a lot of wood working groups out there--read them instead.
In article <[email protected]>, "Ray Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>>> appreciate it?
>>>
>>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
>>To a handful of people, perhaps.
>>
>>What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>>
>>You really *can't* win this argument.
>>
>>Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>>side of the angels," on this issue.
>>
>>It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>>to things like libel and slander charges.
>>
>>I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>>*exceedingly* easy.
>
>
>
>Well, don't read the jokes then. Do not subscribe to the newsgroup. Choose
>to ignore. There are a lot of things you can do if something offends you.
>There are a lot of wood working groups out there--read them instead.
>
PDFTFT.
In article <[email protected]>, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>> *exceedingly* easy.
>
>I'm a little unclear as to what "job" you refer and, for the life of me, I
>can't comprehend how tilting a windmills is "easy."
>
>
PDFTFT.
Got any more Holocaust jokes?
In article <[email protected]>, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>Kareem of Wheat
Saw that one coming a few hundred yards away...
In article <dcedb2c3-f29b-4c8b-960c-1f486389b0d6@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, busbus <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 11:40=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
PDFTFT
busbus wrote:
> And if you send a sarcastic, rude remark back, I will have to respond
> with the top 100 dead baby jokes in response.
Clusty search only shows 11.4 Million hits on dead baby jokes.
(11,400,000 retrieved for the query dead baby jokes)
I didn't read any as I'm personally not a fan of dead baby jokes, but
Neil is welcome to add these to his list of 50 million Jewish jokes as
he busily chases the windmills.
--
Jack
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:32:33 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>> > directly??
>>
>> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>>
>> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>>
>> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
>> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>>
>> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>>
>> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>>
>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> appreciate it?
>>
>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
>To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
>What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
>What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
>suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
>year?
>
>What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
>who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
>What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
>humor?
>
>Isn't this a woodworking site?
>
>Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>
>So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
>
>Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
>forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
>jokes that make fun of others?
>
>Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>
>You really *can't* win this argument.
>
>Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>side of the angels," on this issue.
>
>It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>to things like libel and slander charges.
>
>I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>*exceedingly* easy.
Sorry to hear about your nuts, Neil.
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>> directly??
>
>This post does say a lot about you though.
Then you don't understand it.
No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
incredibly narrow demographic.
Shame.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>> > directly??
>>
>> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>>
>> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>>
>> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
>> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>>
>> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>>
>> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>>
>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> appreciate it?
>>
>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
>To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
>What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>
>What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
>suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
>year?
>
>What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
>who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
>What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
>humor?
>
>Isn't this a woodworking site?
>
>Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>
>So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
>
>Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
>forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
>jokes that make fun of others?
>
>Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>
>You really *can't* win this argument.
>
>Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>side of the angels," on this issue.
>
>It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>to things like libel and slander charges.
>
>I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>*exceedingly* easy.
>
>
>Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
>should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
>of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
>continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
really doesn't apply in this issue.
c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
about "upside?"
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:50:37 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:38:11 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Neil Brooks wrote:
>> >> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>> >> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>> >> > I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>> >> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>> >> > directly??
>>
>> >> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>>
>> >> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>>
>> >> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
>> >> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>>
>> >> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>>
>> >> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>>
>> >> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> >> appreciate it?
>>
>> >> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>>
>> >To a handful of people, perhaps.
>>
>> >What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
>>
>> >What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
>> >suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
>> >year?
>>
>> >What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
>> >who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>>
>> >What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
>> >humor?
>>
>> >Isn't this a woodworking site?
>>
>> >Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
>>
>> >So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
>>
>> >Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
>> >forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
>> >jokes that make fun of others?
>>
>> >Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
>>
>> >You really *can't* win this argument.
>>
>> >Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
>> >side of the angels," on this issue.
>>
>> >It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
>> >to things like libel and slander charges.
>>
>> >I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>> >*exceedingly* easy.
>>
>> >Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
>> >should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
>> >of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
>> >continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
>>
>> a) Why does it matter. It's either a valid point or it isn't.
>
>To use YOUR line...MUST things be black or white?
Give me a few examples of the gray area.
>> b) Maybe you and "Mark & Juanita" should intellectually masturbate
>> each other, with your vast pseudo-understanding of politics. It
>> really doesn't apply in this issue.
>>
>> c) Did you find the question I've repeatedly posed, yet -- the one
>> about "upside?"
>
>I will answer that as soon as you clearly prove there NEEDS to be an
>'upside'.
There doesn't need to be ANY upside to you injecting yourself with a
high dose of insulin.
If you're not interested in looking at the risk:reward equation, may I
mail you a hypodermic full??
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>
>>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>
>>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>>> directly??
>>
>>> Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>>
>>> Why the sudden hesitation??
>>
>>> Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
>>> address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>>
>>> I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>>
>>> I'll keep checking my inbox.
>>
>> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
>> appreciate it?
>>
>> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
>
> To a handful of people, perhaps.
>
> What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
You seem to have a hard time with the concept that we don't CARE whether
humorless scolds are immune to joy. We, or at least I, am indifferent in the
extreme as to whether someone is unamused or even offended by what I say.
They are not part of my universe. Their emotions or feelings are of no
moment to me. I cannot control how they feel and my feelings are not
contingent on theirs.
>
> What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
> suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
> year?
>
> What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
> who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
>
> What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
> humor?
As the saying goes, "If they can't take a joke..."
>
> Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
> forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
> jokes that make fun of others?
We don't want to do so.
>
> Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
We don't want to do so.
>
> You really *can't* win this argument.
I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you of the superiority of my
position and I'm certainly not susceptible to your exegesis. One difference
is I accept that you are offended, though I don't care, but you seem unable
to accept the reverse.
>
> Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
> side of the angels," on this issue.
I'm proud of you. Of course every adversary on every position says they are
on God's side and that God approves of their stalwart stands.
>
> I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
> *exceedingly* easy.
I'm a little unclear as to what "job" you refer and, for the life of me, I
can't comprehend how tilting a windmills is "easy."
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:08:54 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Truly troll sign
In news:[email protected],
Doug Miller <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
>> Kareem of Wheat
>
> Saw that one coming a few hundred yards away...
Yeah, but it still made me chuckle
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> > neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> > I'm curious. Why not??
>
> > Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> > directly??
>
> > Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>
> > Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> > Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> > address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>
> > I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> > I'll keep checking my inbox.
>
> You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
> appreciate it?
>
> We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
To a handful of people, perhaps.
What about those to whom it does NOT spread joy?
What ABOUT my neighbor -- the talented woodworker to whom I've
suggested the online woodworking forum, and who lost his baby, last
year?
What about my practicing Jew, woodworking, industry-insider brother,
who would be aghast at the Holocaust jokes?
What about ANYBODY and EVERYBODY else that doesn't appreciate gallows
humor?
Isn't this a woodworking site?
Shouldn't THEY be *actively* welcomed?
So far ... NOBODY has raised even a *single* point that "I'm missing."
Why NOT take your little sophomoric, backwater group to a private
forum, if there are NO boundaries for the jokes you each enjoy --
jokes that make fun of others?
Why not e-mail each other with these jokes?
You really *can't* win this argument.
Not because of who I am ... except ... to the extent that "I'm on the
side of the angels," on this issue.
It's rather like the concept that "the truth is the ultimate defense"
to things like libel and slander charges.
I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
*exceedingly* easy.
Are you their nanny, assigned to shield them from what "YOU" think they
should not see? Are you a communist? Wake up, your neighbors are capable
of taking care of themselves and if they don'g lile this group they can
continue their search like any one else capable of making decisions.
In news:[email protected],
Doug Miller <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> In article <[email protected]>, "HeyBub"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I'm pretty much dead-nuts right, here. That makes my job
>>> *exceedingly* easy.
>>
>> I'm a little unclear as to what "job" you refer and, for the life of
>> me, I can't comprehend how tilting a windmills is "easy."
>>
>>
> PDFTFT.
>
> Got any more Holocaust jokes?
No, but how about a slightly racist religious one?<depending on who you
are>
Name change of Buckwheat of The Little Rascals fame.
He has converted to Islam.
His new name
Kareem of Wheat
Neil Brooks wrote:
> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>
> I'm curious. Why not??
>
> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
> directly??
>
> Robatoy? Doug? Mike Marlow??
>
> Why the sudden hesitation??
>
> Jack?? I don't see where YOU'VE asked for my brother's e-mail
> address ... to forward HIM your best Holocaust and cancer jokes.
>
> I ... I ... I'm afraid I don't understand....
>
> I'll keep checking my inbox.
You're missing the point. Why tell a joke to someone who would not
appreciate it?
We don't tell jokes for our OWN amusement, we do it to spread joy.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:08:31 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:d6b18029-9068-4a61-a5c5-0efd78674b70@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>> And nobody has yet asked me for the e-mail address of my wonderful
>>> neighbors -- the ones whose baby died, last year.
>>>
>>> I'm curious. Why not??
>>>
>>> Why won't you send him your *absolute best* dead baby jokes,
>>> directly??
>>
>>This post does say a lot about you though.
>
> Then you don't understand it.
>
> No surprise, though. You guys have honed this group into an
> incredibly narrow demographic.
>
> Shame.
Oh, I understand it very well, thank you. You proved my point by your
reply.