Re: Beware of high tech running amok

In article
<64e05a21-6d54-46db-ad6c-9ec649af1482@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed
Pirrero wrote:

> But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the
> extreme.

It's so kooky you have a need to make sure it's pointed out and labeled 
in neon as such. One would think you wouldn't need to do that.  If 
it were so over the top kooky as you claim, hell if it were a fraction as 
kooky as you claim, you'd need not reply at all. It would be on its face 
nutball kookiness that would fail on its own without any help from you. 
Just think of all the OT tangents that could be avoided if you had the 
confidence that my kookiness was so off the wall that it would fail on 
its own without you. 

> Any nuggets of real information that Brent may put out gets lost in
> the vast amount of unsup****ted and utter bull**** that accompanies
> it.  It devalues the real information to the point where folks can
> just dismiss it.

What exactly is unsup****ted?  You call for sup****t, I sup****t it, you 
ignore the sup****t and go off with insults or slience as you crawl back 
under your bridge. Rinse and repeat thread after thread after thread. 

> One could also make the argument that usenet is dying.  There are a
> lot better places on the internet to spend time, places where Brent's
> OT stuff would just be either deleted outright, or moved to a more-
> appropriate forum.  Those kind of forums have a much higher
> signal:noise, and have more value for the time spent.  Sorta like the
> renns****t forums for you ****sche dicks.  Uhhh, guys!  :)

Funny how most of the OT you blame me for is a direct result of you 
stepping in and pu****ng things OT because of one tangential statement you 
didn't like. It takes two to play Ed, if you didn't want to go off topic, 
if you wanted to avoid noise, ignore it. Or are you affraid that 
someone might take me seriously? If I am half the kook you say I am, 
you wouldn't need to object you could just let it go and everyone 
would just dismiss it as obvious kookiness and ignore me, right? 

Instead you object to some little side statement and demand sup****t and 
give me an opening to introduce articles and facts etc. Maybe you 
want that information spread but just don't have the guts to risk being 
called a kook yourself? Afterall, it seems you do listen to Alex Jones. 
Without you how could I work in so many OT articles? I may drift OT, but
you 
enable it Ed.