Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 29, 3:13*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:
Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. *I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. *On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

There is no killfile capability in google groups reader, but there is
a script you can install with some other applications:

http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html

It works quite well on most windows machines, but read the comments
posted about it.

The only other alternative is to use a newsreader which does has
killfile capability.

My apologies for any unpleasantness I may have caused for you with my
postings, but it is probably better to simply explain the words people
use and why they use them. Trying to protect your kids from such
content on the internet is doomed to failure.

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

You can also use an RSS feed to get the groups, and use filters on it;

http://brilliantdays.com/google-grou...has-rss-feeds/

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._rss_feeds.php

this is probably the best option for somebody using a web based
interface. ( As opposed to a newsreader on your personal machine).

One reader which works well in Firefox is;

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/629

A lot depends on the machine and software you use.

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

This is easy to use and efficient;

http://www.feedrinse.com/

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open.
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

i can keep the "grown up stuff " down in the
body...instead of the headers......






" How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for
the
sake of others' feelings? "







On Dec 29, 7:54*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. *I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. *On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." *He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open. *
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: *Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? *You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On 2009-12-29 12:48:00 -0500, "~^ beancounter ~^" said:

i can keep the "grown up stuff " down in the
body...instead of the headers......

Good. Problem solved.

Dave

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

This runs on most platforms, and you might prefer it;

http://www.rssowl.org/

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 29, 9:48*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
i can keep the "grown up stuff " *down in the
body...instead of the headers......

" How about it, beancounter? *You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for
the
sake of others' feelings? "

On Dec 29, 7:54*am, David LaCourse wrote:



On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. *I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. *On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." *He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open. *
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: *Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? *You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed
Dave Snedeker

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
i can keep the "grown up stuff " down in the
body...instead of the headers......


If you posted anything remotely resembling 'grown-up',
I, for one, would be shocked.
Tom






" How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for
the
sake of others' feelings? "







On Dec 29, 7:54 am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open.
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.
There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children, both which are certainly on the
Internet. I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all, but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in. Now we bow down to the
idol of free speech and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,
and we are a lesser people because of it.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways. My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Jon.

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 7:33*am, Giles wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. *Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. *And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. *Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. *That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. *How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. *But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. *Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. *Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. *But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? *As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. *Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. *Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. *On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? *Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

But of course giles, you would not deprive him of his right to wish
you a Merry Christmas...would you? [or was that part of a point you
were making? A bit groggy this morning]

I do in fact essentially agree that the mythological referenced Norman
Rockwell past, where women and children existed in a realm of
protection by their patriarchs, is just that. However, there is a
middle ground between erroneously believing things were so much better
then...and not making any efforts to monitor what your children do
experience (via internet or other). Essentially, I believe I fall
into the category of a libertarian as all I want is to be able to have
as much control over what my computer does as I can without affecting
the legal activities of giles, beancounter, or anyone else.

Paul

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 4:32*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:


Not sure how much you may know about computers etc, but you should be
aware that the RSS ( Really Simply Syndication ) feeds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS

will also work very well for many other newsfeeds, usenet groups,
websites, etc.

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 4:40*pm, Mike wrote:
On Dec 30, 4:32*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:

Not sure how much you may know about computers etc, but you should be
aware that the RSS ( Really Simply Syndication ) feeds;


Sorry, that should of course read "Really Simple Syndication".

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

May also be of interest;

http://www.whatisrss.com/

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

Of course, many feeds are available; such as these;

http://news.google.de/?ned=uk&hl=en

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/default.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/earth...ws/default.stm

There are very many such feeds in the meantime, also from news
networks, newspapers, etc etc. A very convenient way to view your
morning news, among other things.

http://www.reuters.com/tools/rss

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3223484.stm

TL
MC

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 9:32*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:33*am, Giles wrote:





On Dec 29, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:

On Dec 29, 7:26*pm, Giles wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I'm not about to
express the majority view,

I hope not, but I suspect what I say is not the majority view either.

If you are referring to what you say in general, it varies. *Sometimes
it corresponds pretty well with what I perceive as the majority view,
sometimes not.

There was a time not long ago when there were things not said in the
presence of ladies or children,

I suspect that is the majority view. *And as such, it is just one of
many inexplicably popular myths. *Even ladies (as opposed to mere
women) and children have always known those things supposedly not said
in their presence, and they did not acquire such knowledge through
divination or osmosis.

both which are certainly on the
Internet.

Well, that isn't a view at all. *That's simply a statement of fact.

I'd argue that these things shouldn't be said at all,

See now, here's a problem. *How are we to know what things these are
if you won't say them?

but at
least those who desired to do so had the cultural restraint to keep it
in whatever man-circles they hung around in.

There are those among us today who think that the cultural restraints
which resulted from hanging around in man-circles are not an unmixed
blessing. *But then, I guess that's what you get when you have too
many people who spend too little time hanging around in man-circles.

Now we bow down to the idol of free speech

What you mean "we" white man?

and think there should be no restraint whatsoever,

I can't account for your experience, but I don't recall that I've ever
heard anyone say that there should be no restraint whatsoever. *Of
course, this doesn't necessarily mean that people don't "think" that.
However, I believe that careful inquiry would almost always reveal
that the person being qustioned would admit to at least some
legitimate strictures on free speech.....the old "FIRE!" in a theater
sort of thing.

and we are a lesser people because of it.

We may be a lesser people (than.....?) or we may not. *Pretty hard to
judge on the basis of what's been revealed here thus far.

That's my personal, probably very minority, view anyways.

As stated, those would appear to be very popular views. *But does
anyone here really need to be reminded they they live in a world
filled with popular views that are just plain wrong, or that, in fact,
a possible majority of highly popular views are just plain wrong? *As
an obvious example, if a billion or so Christians are right, then
several billion Muslims, Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, Jews and many others are wrong. *Ditto for any other
permutation concerning the above mentioned groups. *Et cetera.

My own rule
is to not write on ROFF anything I wouldn't want my (wife, children,
mother, boss, pastor, etc.) to read.

A good enough rule, on the face of it, I guess.....if it works for
you. *On the other hand, have you ever given any thought to the
advisability of exposing you wife, children, mother, boss, pastor,
etc., to the things that you DO write......on ROFF or elsewhere?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Christmas? *Some of us do not take kindly to forced exposure to pagan
beliefs.

giles

But of course giles, you would not deprive him of his right to wish
you a Merry Christmas...would you?

Not at all.

[or was that part of a point you
were making? *A bit groggy this morning]

I wasn't so much making a point as giving voice to some thoughts as
they occurred to me in reading Jon's offering.

I do in fact essentially agree that the mythological referenced Norman
Rockwell past, where women and children existed in a realm of
protection by their patriarchs, is just that.

Well, it's not entirely mythological. Paternalism was, and remains,
all too real. And it isn't necessarily always a bad thing.....or a
good thing. Even a cursory analysis, if conducted honestly and with a
modicum of intelligence (yeah, two very scarce commodities.....but it
really doesn't require all that much of either) reveals a great deal
of complexity. Merely acknowledging that complexity would be a great
leap forward for many people.....perhaps most people.....but why
bother with that when one already has all the answers one needs and
the pretense of consideration is so easy to maintain?

However, there is a
middle ground between erroneously believing things were so much better
then...and not making any efforts to monitor what your children do
experience (via internet or other).

I've never been in a position of having to monitor what anyone else
experiences, it looks to me like you're probably doing a pretty good
job of it, and their isn't much that you or I can do about the rest of
the world. So the problem appears to be purely an academic one, at
least within the current context, for you and me. But appearances, as
they say, are deceiving.

Essentially, I believe I *fall
into the category of a libertarian as all I want is to be able to have
as much control over what my computer does as I can without affecting
the legal activities of giles, beancounter, or anyone else.

I've always been wary of applying labels concerning political or
philosophical leanings to myself or others, largely because there is
virtually no reliable agreement to be expected from any two or more
people on what those labels mean. Am I, for example, a liberal or a
libertarian or a libertine?.....a conservative or a reactionary?.....a
fascist or an anarchist?.....a strict constructionist or a
relativist?.....a lumper or a splitter?.....a hard nose realist or a
spiritualist? All of those terms (and many more) have been applied to
me at one time or another.....and none of them entirely without
justification with regard to certain specific beliefs or actions.

I much prefer terms like idiot, imbecile, moron, dumbass, cretin,
etc. At least there is a fairly widespread consensus on approximately
what they mean, and often even a good deal of agreement on who they
should be applied to. And after all, consensus and agreement are good
things, ainna? :)

Meanwhile, from what I've read in this thread, it appears that there
is no good way to filter the contents of these pages via Google
Groups. However, that shouldn't be much of a problem as you have
already stated the solution above.

giles.

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 7:28*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:


All points very well taken. *I need not say more, except thanks.
Paul

You're welcome.

giles

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

well that's cause your are a dumb ass lib/dem Tom...who...
dosen't know squat about "grown up" topics...sheeze...







On Dec 29, 2:48*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in ...

i can keep the "grown up stuff " *down in the
body...instead of the headers......

If you posted anything remotely resembling 'grown-up',
I, for one, would be shocked.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

" How about it, beancounter? *You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for
the
sake of others' feelings? "

On Dec 29, 7:54 am, David LaCourse wrote:



On 2009-12-29 09:13:40 -0500, Family-Outdoors said:

Is there a way...any way...to restrict content in Google Reader?
Because I am too dumb to figure out why no mail reader can download
messages on my computer, I cannot use any of the traditional kill file
methods. I am truly tired of seeing some of the crap on here but
acknowledge their right to post it. On Google Reader if beancounter
calls Obama a C_ _ t in the subject header and I open it with my kids
around it's not cool.

Paul

All of beancounter's posts come through to me under the thread "major
malfunction." He has used language that I would not want my young
grandchildren to read, but it is not there unless I open "major
malfunction".

However, different readers may allow his profanity to be in the open.
If the profanity appears when you open the post, quite simply, don't
open any of his posts.

A second idea: Ask beancounter to clean up his act so that children
can not read his profanity.

How about it, beancounter? You have a right to post, but if you're
using obscene language in the header, could you please stop it for the
sake of others' feelings?

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Kill File in Google Reader? and Message to Beancounter
 

On Dec 30, 8:09*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
well that's cause your are a dumb ass lib/dem Tom...who...
dosen't know squat about "grown up" topics...sheeze...

Imbecile.

g.

Why does [email protected] hate America so much?
 

On Dec 30, 8:09 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
well that's cause your are a dumb ass lib/dem Tom...who...
dosen't know squat about "grown up" topics...sheeze...

Why does Mark Bowen hate America so much?
 

drivle from leftie hate mongers.....funny......




On Dec 31, 3:01*am, "Mark Bowen" wrote:
On Dec 30, 8:09 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:



well that's cause your are a dumb ass lib/dem Tom...who...
dosen't know squat about "grown up" topics...sheeze...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Beancounter fishes with cheese balls and a bobber
 

Velvetta Wingnut

Why does Mark Bowen hate America so much?
 

On Dec 31, 9:44*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
drivle from leftie hate mongers.....funny......

Moron.

g.

Why does Mark Bowen hate America so much?
 

"On Dec 31, 9:44 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
drivle from leftie hate mongers.....funny......

Beancounter fishes with cheese balls and a bobber
 

On Dec 31, 11:09*am, DaveS wrote:
Velvetta Wingnut

Double Velvetta Wingnut, with bougers.

Beancounter fishes with cheese balls and a bobber
 

On 2009-12-31 17:51:24 -0500, DaveS said:

On Dec 31, 11:09*am, DaveS wrote:
Velvetta Wingnut

Double Velvetta Wingnut, with bougers.

Ahhhhh, your mama wears combat boots!

And your daddy plays badminton.

d;o)

And Navy is beatin' Mizzou, 28 to 13 with 17 min to go in the Texas Bowl.

Dave (who has often wondered what the hell Velvetta is made of......._

Beancounter fishes with cheese balls and a bobber
 

On Dec 31, 5:38*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-12-31 17:51:24 -0500, DaveS said:

On Dec 31, 11:09 am, DaveS wrote:
Velvetta Wingnut

Double Velvetta Wingnut, with bougers.

Ahhhhh, your mama wears combat boots!

And your daddy plays badminton.

d;o)

And Navy is beatin' Mizzou, 28 to 13 with 17 min to go in the Texas Bowl.

Dave (who has often wondered what the hell Velvetta is made of......._

Aphlabeet soup.

g.
no charge for this one.

loony lefites fish with cheese balls and a bobber
 

i would expect nothing less from the loony lefties...btw: good navy
game this afternoon....









On Dec 31, 4:27*pm, Giles wrote:
On Dec 31, 5:38*pm, David LaCourse wrote:





On 2009-12-31 17:51:24 -0500, DaveS said:

On Dec 31, 11:09 am, DaveS wrote:
Velvetta Wingnut

Double Velvetta Wingnut, with bougers.

Ahhhhh, your mama wears combat boots!

And your daddy plays badminton.

d;o)

And Navy is beatin' Mizzou, 28 to 13 with 17 min to go in the Texas Bowl.

Dave (who has often wondered what the hell Velvetta is made of......._

Aphlabeet soup.

g.
no charge for this one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

loony lefites fish with cheese balls and a bobber
 

On Dec 31, 10:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
i would expect nothing less from the loony lefties...btw: good navy
game this afternoon....


Imbecile.

g.

All know LOONY Lefties lean PITAwise., & Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS
 

On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.

All know LOONY Lefties lean PITAwise., & Tories cherishCHEESEBALLS
 

yawn.........did you say something DaveS?







On Jan 1, 7:32*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

On Jan 2, 8:16*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
yawn.........did you say something DaveS?

On Jan 1, 7:32*pm, DaveS wrote:



On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.. . . flies.

Don't struggle with it too much; I might adjust the reading level down
if maybe you could share your recipe for your go-to Velvetta
Cheeseball fly.?

Easily led, simple answer seekers like you, believers in witchcraft
like Palin, and arm chair warriors like Cheney are unfortunate but
disposable political fellow travelers for real conservatives. These
folks will have their papa's money, high heels, book contracts and
born-again scams to keep them in German wheels. But what about your
kind?

The food banks and church handout programs are full of confused,
whimpering former big pie hole wingnuts like you right now, begging
for help from program's and people they trashed just months ago,
before their safe little wingnut worlds crumbled leaving their
arrogance naked of security. Better hope your world holds and you
don't have to choose between eating your popgun or tearing-up in the
welfare line.

Nothing makes a sloganeering wingnut into a practical and humane
progressive faster than living through some bad times. Good luck
Beanster.

Dave

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

Loony drivel.......nothin' new here..........



On Jan 2, 9:34*am, DaveS wrote:
On Jan 2, 8:16*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

yawn.........did you say something DaveS?

On Jan 1, 7:32*pm, DaveS wrote:

On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

. . . *flies.

Don't struggle with it too much; I might adjust the reading level down
if maybe you could share your recipe for your go-to Velvetta
Cheeseball fly.?

Easily led, simple answer seekers like you, believers in witchcraft
like Palin, and arm chair warriors like Cheney are unfortunate but
disposable political fellow travelers for real conservatives. These
folks will have their papa's money, high heels, book contracts and
born-again scams to keep them in German wheels. But what about your
kind?

The food banks and church handout programs are full of confused,
whimpering former big pie hole wingnuts like you right now, begging
for help from program's and people they trashed just months ago,
before their safe little wingnut worlds crumbled leaving their
arrogance naked of security. Better hope your world holds and you
don't have to choose between eating your popgun or tearing-up in the
welfare line.

Nothing makes a sloganeering wingnut into a practical and humane
progressive faster than living through some bad times. Good luck
Beanster.

Dave

All know LOONY Lefties lean PITAwise., & Tories cherishCHEESEBALLS
 

On Jan 2, 10:16*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
yawn.........did you say something DaveS?

Yes, he said, "Idiot."

Moron.

g.

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

On Jan 2, 7:41*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Loony drivel.......nothin' *new here..........


Imbecile.

g.

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

On Jan 2, 11:34*am, DaveS wrote:
On Jan 2, 8:16*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

yawn.........did you say something DaveS?

On Jan 1, 7:32*pm, DaveS wrote:

On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

. . . *flies.

Don't struggle with it too much; I might adjust the reading level down
if maybe you could share your recipe for your go-to Velvetta
Cheeseball fly.?

Easily led, simple answer seekers like you, believers in witchcraft
like Palin, and arm chair warriors like Cheney are unfortunate but
disposable political fellow travelers for real conservatives. These
folks will have their papa's money, high heels, book contracts and
born-again scams to keep them in German wheels. But what about your
kind?

The food banks and church handout programs are full of confused,
whimpering former big pie hole wingnuts like you right now, begging
for help from program's and people they trashed just months ago,
before their safe little wingnut worlds crumbled leaving their
arrogance naked of security.

I don't ordinarily pay attention to playground arguments, but that
last paragraph interested me.

Is it your contention that a disproportionate number of those whom you
call "conservatives" are now seeking aid from programs that they
previously opposed?

....or, did I read it wrong?

cheers

oz

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

On Jan 3, 8:33*pm, MajorOz wrote:

I don't ordinarily pay attention to playground arguments, but that
last paragraph interested me.

Well, we all unaccountably stumble upon things occasionally.

Is it your contention that a disproportionate number of those whom you
call "conservatives" are now seeking aid from programs that they
previously opposed?

...or, did I read it wrong?

I won't try to answer for Dave (god knows I'd probably have a
difficult time making much more sense of what he says than he can) but
it's hardly a secret that folks everywhere have always generally
approved of programs from which they benefit and not so much of those
from which they do not. Thus, clearly, approval ratings tend to
fluctuate somewhat depending on who benefits when and who don't.

Do you know a lot of people who formerly and vigorously opposed one
program or another from which they did not qualify to benefit, and who
now hold fast to that disapproval when they do qualify?

giles
whose mother never raised such a foolish child.

If PITA LOONIES don't fish, and Tories cherish CHEESEBALLS,flyfishers use. . .
 

On Jan 3, 6:33*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:34*am, DaveS wrote:





On Jan 2, 8:16*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

yawn.........did you say something DaveS?

On Jan 1, 7:32*pm, DaveS wrote:

On Dec 31 2009, 8:08*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

It's a fact: you're a Tory fisherperson. Tories fish cheeseballs. You
fish cheeseballs.
Don't fight it. Be comfortable with your inner Tory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

. . . *flies.

Don't struggle with it too much; I might adjust the reading level down
if maybe you could share your recipe for your go-to Velvetta
Cheeseball fly.?

Easily led, simple answer seekers like you, believers in witchcraft
like Palin, and arm chair warriors like Cheney are unfortunate but
disposable political fellow travelers for real conservatives. These
folks will have their papa's money, high heels, book contracts and
born-again scams to keep them in German wheels. But what about your
kind?

The food banks and church handout programs are full of confused,
whimpering former big pie hole wingnuts like you right now, begging
for help from program's and people they trashed just months ago,
before their safe little wingnut worlds crumbled leaving their
arrogance naked of security.

I don't ordinarily pay attention to playground arguments, but that
last paragraph interested me.

Is it your contention that a disproportionate number of those whom you
call "conservatives" are now seeking aid from programs that they
previously opposed?

...or, did I read it wrong?

cheers

oz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fair question. Disproportionate? No, I have no basis for saying that
in this specific downturn, people who hold conservative political
views, are more likely to be seeking assistance from agencies/churches
than people who do not have such views. Don't think what I did say
implied that.

It would be pretty hard to tease out answers to that question even if
I were still active professionally. For one, educational levels are
associated with political outlook, as is geography, gender, ethnicity
etc. ie just too many complex variables for a straight up analysis,
and I never felt good about ANOVA or factor analysis anyway. My
opinions are based on personal and shared experiences, no more.

But I will venture this; This recession has dug deeper into some of
the small independent business sectors (than past downturns, when we
had a larger manufacturing base) specifically residential
construction, FIRE (finance, insurance and reat estate), and some of
the tech service areas. These are the "newcomers" in the unemployment
offices and foodbanks. And generally, they break toward the Republican
side, even in the NW. In the foodbanks its some of the above, but more
noticeably, elderly and single parent suburban females that are more
in evidence, as well as male construction and home service
businessmen.

Ive talked to lots of ES and UI staff and customers over decades and
in many states, Red and Blue. The worse the economy, the better was my
consulting business. From personal experience in past recessions and
some mass layoffs I worked professionally, I know that the newly and
rarely unemployed tend to be more conservative. How do I know this?
Because people tell you all kinds of stuff when they are up against
the wall, whether you want to know or not. Most often they want you to
know that they are "not that kind" or this is their first time blah
blah blah. And they do say things like "6 months ago I thought this
program was for bums" etc.

And sometimes they think weird stuff and bring it with them: for
example I remember one guy who wanted the employment counselor helping
him fired because a man in the poster on the wall had arm muscles and
therefore was Marxist in his eyes, seriously. I recall another example
when I found several laid off "patriots" had intimidated a young
counselor into approving expensive helicopter retraining. There are
also folks who want to scream out their beliefs and a few want to hurt
someone as a part of their employment service experience.. And there
are a very few people who bring guns with them. Bottonline, there is
lots of emotion concentrated in one place when the labor market goes
cacahuate, and people want to "tell their story."

Foodbanks are somewhat different. The best try to mimic a grocery
store, with carts, choices and pleasant space. However, humiliation
for people who are not used to being dependent is never far away.
People know why they are there. I traveled lots for work but Ive lived
in the same 22k affluent community for 38 years. I know something of
peoples politics and I know who I see at the food bank. This recession
is not skipping conservatives.

All of this is not saying that people with rightwing views get their
"comeuppance" when they come for help. Ive never seen public or non-
profit program staff use this vulnerability as a supposed "teaching
moment" for making conservatives somehow more compassionate and
liberal. Rightwing politics in these service environments is just
baggage and slows up service for other people. But there are
occasions, as program staff will tell you, that they have to take
ideological **** and abuse at the same time they are helping the same
people get thru their bad times. Its just the way it is.

However I personally believe that most adults learn understanding and
compassion from life's experiences, and I believe that these
experiences moderate rigid political beliefs. I also believe that all
public human services facilities should have "safe rooms" for when the
inevitable whackjob (wingnut or otherwise) wants to hasten
Gotterdammerung. But that's a whole nuther rant.

Dave
As to your "playground" insult . . . duely noted culero.