Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
05-04.-2004, 03:18 AM
|
#31 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Good Lord...or Good Buddha...guys, MOVE ON!!!!
"S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> wrote in message news:_7Ybc.34645$Xd1.8263@twister.socal.rr.com... > Bill Z. wrote: > > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes: > > > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: > >> > >>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as > >>> saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as > >>> quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything > >>> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30 > >>> years. > >> > >> Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted > >> since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone > >> back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the > >> attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That > >> would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of > >> these conventions for 30 years. > > > > Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you > > replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone > > else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging > > it. If (as a hypothetical case) Dick Durbin then complained that he > > wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30 > > years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone > > on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical > > today. > > Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're > commenting. Your reply was directed at Dick Durbin, not me, so why did you > reply to MY post instead of his? > > Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will you?" S. > > |
|
|
05-04.-2004, 03:22 AM
|
#32 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> writes: > > >>Bill Z. wrote: > > >>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as >>>saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as >>>quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything >>>was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over >>>30 years. >> >>******************* >> >>Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.) >><snip> >>Ummm, burning in hell? > > > You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words), > which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet > quoting convention determine who said what? > > Bill If there is nothing of Sorni left because of your editing, you should have gone back up the thread a step. You might want to step back and take a look instead of being defensive. Bill is right. jim |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 03:25 AM
|
#33 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes: > > >>nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> >>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as >>>saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as >>>quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything >>>was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30 >>>years. >> >>Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted >>since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone >>back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the >>attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That >>would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of >>these conventions for 30 years. > > > Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you > replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone > else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging > it. If (as a hypothetical case) Dick Durbin then complained that he > wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30 > years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone > on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical > today. > You're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just a petulant child? jim |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 03:46 AM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes:
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes: > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) writes: >> >> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as >> > saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as >> > quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with '> > >> > '. Everything was quoted correctly using a convention that has >> > existed for over 30 years. >> >> Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted >> since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have >> gone back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted >> the attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. >> That would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been >> part of these conventions for 30 years. > > Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message > you replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify > someone else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) > forging it. If (as a hypothetical case) Dick Durbin then complained > that he wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was > responsible. 30 years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful > misquotes - everyone on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of > conduct that is typical today. You seem determined to miss the central concern in your insistence on adherence to the standards. Obviously your mind is made up and not amenable to change. IMHO (and the HO of several others) your use of the standards in this case was non-standard, hence the controversy. If you were concerned about whether Dick Durbin was quoted properly, then you should have climbed back up the thread and quoted Dick's post directly. However, you are determined to see your actions as correct and therefore no argument will sway you. Classic Usenet crapola. |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 03:50 AM
|
#35 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be
interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery that challenges the viewer to wake up. |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 04:47 AM
|
#36 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
In article <m2n05ry3vc.fsf@stella-blue.local>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes: > To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be > interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not > generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the > essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery that > challenges the viewer to wake up. Maybe these folks might have something to offer: http://www.magentastudios.com/129753 They've got all kinds of interesting design stuff. But they seem to be more into T-shirts than jerseys. Their web site is a little too gnarly for my old version of Netscrape to explore. cheers, Tom -- -- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 06:40 AM
|
#37 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
"S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> writes:
> > You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words), > > which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet > > quoting convention determine who said what? > > NO!!! My objection is that your post said "Sorni writes:" and is followed > by words which came from someone else! All I'm saying is LEARN HOW TO QUOTE > (or to reply to the post you intend, instead of someone else's, as you did > in this case). > Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with the attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows what is going on. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 06:43 AM
|
#38 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
JimLane <ensenadajim@yahoo.com> writes:
> If there is nothing of Sorni left because of your editing, you should > have gone back up the thread a step. You might want to step back and > take a look instead of being defensive. Bill is right. Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad silly. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 06:45 AM
|
#39 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
"S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> writes:
> Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're > commenting. Your reply was directed at Dick Durbin, not me, so why did you > reply to MY post instead of his? Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the comment I added was about the general topic under discussion. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 06:46 AM
|
#40 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
JimLane <ensenadajim@yahoo.com> writes:
> > You're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just > a petulant child? Go f___ yourself, twirp. The only person being petulant was Sorni. |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 06:49 AM
|
#41 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
> You seem determined to miss the central concern in your insistence on > adherence to the standards. Obviously your mind is made up and not > amenable to change. Yep - you guys are whining about trivia. Anyone looking at the text can tell who said what, so as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing to complain about, particularly since I didn't comment on either guy's statement, but simply added something to the discussion. |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 08:03 AM
|
#42 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <ensenadajim@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >>If there is nothing of Sorni left because of your editing, you should >>have gone back up the thread a step. You might want to step back and >>take a look instead of being defensive. Bill is right. > > > Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content > of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad > silly. > And you are not? Step back and look at your idiocy with a neutral eye. Everyone else here sees it clearly. Get over yourself, bimbo. jim jim |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 08:05 AM
|
#43 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> writes: > > > >>Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're >>commenting. Your reply was directed at Dick Durbin, not me, so why did you >>reply to MY post instead of his? > > > Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the > comment I added was about the general topic under discussion. > Then preface your comment, clown. Say with, "this isn't in direct reply, but I am jumping in here," or something to that effect. You are still in the wrong, despite your delusions of grandeur. jim |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 11:27 AM
|
#44 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> writes: > >>> You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words), >>> which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet >>> quoting convention determine who said what? >> >> NO!!! My objection is that your post said "Sorni writes:" and is >> followed by words which came from someone else! All I'm saying is >> LEARN HOW TO QUOTE (or to reply to the post you intend, instead of >> someone else's, as you did in this case). >> > > Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with the > attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows what is > going on. I give up. Bill "why would I use Zippy the Pinhead's post to reply to YOU?" S. |
|
|
|
05-04.-2004, 11:38 AM
|
#45 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <ensenadajim@yahoo.com> writes: > > >> If there is nothing of Sorni left because of your editing, you should >> have gone back up the thread a step. You might want to step back and >> take a look instead of being defensive. Bill is right. > > Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content > of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad > silly. Whether the content was a quip or some heartfelt message has nothing to do with the fact that YOU REPLIED TO THE WRONG POST and just won't admit it. (I *can* think of one legitimate reason, by the way. Say your server dropped Dick Durbin's original post, so you used my quoting of it to reply to him. That's fair, but you should STILL delete the "Sorni says:" since it had no place in your content; or change it to say "Sorni quotes DD as saying:".) This is how "SERIOUS" misquotes happen, by the way. Someone reads a poor post and attributes something /of consequence/ to the wrong person. Jim is right  Bill "really trying to give up now" S. |
|
|
Linear Mode
