Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

censored Durbin said:

[email hidden] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0a5-
[email hidden]>...
> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-
> themed bicycle jerseys.

Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple of
years ago?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys. :-)

Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't
write anything you included above.)

Bill "attribution" S.

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

[censored] Durbin wrote:
> [email hidden] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0-
> [email hidden]>...
>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-
>> themed bicycle jerseys.
>
> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
> hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple
> of years ago?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys. :-)

Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't
write anything you included above.)

Bill "attribution" S.

The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:15:01 -0800, JimLane <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys. :-)

Or a bicycle.

We played transcendental volleyball once. Gave up the ball
first, then the net. I felt quite centered.

Zippy the Pinhead said:

JimLane said:

Quoted message said:

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys. :-)

Or a bicycle.

We played transcendental volleyball once. Gave up the ball
first, then the net. I felt quite centered.

Indoors or outdoors- grass or sand?

jim

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> writes:

> [censored] Durbin wrote:
>> [email hidden] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0-
>> [email hidden]>...
>>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-
>>> themed bicycle jerseys.
>>
>> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
>> hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple
>> of years ago?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys. :-)

Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't
write anything you included above.)

Bill "attribution" S.

The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I
wrote! ([censored] Durbin asked the question to which you replied;
you posted under MY reply for some reason, however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I
wrote! ([censored] Durbin asked the question to which you
replied; you posted under MY reply for some reason,
however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last two
times.

The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting [censored] Durbin, so those lines started
with '> > '. Everything was quoted correctly using a
convention that has existed for over 30 years.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

censored Durbin said:

[email hidden] (Peter W.) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-
themed bicycle jerseys.

Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple of
years ago?

There's a difference between derision and hate.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:55:34 -0800, JimLane <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Indoors or outdoors- grass or sand?

At that level, Grasshopper, it is all one and the same.

Ensign Nada, huh?

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I
wrote! ([censored] Durbin asked the question to which you
replied; you posted under MY reply for some reason,
however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last
two times.

The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting [censored] 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.)

[censored]'s question and my reply is below:

censored Durbin said:

Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple of
years ago?

Ummm, burning in hell?

Bill "eternal Lycration" S.

Then you posted this:

S o r n i said:

censored Durbin said:

Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of
hate when he asked about a Christian jersey a couple of
years ago?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with
material possessions. When you become sufficiently
enlightened, you will have no need of jerseys.

*********

My only point is that nothing *I* wrote is included, even
though it says "Sorni writes:" at the top.

Bill "time to hit the shower; missing that hour of sleep" S.

(Bill Z.) said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting [censored] 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.

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and
quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining
lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and
quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining
lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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) [censored] 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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and
quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining
lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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?

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).

Bill "can someone else explain this better?" S.

Bill Z. said:

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and
quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining
lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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) [censored] 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 [censored] 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.

Good Lord...or Good Buddha...guys, MOVE ON!!!!

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Z. said:

Tim McNamara said:

[email hidden] (Bill Z.) writes:

> The first line of my message started with '> ' and
> quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The
> remaining lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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) [censored] 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 [censored]
Durbin, not me, so why did

you

Quoted message said:

reply to MY post instead of his?

Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will
you?" S.

Bill Z. said:

S o r n i said:

Bill Z. wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting [censored] 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

Bill Z. said:

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting [censored] 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) [censored] 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

(Bill Z.) said:

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

The first line of my message started with '> ' and
quoted you as saying "[censored] Durbin wrote." The remaining
lines quoted you as quoting [censored] 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) [censored] 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 [censored] Durbin was quoted properly,
then you should have climbed back up the thread and quoted
[censored]'s post directly. However, you are determined to see
your actions as correct and therefore no argument will sway
you. Classic Usenet crapola.

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

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:
magentastudios.com129753Open ↗

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