Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



Bill Z. wrote:

> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>and of course, no apology was forthcoming although Bill Z has falsely
>>accused Sorni of something. All too predictable, isn't the putz.
>>snip
>
>
> Given the continual false accusations (not mistakes, but bald faced
> lies) coming from Sorni, why should I bother? The guy was in fact
> lying and at worst I was confused about one minor point.
>
>
>>>So what? You can find millions of people in the U.S. who think the
>>>world was created in 6 or 7 mean solar days.
>>>Bill
>>>
>>
>>And all we have to do to find one unmitigated as*hole is look under
>>Bill Z. in this ng. Simple, no?
>
>
> The "assholes" would include you, Sorni, and a couple of other jerks.
>


So, you think we would flock with you, putz? Not a chance. We're all
class as*holes. You're just a plain old unmitigated as*hole near the
bottom of the feeding chain. In fact, you haven't achieved dingleberry
status yet.


jim
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:36:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
> >> A typo would be "is dur to" or "is du to". That's when your finger
> >> accidentally hits the wrong key or fails to hit an appropriate key.
> >> You chose the wrong word, and can't even admit to that.
> >
> >Nope - it is a typo. My typos tend to be more complex than just
> >hitting the wrong key, and I have to go back and fix the text up.
>
> If they're more complex than just hitting the wrong key, then
> they're not typographical errors.

Actually, they are - something going wrong in how my fingers respond.
They are typos because what gets typed is not what I thought I
typed.

> There's no guess. Your fingers are operated by your brain; it
> controls your fingers to move a given distance in a given direction,
> and they don't have any free will.

Sigh. You really are clueless, aren't you. Your "brain" handles a
large number of tasks automatically in ways that have nothing to do
with free will. It is not a computer with a central processor that
makes decisions. You can think one thing and do something else.

> Again, you attempt to defend yourself by misdirection instead of
> simply admitting "I typed the wrong word". Your example only proves
> that you aren't aware that the brain controls muscles.

Rather it shows your ignorance of biology.

>
> I suppose there could be an exception in your case; it's entirely
> possible that you lack a brain.
>
> >Pretty childish of you, isn't it?
>
> Hmm...childish...kind of like:
> >you can f___ off along with the other jerks
> >The "assholes" would include you, Sorni, and a couple of other jerks.
> >Go f___ yourself, twirp.
> >Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.
> >F___ you too.
> >"Everyone else" are a few idiots with their heads up their butts.

And after the amount of abuse from you worthless slimeballs, that was
a pretty mild response.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:


> >> Occassionally I'll miss something. Curiously, I'll mistype things in
> >> this way that I consistently get right when writing with a pen or
> >> pencil. (BTW, in the last sentence, I started to type 'write'
> >> instead of 'right', but caught it as I was typing.)
> >
> > That's another example of choosing the wrong word...or do your
> > fingers magically know homonyms for such words? Here's a hint:
> > fingers don't know anything. They are biomechanical devices
> > controlled by the brain. Just because the decision was not a
> > conscious decision doesn't mean that you didn't choose the wrong
> > word.

Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track
stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
all "controlled by your brain." You "choose" a word only if you
make a conscious decision to use that word. Is that really so hard
for you morons to understand?

I'm snipped the rest of your post. Unlike you three babies, I've
better things to do than waste time on gobs of text, all to fill
up space due to having nothing substantial to say.

Consider the above a reply to the other recent posts from you
idiots as well.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
********
OK, is everyone paying attention??? *I* didn't write ANYTHING quoted
below!!! (And your precious newsreader can't bail you out this time,
Zaumbie. Face it, you're just inept.)

>>>> Occassionally I'll miss something. Curiously, I'll mistype things
>>>> in this way that I consistently get right when writing with a pen
>>>> or pencil. (BTW, in the last sentence, I started to type 'write'
>>>> instead of 'right', but caught it as I was typing.)

{RICK wrote the below}

>>> That's another example of choosing the wrong word...or do your
>>> fingers magically know homonyms for such words? Here's a hint:
>>> fingers don't know anything. They are biomechanical devices
>>> controlled by the brain. Just because the decision was not a
>>> conscious decision doesn't mean that you didn't choose the wrong
>>> word.
>
> Sigh. What a moron. Sorni (???) must also think that if you try a track
> stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
> all "controlled by your brain." You "choose" a word only if you
> make a conscious decision to use that word. Is that really so hard
> for you morons to understand?

WHY ARE YOU MENTIONING ME, IDIOT??? *I* didn't write that!!!

> I'm snipped the rest of your post. Unlike you three babies, I've
> better things to do than waste time on gobs of text, all to fill
> up space due to having nothing substantial to say.
>
> Consider the above a reply to the other recent posts from you
> idiots as well.

Now you're really losing it, Zaumbie. Hope you get the help you so
obviously need.

Bill "meltdown witness" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> ********
> OK, is everyone paying attention??? *I* didn't write ANYTHING quoted
> below!!! (And your precious newsreader can't bail you out this time,
> Zaumbie. Face it, you're just inept.)
>
> >>>> Occassionally I'll miss something. Curiously, I'll mistype things
> >>>> in this way that I consistently get right when writing with a pen
> >>>> or pencil. (BTW, in the last sentence, I started to type 'write'
> >>>> instead of 'right', but caught it as I was typing.)
>
> {RICK wrote the below}

Sorry about getting confused. Of course, you stated that you agreed
100% with Rick when you wrote, "Rick Onanian wrote (nothing snipped
'cuz it's just so damned good!!!" Now you are trying to disown the
idiotic statement you yourself stated was "so damned good" (thus
showing that it in fact reflected your opinion.)

Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
yourself.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>> ********
>> OK, is everyone paying attention??? *I* didn't write ANYTHING quoted
>> below!!! (And your precious newsreader can't bail you out this time,
>> Zaumbie. Face it, you're just inept.)
>>
>>>>>> Occassionally I'll miss something. Curiously, I'll mistype
>>>>>> things in this way that I consistently get right when writing
>>>>>> with a pen or pencil. (BTW, in the last sentence, I started to
>>>>>> type 'write' instead of 'right', but caught it as I was typing.)
>>
>> {RICK wrote the below}
>
> Sorry about getting confused. Of course, you stated that you agreed
> 100% with Rick when you wrote, "Rick Onanian wrote (nothing snipped
> 'cuz it's just so damned good!!!" Now you are trying to disown the
> idiotic statement you yourself stated was "so damned good" (thus
> showing that it in fact reflected your opinion.)
>
> Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
> yourself.

???

Look at your post again, Zaumbie. You *ONCE AGAIN* replied to the wrong
post -- EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST TIME THAT STARTED ALL THIS INSIPID
NONSENSE -- only this time without even /anything/ you attributed to me.
(The first one at least had my newsreader's auto-generated "**** Durbin
wrote:", which you later used to try to cover up your error.)

Now you could have just said "Sorry about getting confused...PERIOD"!!!
It's no big deal to make a mistake (although it IS deliciously ironic in
this particular case), but you just won't admit it without trying to deflect
blame or attention or whatever the hell it is you want onto someone else.

It REALLY IS OK to admit a screw-up, Bill. No one is perfect; not even you.

Bill "Rick nailed you, but you piled on yourself better than anyone else
could have" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:

> >
> > Sorry about getting confused. Of course, you stated that you agreed
> > 100% with Rick when you wrote, "Rick Onanian wrote (nothing snipped
> > 'cuz it's just so damned good!!!" Now you are trying to disown the
> > idiotic statement you yourself stated was "so damned good" (thus
> > showing that it in fact reflected your opinion.)
> >
> > Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
> > yourself.

> Look at your post again, Zaumbie. You *ONCE AGAIN* replied to the wrong
> post -- EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST TIME THAT STARTED ALL THIS INSIPID
> NONSENSE -- only this time without even /anything/ you attributed to me.

Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission, actually
your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.

> (The first one at least had my newsreader's auto-generated "**** Durbin
> wrote:", which you later used to try to cover up your error.)

There wasn't an error, you moron, because those words were there. The
attribution was obvious.

>
> Now you could have just said "Sorry about getting confused...PERIOD"!!!
> It's no big deal to make a mistake (although it IS deliciously ironic in
> this particular case), but you just won't admit it without trying to deflect
> blame or attention or whatever the hell it is you want onto someone else.

Given the level of person attacks from you, I'll damn well talk about
what you really meant. This dicussion has zip to do with inadvertent
errors. It is simply due to three stooges (you, Jim, and Ric) trying
to do to people figuratively what you'd be embarassed to do to each other
literally. Get over your hangups and we'll all be better off - at
least nobody would hear about it. Who knows. Maybe you'd all be in
a better mood. :)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:

>
> Hey dimwit...
>
> There wasn't an error, you moron...

> This dicussion has zip to do with inadvertent
> errors. It is simply due to three stooges...

:)

I imagine the Buddha himself would gnash his teeth at this guy!


--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sorry about getting confused. Of course, you stated that you agreed
>>> 100% with Rick when you wrote, "Rick Onanian wrote (nothing snipped
>>> 'cuz it's just so damned good!!!" Now you are trying to disown the
>>> idiotic statement you yourself stated was "so damned good" (thus
>>> showing that it in fact reflected your opinion.)
>>>
>>> Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
>>> yourself.
>
>> Look at your post again, Zaumbie. You *ONCE AGAIN* replied to the
>> wrong post -- EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST TIME THAT STARTED ALL THIS
>> INSIPID
>> NONSENSE -- only this time without even /anything/ you attributed to
>> me.
>
> Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
> snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
> notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
> too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission,
> actually your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.


Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you
replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I
applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like
you need to be told that!)


>> (The first one at least had my newsreader's auto-generated "****
>> Durbin wrote:", which you later used to try to cover up your error.)
>
> There wasn't an error, you moron, because those words were there. The
> attribution was obvious.


Same error as this time. You can't keep straight who wrote what, even when
it's nicely laid out in threads (and your supposedly foolproof newsreader
can't help you, either!)...


Bill "you never DID answer about the 'neutral nerds' who also told you that
you're incorrect" S.
 
"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey dimwit...
> > There wasn't an error, you moron...
>
> > This dicussion has zip to do with inadvertent
> > errors. It is simply due to three stooges...
>
> :)
>
> I imagine the Buddha himself would gnash his teeth at this guy!

Actually he'd gnash his teeth at the three stooges, plus you (a
certified anti-helmet nut with an ax to grind due to previous
discussions on that topic.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. wrote:

> >
> > Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
> > snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
> > notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
> > too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission,
> > actually your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.
>
> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you
> replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I
> applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like
> you need to be told that!)

Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
now trying to deny that. Typical of you fools. If you want your
idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is
considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of
what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.")

> Bill "you never DID answer about the 'neutral nerds' who also told you that
> you're incorrect" S.

Well, the one or two people who sort of agreed with you were wrong
(possibly they didn't see the original post.) A couple raised points
that were additional comments independent of what we were discussing.

Regardless, I answered the points being raised, and it is not
necessary to respond to each and every post to do that.

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something
>> and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And
>> just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow
>> "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!)
>
> Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
> now trying to deny that.

A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE
WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did).

Typical of you fools. If you want your
> idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is
> considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of
> what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.")

Now you're really grasping, Zaumbie. I learned to not top-post years ago,
and most certainly never did in this pathetic excuse for a thread.
Modifying the "X wrote:" isn't top-posting; nor is stating something for the
reader's understanding before posting new content. (And shouldn't your holy
color-coded crapper allow you perfect comprehension of who said what
anyway?!? Sounds like it just confuses you!)

All someone has to do is look at Rick's very well crafted flame of you. I
then posted a reply (basically saying "well done, ol' smokey"), and then you
replied to MY post but trying to answer Rick's arguments (and addressing him
as me!).

All you gotta do is say you ****ed up (which is obvious to anyone), but
you're incapable of it apparently.

Bill "enough of this; I actually ride a bike" S.
 
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:35:14 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I

It meant nothing considering all of the dancing that followed it.
Also, stuff like:
>Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
>yourself.
is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.

>snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
>notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
>too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission, actually
>your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.

It was quite obviously not a snipping error:
I wrote:
<snip>
>>> conscious decision doesn't mean that you didn't choose the wrong
>>> word.

Then you wrote:
> Sigh. What a moron. Sorni (???) must also think that if you try a track
> stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is

Even with all your color coding newsreader glory, you responded to
my _words_ (not his opinion) by writing to _Sorni_.

Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
then it would be pretty easy to get confused, I guess. Possibly your
newsreader doesn't sort the messages properly, and you get confused
because you don't get to read them in order.

Whether or not any of those technical issues exist, the problem
remains you.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:35:14 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
> >Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
>
> It meant nothing considering all of the dancing that followed it.
> Also, stuff like:
> >Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
> >yourself.
> is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.
>

> It was quite obviously not a snipping error:

It was a snipping error, and if you had half a brain, that would be
obvious. If you let a newsreader quote the text, and snip full lines,
you'd get what was posted. Sorni's "X wrote" line got snipped because
he filled in so much text between "wrote" and the following colon that
I noticed only his addition as I cut out irrelavant ****. So Sorni
himself contributed to the problem. Surely "(nothing snipped 'cuz
it's just so damned good!!! :)" is not a statement worth keeping in a
reply, and that's what I intended to snip.

Hint guys - don't try to be excessively cute on attribution lines - it
makes the attribution easy to miss. If you turn most of a line into
fluff, don't expect anyone to read the fluff, and anything next to the
fluff will probably not be noticed as well.

> Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
> attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
> then it would be pretty easy to get confused,

Hey moron, my newsreader color-codes posts, but shows all quoted
text in the same color when composing replies. And I do know
how to handle attributions - in the single mistake I made, I simply
edited the post quickly. What I quoted, however, did in fact
express Sorni's opinion, as he stated as much.

As to "an appology 100% meaningless," Sorni does not deserve an
appology, only a correction, which I did in fact post. After all,
he merely quoted someone else to say what he wanted to anyway,
being too lazy to make up something on his own, and his attempts
at being excessively cute contributed to the problem. Besides,
he owes me about 30 apologies and I have yet to see one.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something
> >> and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And
> >> just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow
> >> "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!)
> >
> > Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
> > now trying to deny that.
>
> A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE
> WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did).

Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then complain
when I wrote:

+ Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track
+ stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
+ all "controlled by your brain."

If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you
think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence
the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots.

You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a
reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it
damn clear I was not replying just to you.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>> Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
>> attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
>> then it would be pretty easy to get confused,
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:16:43 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Hey moron, my newsreader color-codes posts, but shows all quoted
>text in the same color when composing replies. And I do know

Oh, really? So, your infallible color coding doesn't even exist
where it's most needed?

>As to "an appology 100% meaningless," Sorni does not deserve an
>appology, only a correction, which I did in fact post. After all,

If that's the case, then why did you write this:
>Sorry about getting confused. Of course, <snip>
and
>Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant?

You implied in the second line that the first line was, in fact, an
apology; I then proceeded to question the validity of such apology:
>Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
>yourself.
is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.

So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why
do you think that it was obviously not an apology?

You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written
"rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw
while reviewing this thread. Maybe you can trade your color-coded
newsreader in for one with a spell checker. Maybe it will help with
some of your typo issues.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then
> complain when I wrote:
>
> + Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track
> + stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
> + all "controlled by your brain."
>
> If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you
> think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence
> the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots.
>
> You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a
> reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it
> damn clear I was not replying just to you.

Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it).
Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control
that you can't even tell who you're arguing with.

It's just Usenet, Bill. It's not that big a deal. I truly wish I'd never
noticed your original mistake (only did because it invoked MY user name). I
was really very light-hearted about it -- after all, it was just a "fun"
topic not something "serious" -- until you reacted so freaking defensively.
One last time, all you had to do was admit you left a few extra words (the
"Sorni says:" attribution with no corresponding text) OR that you replied to
wrong post and just didn't snip enough. That would have ended it.

Bill "but NOOOOOOOOO" S.
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> It was a snipping error

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE CAN NOW END!

Bill "are those angels I hear singing?!?" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it).
> Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control
> that you can't even tell who you're arguing with.
>
> It's just Usenet, Bill.

Only on usenet would two complete and utter idiots like you and Rick
make a big deal about a trivial typo.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why
> do you think that it was obviously not an apology?
>

It meant that I missed the two or three words at the start of a line
indicating that it was an attribution line, which could have been
avoided if I read the text more carefully, to see if there actually
was something worth keeping on a line that primarily consided of
Sorni's mindless ****.

> You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written
> "rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw
> while reviewing this thread.

Do you think I'm going to waste time fixing my erratic typing on short
replies to you two morons? You morons aren't work the effort of
running the checker.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back