Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> **** Durbin wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0a5-
>>> [email protected]>...
>>>> 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" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> **** Durbin wrote:
> >>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0-
> >>> [email protected]>...
> >>>> 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 protected]>
wrote:

>> 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 wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:15:01 -0800, JimLane
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>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. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> **** Durbin wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<2a0-
>>>>> [email protected]>...
>>>>>> 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! (**** 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" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:

> > The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
>
> Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I
> wrote! (**** 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 "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
quoted you as quoting **** 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
 
**** Durbin wrote:
> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>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 protected]>
wrote:

>Indoors or outdoors- grass or sand?

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

Ensign Nada, huh?
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
>>
>> Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I
>> wrote! (**** 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 "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
> quoted you as quoting **** 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.)

****'s question and my reply is below:

**** Durbin wrote:

> 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" <[email protected]> writes:

> **** Durbin wrote:
>>
>> 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.
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
> you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
> quoted you as quoting **** 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" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:

> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and
> > quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining
> > lines quoted you as quoting **** 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 <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and
> > quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining
> > lines quoted you as quoting **** 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) **** 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. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and
>>> quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining
>>> lines quoted you as quoting **** 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. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and
>>> quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining
>>> lines quoted you as quoting **** 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) **** 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 **** 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
> >>
> >>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and
> >>> quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The
> >>> remaining lines quoted you as quoting **** 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) **** 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 ****
> 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.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
>>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
>>>you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
>>>quoted you as quoting **** 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. wrote:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>
>>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted
>>>you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines
>>>quoted you as quoting **** 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) **** 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
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and
>> > quoted you as saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining
>> > lines quoted you as quoting **** 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) **** 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 **** Durbin was quoted properly,
then you should have climbed back up the thread and quoted
****'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 protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back