Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



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

> 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?

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
 
JimLane <[email protected]> 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.
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> 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.
 
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.

Give it up.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> 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.

Wrong, you twit. You're wrong, & you haven't got the
cajones to admit it, & you're doing it in front of
thyousands of people.
 
Jay Hill wrote:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> JimLane <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
> Wrong, you twit. You're wrong, & you haven't got the
> cajones to admit it, & you're doing it in front of
> thyousands of people.
>

Perhaps he enjoys making a fool of himself in public?

jim
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> JimLane <[email protected]> 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
 
Bill Z. wrote:

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

See how this (my reply now) is posted incorrectly?!? I left
the "Jim Lane wrote:" but deleted all his words. Pretty
stupid, right?

A new reader would be confused as to who wrote what, as Jim
Lane is mentioned but nowhere to be found! (And no, I don't
think the '>' convention makes it any clearer.)

Bill "OK, I swear I'm giving up now!!!" S.
 
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> 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.

There was a company called "Dharma Ink" or something like
that which produced a fun line of T-shirts that were classic
Ch'an an dZen images, and came with a card which explained
the image and its source. That was years ago, I think I saw
an ad in Tricycle and bought one of their T-shirts, but they
seem to have vanished.
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin
> writes:", with the attribution made clear by *your*
> indentation. Everyone knows what is going on.

You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to
continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is
wrong. Like I said, classic Usenet crapola.
 
Jay Hill <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> JimLane <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Wrong, you twit. You're wrong, & you haven't got the
> cajones to admit it, & you're doing it in front of
> thyousands of people.

Well, more likely tens of people. Normal people stopped
reading this about 12 posts back when Bill Z.'s
intransigence was shown to be utterly entrenched. There's no
reason to join him in rudeness.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
>> Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin
>> writes:", with the attribution made clear by *your*
>> indentation. Everyone knows what is going on.
>
> You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to
> continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is
> wrong. Like I said, classic Usenet crapola.

Thank you, Tim. I asked for someone to explain it better,
and you did just that.

Bill "time for Arrested Development" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

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

> > 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.

You should give up. You should also grow up - you silly
statements in quotes like the above are simply childish.
This wasn't a serious discussion after all, just you
making a wisecrack and me adding a funny quip that was
independent of yours.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin
> > writes:", with the attribution made clear by *your*
> > indentation. Everyone knows what is going on.
>
> You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to
> continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is
> wrong. Like I said, classic Usenet crapola.

I'm claiming the attribution of the quotes is clear given
standard usenet conventions. You can claim it is slightly
more work to check the attribution (by one level of '>') but
this is not rocket science.

You'd have no complaint if I had included a single word that
Sorni had typed as a comment, which most readers would miss
anyway, so your whole point is just plain silly.

The quotes I put in where generated by my newsreader - I
always let the newsreader handle it because the chances of
messing it up are far less. Modern newsreaders sometimes
highlight each level of quotation in a differnet color, so
it is very easy to distinguish one person's comment from
another. If you guys have that much trouble, get a better
newsreader.

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > JimLane <[email protected]> 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.

"Everyone else" are a few idiots with their heads up
their butts.

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