Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
> I've read the entire thread thus far, and I think both of
> your mothers wear combat boots.

At least we had mothers.

jim
 
Claire Petersky wrote:
> Bill Z, Sorni, JimLane, take a deep breath in. Then, let a
> deep breath out.
>
> Next inhalation, breathe in, and relax.
>
> Exhale, and smile.
>
> Breathe in, and relax; breathe out and smile.
>
> This simple practice, taught by Thich Nhat Hanh in his
> book, Peace is Every Step (http://tinyurl.com/3fmnz), will
> help you find the path to your true self.

And I'll bet he appreciates your correct attribution of his
teachings :)

Thanks, Claire -- hope the road rash is healing well and
completely.

Bill "Oowwwwmmmmmmm" S.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>>
>>>> And it is obviously you three who have a real problem.
>>> I'll hand it to you, Bill. In the years I've been on
>>> Usenet, you are one of the best at avoiding getting a
>>> clue. A masterful performance that is now smelling like
>>> overripe troll.
>>
>> Zaumen's been this way as long as I can remember. And
>> that's many, many years.
>
> Frank Krygowski (the guy posting this) is an anti-helmet
> nut whose been on my case for 10 years for not agreeing
> with his idiotic views on that subject and has a long term
> grudge and axe to grind. Much of what Krygowski posted
> consisted of pure propaganda.
>
> The rest of you are IMHO out to lunch on the present
> discussion. Trivial software can handle the quoting
> convention and if it can, you can. BTW, I've had access to
> this stuff since the 70s, starting with an ARPAnet
> account. Tim (a relative newbie) notwithstanding, the
> trolls are Sorni, and a few other nuts, all of whom were
> making a big ado about nothing.
>
> Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-
> word, content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my
> post due to his wisecrack not fitting into what I ended up
> writing. And that sort of complaint on his part really is
> idiotic.

Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right -- I
forgot to snip your name so it looked like you said
something you didn't", or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong
post" and that would have been the end of it (seen it many,
many times). I didn't know I was dealing with a total
perfectionist whacko who won't admit to the most trivial of
mistakes. I was never at all vexed about it, until you went
all defensive/jerklick over it; then it became rather fun to
watch you twist 'n turn and do ANYTHING to avoid being in
error despite others trying to tell you so, too.

You'd think someone with your vast ARP* (old, eh?) knowledge
base would have learned how to post/quote/attribute by now.

Bill "color coding or not" S.

*on purpose, so don't bother correcting it (if you can
possibly resist)
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right --
> I forgot to snip your name so it looked like you said
> something you didn't", or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong
> post" and that would have been the end of it (seen it
> many, many times).
<idiotic comments snipped>.

Sorni, if you are such a complete and utter idiot as to
think that anyone couldn't tell who said what, you are
hopeless. I quoted you as quoting someone else, with that
someone else mentioned by name. It basically said, "Sorni
said that Dave said that ...." If I had eliminated the "Dave
said," you'd have a legitimate complaint, but I didn't do
that. If you are such an idiot that you can't tell the
difference, that's your loss.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right
>> -- I forgot to snip your name so it looked like you said
>> something you didn't", or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong
>> post" and that would have been the end of it (seen it
>> many, many times).
> <idiotic comments snipped>.
>
> Sorni, if you are such a complete and utter idiot as to
> think that anyone couldn't tell who said what, you are
> hopeless. I quoted you as quoting someone else, with that
> someone else mentioned by name. It basically said, "Sorni
> said that Dave said that ...." If I had eliminated the
> "Dave said," you'd have a legitimate complaint, but I
> didn't do that. If you are such an idiot that you can't
> tell the difference, that's your loss.

So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that so
& so said:"? Sorry, it's not.

You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it
and/or clean it up before hitting "Send", and you just
won't admit it.

God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your
life where you need to admit and error or -- horrors! --
apologize.

Bill "learned long ago I'd rather be happy than *right* (at
all costs)" S.

PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't make you seem any
more rational, Bill. (And you called ME petulant!)
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> The rest of you are IMHO out to lunch on the present
> discussion.

You're wrong, asshole. You incorrectly attributed
something to Sorni.
 
Jay Hill <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> The rest of you are IMHO out to lunch on the present
>> discussion.
>
> You're wrong, asshole. You incorrectly attributed
> something to Sorni.

He is wrong. He also suffers from that peculiar middle-aged
male malady that prevents him from being able to see it or
admit it. Nothing you can do about it. Just be glad you're
not married to him.
 
S o r n i wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right
>>>-- I forgot to snip your name so it looked like you said
>>>something you didn't", or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong
>>>post" and that would have been the end of it (seen it
>>>many, many times).
>>
>><idiotic comments snipped>.
>>
>>Sorni, if you are such a complete and utter idiot as to
>>think that anyone couldn't tell who said what, you are
>>hopeless. I quoted you as quoting someone else, with that
>>someone else mentioned by name. It basically said, "Sorni
>>said that Dave said that ...." If I had eliminated the
>>"Dave said," you'd have a legitimate complaint, but I
>>didn't do that. If you are such an idiot that you can't
>>tell the difference, that's your loss.
>
>
> So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that
> so & so said:"? Sorry, it's not.
>
> You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it and/or
> clean it up before hitting "Send", and you just won't
> admit it.
>
> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your
> life where you need to admit and error or -- horrors! --
> apologize.
>
> Bill "learned long ago I'd rather be happy than *right*
> (at all costs)" S.
>
> PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't make you seem any
> more rational, Bill. (And you called ME petulant!)
>
>

Nah, I called Z petulant, didn't I? If he did, he was
cribbin off me.

jim
 
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:38:21 -0700, JimLane <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
>> I've read the entire thread thus far, and I think both of
>> your mothers wear combat boots.
>
>At least we had mothers.

Yes, I made the acquaintance of yours here:
http://www.hoslap.net/
 
Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:38:21 -0700, JimLane
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
>>
>>>I've read the entire thread thus far, and I think both of
>>>your mothers wear combat boots.
>>
>>At least we had mothers.
>
>
> Yes, I made the acquaintance of yours here:
> http://www.hoslap.net/
>
>

Hmmm, so that's who you are trying to associate with,
eh? You probably were too low on the totem to get
anywhere. After all, they do have standards and you
can't even make that cut.

jim

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

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

> So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that
> so & so said:"? Sorry, it's not.

Sigh. The text +
+ Sorni writes:
+ > Durbin writes:
+ > > .... + is expressed in English as
"Sorni writes that Durbin write that ...."
The quoting convention is 100% clear. It is
*not* the same as +
+ Sorni writes:
+ > > .... + which most readers would figure
out, but might be read as "Sorni write that
....". Do you see the difference or are you
really that dense?

>
> You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it and/or
> clean it up before hitting "Send", and you just won't
> admit it.

Not "cleaning up" by making the text ever so slightly
more succinct is not a misquote, which was what you
complaining about.

If your complaint is about style, not accuracy, you should
have said that, but you didn't.
>
> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your
> life where you need to admit and error or -- horrors! --
> apologize.

Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as
you seem to, really does have a few serious problems to
deal with.

Bill

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

> Nah, I called Z petulant, didn't I? If he did, he was
> cribbin off me.

I don't remember if I used the word, but I take it you now
claim to have a copyright on the use of a single word? You
really are out to lunch.

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

>> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your
>> life where you need to admit an error or -- horrors! --
>> apologize.
>
> Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as
> you seem to, really does have a few serious problems to
> deal with.

Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant
issue for you to deal with, not this inane blather.

Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.

Bill "just wish I'd never noticed the misattribution in the
first place" S.
 
PLEASE ALL DON'T REPLY TO ANY MORE MESSAGES ON THIS THREAD
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in
> >> your life where you need to admit an error or --
> >> horrors! -- apologize.
> >
> > Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as
> > you seem to, really does have a few serious problems to
> > deal with.
>
> Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant
> issue for you
to
> deal with, not this inane blather.
>
> Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.
>
> Bill "just wish I'd never noticed the misattribution in
> the first place"
S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in
> >> your life where you need to admit an error or --
> >> horrors! -- apologize.
> >
> > Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as
> > you seem to, really does have a few serious problems to
> > deal with.
>
> Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant
> issue for you to deal with, not this inane blather.

This *is* a truly significant issue to you given how you've
been ranting about it, but I will agree that your complaints
are in fact "inane blather."

> Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.

You said you were "done" quite a few times, of course ...

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:49:24 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:
>In article <lQJcc.86562$JO3.44558@attbi_s04>, "Claire
>Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Bill Z, Sorni, JimLane, take a deep breath in. Then, let
>> a deep breath out. Next inhalation, breathe in, and
>> relax. Exhale, and smile. Breathe in, and relax; breathe
>> out and smile.
>>
>> This simple practice, taught by Thich Nhat Hanh in his
>> book, Peace is Every Step (http://tinyurl.com/3fmnz),
>> will help you find the path to your true self.
>
>That's the basic pot smoking technique, too.

Same technique, same results, eh?
--
Rick Onanian
 
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> The rest of you are IMHO out to lunch on the present
>>> discussion.
>Jay Hill <[email protected]> writes:
>> You're wrong, asshole. You incorrectly attributed
>> something to Sorni.
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:13:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
>He is wrong. He also suffers from that peculiar middle-aged
>male malady that prevents him from being able to see it or
>admit it. Nothing you can do about it. Just be glad you're
>not married to him.

I hope that as I approach middle age, I don't suffer from
that malady. I find it's quite satisfying sometimes to
admit being wrong and get on with stuff. Google groups for
onanian "i stand corrected" for the most common way I admit
I'm wrong...
--
Rick Onanian
 
>"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> writes:
>> Tim McNamara wrote: Zaumen's been this way as long as I
>> can remember. And that's many, many years.

I've snipped properly according to your rules. Can you spot
what's wrong?

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:59:14 GMT,
[email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Frank Krygowski (the guy posting this) is an anti-helmet
>nut whose been on my case for 10 years for not agreeing
>with his idiotic views on that subject and has a long term
>grudge and axe to grind.

You're both nuts for continuing to argue the same point
for so long.

Frank is effectively anti-helmet, and I spent a lot of
time in a helmet war sparring with him. I did learn to
respect him, even if I don't agree. His views may (or may
not) be mistaken and/or inaccurate, but they are well-
reasoned, not idiotic.

>Much of what Krygowski posted consisted of pure propaganda.

I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited
out of an unrelated courtesy issue.

>Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-
>word, content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my post
>due to his

No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.

Sheldon Brown uses a tagline that says something like "The
nice thing about standards is that there's so many to
choose from". Consider that clarity, even if it requires
flouting a standard (it didn't in this case), beats a
standard whose clarity may be questionable, even if you
think it looks obvious.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> Frank is effectively anti-helmet, and I spent a lot of
> time in a helmet war sparring with him. I did learn to
> respect him, even if I don't agree. His views may (or may
> not) be mistaken and/or inaccurate, but they are well-
> reasoned, not idiotic.

There is a difference between well-written and well-
reasoned. I think you are confusing the two. While Frank
would occasionally make resonable statements, he would
then continue by going off the deep end in an attempt to
butress his argument by throwing up strawmen, and using
other such tactics.

> >Much of what Krygowski posted consisted of pure
> >propaganda.
>
> I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited
> out of an unrelated courtesy issue.

I'd rather not see propaganda. It distracts from rational
dicussions.

> >Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-
> >word, content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my
> >post due to his
>
> No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.

What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any
quoted text, which is what he claimed.

> Sheldon Brown uses a tagline that says something like "The
> nice thing about standards is that there's so many to
> choose from". Consider that clarity, even if it requires
> flouting a standard (it didn't in this case), beats a
> standard whose clarity may be questionable, even if you
> think it looks obvious.

One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was
to make it readable by both machines and by people, to aid
in such tasks as archving, where you might want to search
for a keyword someone used, as opposed to a keyword someone
quoted another poster as using.

Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For
instance, if I write, "Candidate for Governor in love nest
with 'singer'," a line (approximately) from _Citizen Kane_,
the quote around the word _singer_ would not necessarily
mean that I was quoting someone's statement but rather
questioning if the woman was really a singer. The usenet
convention avoids such ambiguities.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
>The usenet convention avoids such ambiguities.

"Singer In Love Nest With Kane."

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY
MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------ __________306.350.357.38-
>>[email protected]__________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back