Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



Where, where the Hell is Bill? Where, where the Hell is
Bill? Where, where the Hell is Bill? Where, where the Hell
is Bill? Well, maybe he went to get a sideways haircut Maybe
he went to get a striped shirt Maybe he went to get some
plastic shoes Maybe he went to get some funny sunglasses
Well, maybe he went to get an Air Force parka Maybe he went
to get a Vespa scooter Maybe he went to get a British flag
Maybe he went to go Mod Ska dancing Well, maybe he went to
get a mohawk And maybe he went to get some gnarly thrash
boots Maybe he went to go ride his skateboard Maybe he went
to see the Circle Jerks
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
Tom Keats wrote:

> So long as ppl mellow out, cheer up, and chip-in some
> good vibes into the Collective Consciousness,
> everything's cool.
{snip}
> Happiness and good will is not only infectuously self-
> replicating -- it's cheap and handy. Hell, it's the
> opposite of war & militarism. Kinda like Ray
> Charles' grin.
>
> It's pretty good stuff.

Who let THIS guy in here?!? :)

Bill "flow disrupted" S.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> 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
>

It's obvious you could teach a mule about stubbornness and a
dunce about stupidity.

jim
 
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>> don't agree. His views may (or may not) be mistaken
>> and/or inaccurate, but they are well-reasoned, not
>> idiotic.
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:54:49 GMT,
[email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>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.

I haven't gone back and studied the Rick vs. Frank helmet
war of 2003, but I came away believing that his reasoning
was sound. I could be remembering a more rosy picture
than reality, but it's more likely that his reasoning
evolved between his old arguments with you and the time
he spent on me.

I suspect that it's even more likely that you're showing
similar characteristics regarding Frank as you are regarding
Sorni. I think it's you, not the rest of the world.

>> I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited
>> out of an unrelated courtesy issue.
>
>I'd rather not see propaganda.

Me neither...but it beats another fruitless helmet war.

>It distracts from rational dicussions.

What, like this one? Don't you suppose a helmet war would
distract from this discussion (regardless of how rational
it may be)?

>> 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.

I'll note that you didn't address my example of similar
technique that is within the rules but could be
obfuscatory for some.

>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.

That's why there's "From:" headers.

>Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For
>instance, if I
<irrelevance snipped>

You don't seem to mind ambiguity, as long as it's within
your interpretation of rules.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

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

> I haven't gone back and studied the Rick vs. Frank helmet
> war of 2003, but I came away believing that his reasoning
> was sound. I could be remembering a more rosy picture
> than reality, but it's more likely that his reasoning
> evolved between his old arguments with you and the time
> he spent on me.
>
> I suspect that it's even more likely that you're
> showing similar characteristics regarding Frank as you
> are regarding Sorni. I think it's you, not the rest of
> the world.

It is neither me nor the rest of the world. There were a few
anti- helmet people didn't like any statement that was not
100% anti-helmet. I disagreed with them, but so did others.

> >I'd rather not see propaganda.
>
> Me neither...but it beats another fruitless helmet war.
>
> >It distracts from rational dicussions.
>
> What, like this one? Don't you suppose a helmet war would
> distract from this discussion (regardless of how rational
> it may be)?

Now you are babbling.

> >> 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.
>
> I'll note that you didn't address my example of similar
> technique that is within the rules but could be
> obfuscatory for some.

You didn't give any example that at all matched.

> >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.
>
> That's why there's "From:" headers.

You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent a
message, and that message typically contains text from that
poster and possibly text that poster quoted from another
poster's message. Distinguishing quotes of what you are
replying to (provided for context) from what you are saying
is useful, partciularly when other software provides a
search capability. For example, if person A uses the word
"foo" and B replies to that post, and does not snip the
quoted lines containing "foo," someone searching for "foo"
might want to get A's posts but not B's.

> >Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For
> >instance, if I
> <irrelevance snipped>
>
> You don't seem to mind ambiguity, as long as it's within
> your interpretation of rules.

You missed the point again, as there is *no* ambiguity
within the rules I was referring to.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> I'll let myself out, if I could just find the fuggin'
> door. Or at least a window that's not stuck shut.

Don't forget your hat.

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I
forgot all during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
but progress.
- Joseph Joubert {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tom Keats wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > I'll let myself out, if I could just find the fuggin'
> > door. Or at least a window that's not stuck shut.
>
> Don't forget your hat.
>
> Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I
> forgot all during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.

Sorni is still acting like a little child.

Bill

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

>> Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I
>> forgot all during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.
>
> Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).

Bill "rush of nostalgia" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
but progress.
- Joseph Joubert {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which
> >> I forgot all during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.
> >
> > Sorni is still acting like a little child.
>
> a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

Then you should have left me out of your infantile
name calling.
>
> b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).
>
> Bill "rush of nostalgia" S.

The only thing that was snipped was a signature, you moron,
which by convention is separated from the text of the post
by a line containing "--". If you didn't intend that to be a
signature, you shouldn't have typed it as such.

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:
>>
>>>> Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which
>>>> I forgot all during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.
>>>
>>> Sorni is still acting like a little child.
>>
>> a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and
>
> Then you should have left me out of your infantile name
> calling.

Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-
calling (see below). And "Zaumie" is bad?!?

>> b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).

> The only thing that was snipped was a signature, you
> moron, which by convention is separated from the text
> of the post by a line containing "--". If you didn't
> intend that to be a signature, you shouldn't have typed
> it as such.

BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know
that's something you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!

Bill "come to think of it, I'd envy that person" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
but progress.
- Joseph Joubert {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can
forget THAT!}
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> >>> Sorni is still acting like a little child.
> >>
> >> a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and
> >
> > Then you should have left me out of your infantile name
> > calling.
>
> Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-
> calling (see below). And "Zaumie" is bad?!?

Is that the way you talk when your parents are watching you?

> BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know
> that's something you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND
> WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!

If you want people to read things like the following:

> {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}

then don't put them in your signature. Most people would be
thankful that such statements were snipped. I guess you
have even less respect for yourself than you have for
anyone else.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>>> Sorni is still acting like a little child.
>>>>
>>>> a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and
>>>
>>> Then you should have left me out of your infantile name
>>> calling.
>>
>> Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-
>> calling (see below). And "Zaumie" is bad?!?
>
> Is that the way you talk when your parents are
> watching you?

Dad's 87; Mom's dead...but thanks for caring.

>> BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know
>> that's something you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND
>> WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!
>
> If you want people to read things like the following:
>
>> {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}
>
> then don't put them in your signature. Most people would
> be thankful that such statements were snipped. I guess you
> have even less respect for yourself than you have for
> anyone else.

Once again, you have "edited" (butchered) this to where it
doesn't make sense. I specifically said I was replying to
Tom just to add a funny (to most people) little quotation --
and in fact was poking fun at MYSELF in the process (for
having engaged in such a silly thread with you for so long
-- a mistake I shall not repeat)... It's obviously not an
always-used signature, as anyone who could read would
understand ("conventions" be damned; common sense also
allowable, you know).

Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply
to you, again -- at least in this subthread.

Bill "should have Googled your contrary, argumentative ass
the very first time you whined" S.

--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory,
but progress.
- Joseph Joubert {DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERMINABLE BILL
ZAUMEN}
 
Various and sundry people wrote:

> > >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.
> >
> > That's why there's "From:" headers.
>
> You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent
> a message, and that message typically contains text
> from that poster and possibly text that poster quoted
> from another poster's message. Distinguishing quotes of
> what you are replying to (provided for context) from
> what you are saying is useful, partciularly when other
> software provides a search capability. For example, if
> person A uses the word "foo" and B replies to that
> post, and does not snip the quoted lines containing
> "foo," someone searching for "foo" might want to get
> A's posts but not B's.



I've avoided this conversation for a while now. One thing
that's been neglected is the relevance of messages, and the
relevance of content that's quoted as it pertains to the
message being currently written by whomever.

If you need to quote 3 messages back in the thread, you have
to ask yourself "Are you making a new point in this
message?" If you are, do you really need to quote that many
messages back? If you aren't, why are you posting it?

I saw a very smart bit in the faq for one computer
programming newsgroup:

Before you post, remember that it takes an average of 30
seconds to read a post. Granted, that's not alot, but you
can write a line of code in 30 seconds. Most of us code in
our spare time. Given that about 10,000 people read this
newsgroup, your message will cause 10,000 lines of code to
never be written.

So, to translate that to cycling terms . . . roughly 1,600
kilometers that will never be ridden.

And as far as keyword searches, References: takes care of
that. Each message has the messageID of the message(s) that
it is in reply to. Search for the messageID and you'll find
the replies.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:

> > If you want people to read things like the following:
> >
> >> {BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}
> >
> > then don't put them in your signature. Most people would
> > be thankful that such statements were snipped. I guess
> > you have even less respect for yourself than you have
> > for anyone else.
>
> Once again, you have "edited" (butchered) this to where it
> doesn't make sense.

Once again, what was "snipped" originally was a
signature and with statements like yours, those
*deserve* to be snipped.

> Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't
> reply to you, again -- at least in this subthread.

You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely if
ever been true.

Bill

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

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't
> >> reply to you, again -- at least in this subthread.
> >
> > You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely
> > if ever been true.
>
> Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?

F___ you too.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>
>>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't
>>>>reply to you, again -- at least in this subthread.
>>>
>>>You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely
>>>if ever been true.
>>
>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work at it?
>
>
> F___ you too.
>

A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-
old can say as much. And probably more eloquently.

jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> >>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work
> >>at it?
> > F___ you too.
> >
>
> A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-
> old can say as much. And probably more eloquently.

Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots,
including you, Jim.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work
>>>>at it?
>>>
>>>F___ you too.
>>>
>>
>>A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-
>>old can say as much. And probably more eloquently.
>
>
> Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots,
> including you, Jim.
>

Whose brain did your borrow? You've proven more than once
that you haven't one. Must have been some braindead patient
from a mental ward.

jim
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>>Jeez, were ya born a doofus or did you have to work
>>>>at it?
>>>
>>>F___ you too.
>>>
>>
>>A reply that is ever so fitting for you, Z. Any five-year-
>>old can say as much. And probably more eloquently.
>
>
> Personally, I think the lot of you are bunch of idiots,
> including you, Jim.
>

BTW, if we're all idiots, why don't you go where you are
welcome? Or was that something about birds of a feather?

jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Whose brain did your borrow? You've proven more than once
> that you haven't one. Must have been some braindead
> patient from a mental ward.

What you've proven is that you have the emotional maturity
of a little child who is not capable of a rational
discussion without resorting to continual, unprovoked,
infantile name calling.

Bill

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