If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
> >
> Merely an accurate description, no?

Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.

<rest of this idiot's rant snipped>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On May 3, 11:06 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> >
> > When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.
> > ...
> >
> > "Lids", "magical protective properties" ... If you don't want
> > to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.
>
> Or in other words: Tom, stop thy blaspheming! Thou shalt use only
> the proper, sacred language when referring to the revered headpiece!

Krygowksi, your sleazy tactics are as transparent and infantile as
Tom Sherman's. Maybe sometime you will actually have something
sensible to say, but I've yet to see a post from you where you
haven't tried to play childish games.

<snip>



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >
> >> Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?
> > Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
> > that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
> > Status: 200 OK
> > ...
> > Content-Type: application/pdf
> > ...
> > Content-Length: 2090466
> > Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
> > extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
> > do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
> > as a PDF file?
> > Nothing about some special "Adobe® Clip Notes®" format was given.
> >
> Yo Zaumen,
>
> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>
> When I go to the link, it says "Adobe® Clip Notes®" right above the
> black box displayed on the page.

There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
when you aren't using Adobe products?


> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
> comments...."

..... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
like everyone else's.

> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.

.... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
doesn't tell you.

> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,

No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
it if you are not familiar with the concept.

Sherman, you really are an idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
>>>
>> Merely an accurate description, no?
>
> Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.
>
> <rest of this idiot's rant snipped>
>
Anger management issues?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>> Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?
>>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
>>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>>> Status: 200 OK
>>> ...
>>> Content-Type: application/pdf
>>> ...
>>> Content-Length: 2090466
>>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
>>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
>>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
>>> as a PDF file?
>>> Nothing about some special "Adobe® Clip Notes®" format was given.
>>>
>> Yo Zaumen,
>>
>> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>>
>> When I go to the link, it says "Adobe® Clip Notes®" right above the
>> black box displayed on the page.
>
> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>
You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
nature or lack thereof.
>
>> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
>> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
>> comments...."
>
> .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.

Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).

> You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
> like everyone else's.
>
I have not examined other people systems.

How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.

>> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
>> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
>
> ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
> doesn't tell you.
>
So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
system. Duh!

Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
appearing on the screen. Duh!

>> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>
> No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
> for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
> it if you are not familiar with the concept.
>
No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying Adobe®
Clip Notes® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.

You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
you think it should not have happened. Duh!

> Sherman, you really are an idiot.
>
Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
assumptions? WOW!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[ComandanteBanana]

Sincerely, guys, I think you are riding the wrong saddles that leave
you, you know with ED (impotence).

In this other forum, look what they say to the question,

"Are you in favor of using sex to sell biking?"

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=414469

Yep, 85% of them think is good.

The good news is that if you change the seat, it should be all right.
Look for the ones with the groove.

 

[Norman Wilson]

Bill Z. <[email protected]>:
>There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>when you aren't using Adobe products?

Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
Manuals.

If the full specification has also been published by the IETF
I'd be interested to know where.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
> >>>
> >> Merely an accurate description, no?
> > Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.
> > <rest of this idiot's rant snipped>
> >
> Anger management issues?

No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
with infantile name calling.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
>>>>>
>>>> Merely an accurate description, no?
>>> Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.
>>> <rest of this idiot's rant snipped>
>>>
>> Anger management issues?
>
> No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
> be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
> with infantile name calling.
>
In this case the term is merely descriptive, or does Mr. Zaumen deny he
believes foam bicycle headgear to provide significant protection against
serious head injury?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >>>> Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?
> >>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
> >>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
> >>> Status: 200 OK
> >>> ...
> >>> Content-Type: application/pdf
> >>> ...
> >>> Content-Length: 2090466
> >>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
> >>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
> >>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
> >>> as a PDF file?
> >>> Nothing about some special "Adobe® Clip Notes®" format was given.
> >>>
> >> Yo Zaumen,
> >>
> >> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
> >>
> >> When I go to the link, it says "Adobe® Clip Notes®" right above the
> >> black box displayed on the page.
> > There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> > modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> > the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> > when you aren't using Adobe products?
> >
> You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
> nature or lack thereof.

You made a fool of yourself by posting a reply that showed your lack
of understanding of what I said.

> >
> >> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
> >> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
> >> comments...."
> > .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
>
> Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).

.... which is an accident.
>
> > You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
> > like everyone else's.
> >
> I have not examined other people systems.
>
> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.

You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
should have seen the same thing.
>
> >> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
> >> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
> > ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
> > doesn't tell you.
> >
> So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
> system. Duh!

Are you really that clueless.

> Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
> appearing on the screen. Duh!

Whe cares what Adobe's software "says" when some of us aren't using
Adobe products?
>
> >> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> >> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
> > No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
> > for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
> > it if you are not familiar with the concept.
> >
> No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying Adobe®
> Clip Notes® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
> by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.

.... no, *you* made a fool of yourself by assuming that people's system
should run Adobe's viewer to handle a particular MIME type,
"application/pdf". That MIME type is not owned by Adobe.

> You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
> you think it should not have happened. Duh!
>
> > Sherman, you really are an idiot.
> >
> Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
> idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
> assumptions? WOW!

.... your assumptions and statements were idiotic in spite of your
current attempt to pretend you said something else.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] (Norman Wilson) writes:

> Bill Z. <[email protected]>:
> >There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> >modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> >the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> >when you aren't using Adobe products?
>
> Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
> 3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
> rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
> separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
> Manuals.

That's the one - but keep in mind the title: "The application/pdf
Media Type", and that it states

This document is intended to provide updated information on
the registration of the MIME Media Type "application/pdf",
with particular focus on the features that help mitigate
security concerns. This document refers to features
documented in the PDF References versions 1 [1], 1.3 [2], 1.4
[3] and 1.5 [4], as updated by errata [5].

where the citations are to specific documents published by Adobe.
They just didn't go to the trouble of copying the existing Adobe
documents into the RFC verbatim - a waste of effort.

You can't expect software developers to figure out what to do with
a MIME type of the specification of that type can be changed at
will without updating the specification for what that MIME type
represents.

Sherman was complaining about what my software was doing - and that
software apparently worked correctly - it found an application that
could handle the MIME type defined in RFC 3778. It's just that the
document format did not match the MIME type.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>>>> Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?
>>>>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
>>>>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>>>>> Status: 200 OK
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Type: application/pdf
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Length: 2090466
>>>>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
>>>>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
>>>>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
>>>>> as a PDF file?
>>>>> Nothing about some special "Adobe® Clip Notes®" format was given.
>>>>>
>>>> Yo Zaumen,
>>>>
>>>> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>>>>
>>>> When I go to the link, it says "Adobe® Clip Notes®" right above the
>>>> black box displayed on the page.
>>> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>>> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>>> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>>> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>>>
>> You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
>> nature or lack thereof.
>
> You made a fool of yourself by posting a reply that showed your lack
> of understanding of what I said.
>
Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.

Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?

>>>> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
>>>> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
>>>> comments...."
>>> .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
>> Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).
>
> ... which is an accident.

Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.

>>> You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
>>> like everyone else's.
>>>
>> I have not examined other people systems.
>>
>> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
>> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.
>
> You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
> should have seen the same thing.

Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do not
project that onto everyone else.

>>>> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
>>>> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
>>> ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
>>> doesn't tell you.
>>>
>> So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
>> system. Duh!
>
> Are you really that clueless.
>
I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can observe
myself? WOW!

>> Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
>> appearing on the screen. Duh!
>
> Whe cares what Adobe's software "says" when some of us aren't using
> Adobe products?

We were discussing what is actually on the web page in question. I am
reporting actual observations of things that Zaumen is denying the
possibility of since his secondary sources do not show it to be there.
Hardly a scientific approach, eh?

>>>> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>>>> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>>> No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
>>> for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
>>> it if you are not familiar with the concept.
>>>
>> No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying Adobe®
>> Clip Notes® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
>> by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.
>
> ... no, *you* made a fool of yourself by assuming that people's system
> should run Adobe's viewer to handle a particular MIME type,
> "application/pdf". That MIME type is not owned by Adobe.
>
Again, am I a fool for reporting what is actually there, rather than
what Zaumen believes should be there but has no evidence to prove it?

>> You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
>> you think it should not have happened. Duh!
>>
>>> Sherman, you really are an idiot.
>>>
>> Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
>> idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
>> assumptions? WOW!
>
> ... your assumptions and statements were idiotic in spite of your
> current attempt to pretend you said something else.
>
Yes, real world observations are idiotic when they contradict the
assumptions of The Great Zaumen.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >> Anger management issues?
> > No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
> > be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
> > with infantile name calling.
> >
> In this case the term is merely descriptive, or does Mr. Zaumen deny
> he believes foam bicycle headgear to provide significant protection
> against serious head injury?

As I said, if you your posts to not be treated as utter garbage, I
suggest you not start them with infantile name calling as you did
in the posts I complained about.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> [email protected] (Norman Wilson) writes:
>
>> Bill Z. <[email protected]>:
>>> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>>> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>>> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>>> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>> Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
>> 3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
>> rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
>> separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
>> Manuals.
>
> That's the one - but keep in mind the title: "The application/pdf
> Media Type", and that it states
>
> This document is intended to provide updated information on
> the registration of the MIME Media Type "application/pdf",
> with particular focus on the features that help mitigate
> security concerns. This document refers to features
> documented in the PDF References versions 1 [1], 1.3 [2], 1.4
> [3] and 1.5 [4], as updated by errata [5].
>
> where the citations are to specific documents published by Adobe.
> They just didn't go to the trouble of copying the existing Adobe
> documents into the RFC verbatim - a waste of effort.
>
> You can't expect software developers to figure out what to do with
> a MIME type of the specification of that type can be changed at
> will without updating the specification for what that MIME type
> represents.
>
> Sherman was complaining about what my software was doing - and that
> software apparently worked correctly - it found an application that
> could handle the MIME type defined in RFC 3778. It's just that the
> document format did not match the MIME type.
>
Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
care less what it does and what is does not.

Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
an apology on this matter.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>> Anger management issues?
>>> No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
>>> be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
>>> with infantile name calling.
>>>
>> In this case the term is merely descriptive, or does Mr. Zaumen deny
>> he believes foam bicycle headgear to provide significant protection
>> against serious head injury?
>
> As I said, if you your posts to not be treated as utter garbage, I
> suggest you not start them with infantile name calling as you did
> in the posts I complained about.
>
If Mr. Zaumen wants his posts to not be treated as utter garbage, he
should refrain from false accusations of inventing the content of web pages.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> They must think you are crazy for
> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.

I think you're both crazy.

But that's okay; so am I.

I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
both sides of the never-ending argument.

I'd rather instead direct my energies toward needling
the r.a.d. dickheads.

They deserve us, more than we deserve each other.
And that's sayin' sumpthin'.


meow,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> They must think you are crazy for
>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>
> I think you're both crazy.
>
> But that's okay; so am I.
>
Are you crazy enough to see a video at this link of a woman riding a
city bike with a pannier full of groceries but no helmet?
<http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf>

A common scene in Europe, but extraordinary in the US.

> I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
> issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
> both sides of the never-ending argument.
>
No one besides a few nuts are suggesting that bicycle foam hats be
banned. Many are suggesting that they be made mandatory, or at least the
cyclists be penalized in some way for not wearing a foam hat. The
distinction is important.

> I'd rather instead direct my energies toward needling
> the r.a.d. dickheads.
>
Cross-posted flame wars are always fun.

> They deserve us, more than we deserve each other.
> And that's sayin' sumpthin'.
>

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
> an apology on this matter.

I deeply regret having caused any offense, and I sincerely
assure you that no offense toward anybody was intended on
my part. I like people, and I like for people to be happy.
It is against my own lights to cause undue unhappiness, and
whenever I've done so, I've failed.

The trick to dealing with a Jewish mom who guilts you out
is to guilt /her/ out, right back, in a way that tugs at
her heartstrings. Then you can apologize yer way out of
practically anything. Except that seed of self-respect
and dignity she planted in you keeps naggin' at you, so
you really can't let yourself get away with anything.
Damn!

It's easier to beg for foregiveness than to ask permission.

You wanted an apology? Now you've got it. But don't have
too-high expectations of namuaZ lliB.

Anyways, have a good day. I hope everything goes your way.
I mean that for everybody. Despite my needling of certain
characters in rec.autos.driving, I pretty much like everybody.
After 57 years in this Vale of Tears, that's the main thing
I've learned. Boy, am I ever stoopid! After 57 years, that's
/all/ I come away with? Oh, well.

Bless y'all. Be nice to one another. Share the love.
Render apologies redundant.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> They must think you are crazy for
>>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>>
>> I think you're both crazy.
>>
>> But that's okay; so am I.
>>
> Are you crazy enough to see a video at this link of a woman riding a
> city bike with a pannier full of groceries but no helmet?
> <http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf>
>
> A common scene in Europe, but extraordinary in the US.

I've been doing that fairly regularly.

>> I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
>> issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
>> both sides of the never-ending argument.
>>
> No one besides a few nuts are suggesting that bicycle foam hats be
> banned. Many are suggesting that they be made mandatory, or at least the
> cyclists be penalized in some way for not wearing a foam hat. The
> distinction is important.

I've been letting my hair grow out (again.)
I'm inflicted with hair that grows fatter
before it gets longer. So I've got this
leonine mane. It feels pretty good to have
air flowing through my thick follicules.

But I also live in a MHL area. I have to
intuit when the cops are gonna enforce the
law, and when I can get away with it.
So sometimes I wear the damn'd thing, and
sometimes I don't. IIRC the ticket for
not wearing my egg carton hat could cost
me $185.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[ComandanteBanana]

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

"Oh how little you know! Biking is a good means to initiate sexual
activity!"

I don't advocate using a bike as an actual sex object...

"The case of a man convicted of simulating sex with his bicycle has
sparked a debate about human rights and the privacy of an individual.

He was reported by cleaners at a hostel who unlocked his door and
found him engaged in a sex act with his bike.

Stewart was put on the Sex Offenders' Register, which some posters
said was an over-reaction by the sheriff.

Stewart admitted a sexually aggravated breach of the peace by
conducting himself in a disorderly manner and simulating sex. As well
as being put on register for three years, he was put on probation for
the same length of time.

More than a million people have read the story on the BBC news website
and it has been hotly debated on forums elsewhere.

One contributor asked: "Would they have done the same to a woman with
a sex toy?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/7098116.stm


Just that biking could be sold better to the masses, the monkeys in my
stories, who would stop trying to imitate the lions and their SUVs.
Monkey see, monkey do...