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

[Jym Dyer]

=v= You know, changing the Subject: line to the most
filtered-out topic in rec.bicycles.* history and ranting
about file download formats is perhaps the best way to
end up not being read. Must be some sort of reverse
psychology going on here. :^)
<_Jym_>

 

[Norman Wilson]

Tom Keats <[email protected]>:
>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 tend to agree. I've never found a source of beeswax
I really like for the purpose, though. Where do you
get yours?

So far as I know there is no IETF RFC describing beeswax,
nor even an application/beeswax MIME type.

A mind is a terrible thing to wax,

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= You know, changing the Subject: line to the most
> filtered-out topic in rec.bicycles.* history and ranting
> about file download formats is perhaps the best way to
> end up not being read. Must be some sort of reverse
> psychology going on here. :^)

I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet discussions. As
for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just having a friendly
discussion.

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> 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.
>
That is a ridiculously high fine. Wait a minute, ANY fine for not
wearing a foam hat is ridiculous.

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

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
(see Message ID <[email protected]>):

:: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
:: >
:: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
::
:; So far it has worked well on Zaumen.

I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
with (see Message ID <[email protected]>):

: 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,
:since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
: Adobe® Clip Notes® being used on the page.

You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
"apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
when told off because of it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
> what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
> fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
> (see Message ID <[email protected]>):
>
> :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
> :: >
> :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
> ::
> :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen.
>
Problem with understanding humor, eh?

> I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
> with (see Message ID <[email protected]>):
>
> : 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,
> :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
> : Adobe® Clip Notes® being used on the page.
>
> You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
> "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
> when told off because of it.
>
What whining - do I sense some projection here?

Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with him.

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

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no surprise
since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
when absolutely nothing is going on.

> 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?

Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser what
to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
different file extentions.

>
> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.

So what?

>
> >> 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.

The web site reported a file type that was misleading.

> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
> observe myself? WOW!

Sherman, you are an idiot.
<rest of this moron's post snipped>


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no surprise
> since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
> I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
> well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
> when absolutely nothing is going on.
>
Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
sense here.

Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said was
on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
ranting?" Duh.

>> 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?
>
> Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser what
> to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
> is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
> different file extentions.
>
>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>
> So what?
>
So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If I
had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?

>>>> 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.
>
> The web site reported a file type that was misleading.
>
So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.

>> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
>> observe myself? WOW!
>
> Sherman, you are an idiot.
> <rest of this moron's post snipped>
>
Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.

--
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:
> >
> >> 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.
> > Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
> > what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
> > fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
> > (see Message ID <[email protected]>):
> > :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
> > :: >
> > :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
> > ::
> > :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen.
> >
> Problem with understanding humor, eh?
>
> > I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
> > with (see Message ID <[email protected]>):
> > : 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,
> > :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
> > : Adobe® Clip Notes® being used on the page.
> > You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
> > "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
> > when told off because of it.
> >
> What whining - do I sense some projection here?
>
> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with
> him.

Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> 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.
> > Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no
> > surprise
> > since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
> > I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
> > well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
> > when absolutely nothing is going on.
> >
> Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
> sense here.

You misquoted me, asshole.
>
> Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said
> was on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
> ranting?" Duh.

That was a perfectly valid question - you were either imagining the
video, but if it was there (and I specifically stated that my PDF
viewer did not show it), then you were obviously ranting -you usually
rant when the thought of a bicycle helmet enters your head.
>
> >> 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?
> > Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser
> > what
> > to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
> > is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
> > different file extentions.
> >
> >> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
> > So what?
> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If
> I had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?

There's a little word "or" that Sherman is trying to ignore, but
misquoting is typical of him.

>
> >> 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.
> > The web site reported a file type that was misleading.
> >
> So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.

Idiot - it invalidates what you *said*, which was to stupidly argue
that because someone else hadn't reported a problem, it must have
been how I had "set up [my] system". My system is set up just
fine. The problem was the web site (and maybe Adobe) showing
no concern for interoperability.

> >> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
> >> observe myself? WOW!
> > Sherman, you are an idiot.
> > <rest of this moron's post snipped>
> >
> Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.

Snipping one of your idiotic posts is a "tantrum"? Get a life.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[GeneralissimoApeshit]

On May 4, 8:31 am, ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you are afraid of sex or bikes, you shouldn't go to Holland

Of course I'm afraid of bikes because, just like you, I fear THE LION!
THE LION! THE LION! EEK!!!

> And when you go to any auto show you find these stunning ladies
> selling the stupid SUVs in scanty cloth. SEX SELLS, you know.

SEX KILLS, you know.

CommandanteBanana, I am shocked at your lack of vigilance. Don't you
realize that females are dangerous? Which lions are the hunters? THE
FEMALES! The safest course by far is to stay at home instead of biking
and stay tuned to Usenet for more fear warnings. That way you'll
never be hit by cars and you'll never meet females, either.

You are hereby demoted from Commandante. I, on the other hand, have
been promoted for embracing this campaign of fear to the utmost.

 

[GeneralissimoApeshit]

On May 3, 5:54 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a foam
> bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the much more
> safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians) generally do
> not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the racer types.

With all those dangerous Dutch women running around, not to mention
those genital-crushing bicycle seats that former-Commandante Banana is
going on about, there is a clear need for crotch helmets. Kind of
like an atheletic supporter padded with microfoam.

Fear the lion. Fear females. Listen to your Generalissimo.

 

[GeneralissimoApeshit]

> "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.

Including this guy:

<http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/05/07/
hunt-for-bicycle-flasher-100252-20871513/>

No need to fear him. He's not a female hunter.

 

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > You misquoted me, asshole.
>
> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
> Direct citation for the misquote please.

Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
(see below).

> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
> mistaken or lying.

You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
someone said something they didn't say.

>
> Ranting generally implies a disregard for reality, which was not
> evident. The real disregard for reality is believing that foam bicycle
> hats are effective in reducing serious head injuries and deaths.

The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
posts.

> >>>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
> >>> So what?
> >> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page?

.... see - an example of the sort of misquoting I mentioned since
I never implied that: I listed several alternatives ranging from
imagining something to ranting, and I stated that my viewer didn't
show the clip (so I had no way of telling).

"Imagining" something might include a clip that merely showed
someone incidentally wearing a helmet - given Sherman's opinions,
it wouldn't surprise me if even that would set him off.

<rest of this moron's rant snipped>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Timothy Baldwin]

In message
<[email protected]>,
ComandanteBanana <[email protected]> wrote:

> If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady like this
> to ride around town...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6MtWRGW3M&feature=related

She needs to raise the saddle...

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> You misquoted me, asshole.
>> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
>> Direct citation for the misquote please.
>
> Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
> getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
> when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
> (see below).
>
>> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
>> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
>> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
>> mistaken or lying.
>
> You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
> someone said something they didn't say.
>
Zaumen obviously does not understand what a quote is.

>> Ranting generally implies a disregard for reality, which was not
>> evident. The real disregard for reality is believing that foam bicycle
>> hats are effective in reducing serious head injuries and deaths.
>
> The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
> posts.
>
Where is the properly done study that shows foam bicycle hats to be
effective in preventing serious head injuries and deaths?

>>>>>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>>>>> So what?
>>>> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page?
>
> ... see - an example of the sort of misquoting I mentioned since
> I never implied that: I listed several alternatives ranging from
> imagining something to ranting, and I stated that my viewer didn't
> show the clip (so I had no way of telling).
>
Gee, I would have thought a computer expert would have found a way to
view the clip, instead of making himself look foolish.

> "Imagining" something might include a clip that merely showed
> someone incidentally wearing a helmet - given Sherman's opinions,
> it wouldn't surprise me if even that would set him off.
>
Well, helmets are not really harmful compared to bicycle lanes.

> <rest of this moron's rant snipped>
>
By Zaumen's standards the above is a lie, since I have proof from a
licensed professional that I am not a moron.

--
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:
> >>>
> >>> You misquoted me, asshole.
> >> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
> >> Direct citation for the misquote please.
> > Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
> > getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
> > when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
> > (see below).
> >
> >> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
> >> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
> >> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
> >> mistaken or lying.
> > You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
> > someone said something they didn't say.
> >
> Zaumen obviously does not understand what a quote is.

You obviously don't understand colloquial English. The facts are
that you misrepresented what I had said.


> > The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
> > posts.
> >
> Where is the properly done study that shows foam bicycle hats to be
> effective in preventing serious head injuries and deaths?

The issue was your ranting, and when you use silly terminology like
"bicycle hats" when you mean "helmets", you are ranting. Also, you
fail to grasp that sensible people don't buy helmets to avoid deaths,
which are rare - they buy them to avoid or at least mitigate injuries.

> >
> Gee, I would have thought a computer expert would have found a way to
> view the clip, instead of making himself look foolish.

No, *you* looked foolish by assuming that everyone's system worked the
same as yours. And I told you why I didn't load Adobe's software. You
simply ignored it out of ignorance - you couldn't understand the issues.

Also, I never said I was an "expert" - you did - as I don't like to
brag. I would point out, though, that I got a free pass for Tuesday
at the Java-One conference in San Francisco and scored a deck of cards
from Amazon (plus a business card for where to submit resumes, which
they only gave out to a handful of people): they showed some C code
and would give you a token prize if you could predict how many
additional function calls would occur if a statement in the program
was eliminated. I had wandered by kind of late in the afternoon and
it seems that, out of a group of attendees with quite a few computer
professionals, I was the 5th person that day who had managed to get
the right answer. It was apparently not for lack of trying.

> Well, helmets are not really harmful compared to bicycle lanes.

Another of your pet peeves. Grow up.

>
> > <rest of this moron's rant snipped>
> >
> By Zaumen's standards the above is a lie, since I have proof from a
> licensed professional that I am not a moron.

Wrong - you are a moron. Just look at your posts.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Jym Dyer]

> I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet
> discussions.

=v= That part's fine. Fair enough.

> As for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just having
> a friendly discussion.

=v= Tedious ****. He's actually absolutely right about the
format of that advert, though. Someone should convert it to
a .flv file and put it on YouTube.
<_Jym_>

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jym Dyer wrote:
>> I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet
>> discussions.
>
> =v= That part's fine. Fair enough.
>
>> As for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just having
>> a friendly discussion.
>
> =v= Tedious ****. He's actually absolutely right about the
> format of that advert, though. Someone should convert it to
> a .flv file and put it on YouTube.
>
It is funny that Zaumen starting foaming at the mouth over a video he
did not even watch.

--
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:
>>>>>
>>>>> You misquoted me, asshole.
>>>> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
>>>> Direct citation for the misquote please.
>>> Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
>>> getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
>>> when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
>>> (see below).
>>>
>>>> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
>>>> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
>>>> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
>>>> mistaken or lying.
>>> You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
>>> someone said something they didn't say.
>>>
>> Zaumen obviously does not understand what a quote is.
>
> You obviously don't understand colloquial English. The facts are
> that you misrepresented what I had said.
>
Zaumen confuses opinion with fact.

>
>>> The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
>>> posts.
>>>
>> Where is the properly done study that shows foam bicycle hats to be
>> effective in preventing serious head injuries and deaths?
>
> The issue was your ranting, and when you use silly terminology like
> "bicycle hats" when you mean "helmets", you are ranting. Also, you
> fail to grasp that sensible people don't buy helmets to avoid deaths,
> which are rare - they buy them to avoid or at least mitigate injuries.
>
>> Gee, I would have thought a computer expert would have found a way to
>> view the clip, instead of making himself look foolish.
>
> No, *you* looked foolish by assuming that everyone's system worked the
> same as yours. And I told you why I didn't load Adobe's software. You
> simply ignored it out of ignorance - you couldn't understand the issues.
>
The foolishness was Zaumen commenting from a state of ignorance, since
he did not watch the video.

> Also, I never said I was an "expert" - you did - as I don't like to
> brag. I would point out, though, that I got a free pass for Tuesday
> at the Java-One conference in San Francisco and scored a deck of cards
> from Amazon (plus a business card for where to submit resumes, which
> they only gave out to a handful of people): they showed some C code
> and would give you a token prize if you could predict how many
> additional function calls would occur if a statement in the program
> was eliminated. I had wandered by kind of late in the afternoon and
> it seems that, out of a group of attendees with quite a few computer
> professionals, I was the 5th person that day who had managed to get
> the right answer. It was apparently not for lack of trying.
>
Gee, I would have thought you could have found a way to watch the video
without destroying your computer.

>> Well, helmets are not really harmful compared to bicycle lanes.
>
> Another of your pet peeves. Grow up.
>
Says the person who rants about comment on a video he has not seen.

>>> <rest of this moron's rant snipped>
>>>
>> By Zaumen's standards the above is a lie, since I have proof from a
>> licensed professional that I am not a moron.
>
> Wrong - you are a moron. Just look at your posts.
>
Moronic behavior is flaming someone over commenting on a video that the
flamer has not watched. One wonders why Zaumen wanted to pick this fight?

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