question for jobst brandt



Frank Krygowski opined:

> >> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

> > Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > private emails...


and then replied to his version of my question:
>
> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> public forum.
>

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Frank Krygowski opined:
>
>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>
> I then asked Krygowski:
>
> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>
> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>
>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>> private emails...
>
>
> and then replied to his version of my question:
>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>> public forum.
>>
>
> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 9, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski opined:
>
> >>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>
> > I then asked Krygowski:
>
> > Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>
> > Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>
> >>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>> private emails...
>
> >  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> >> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> >> public forum.
>
> > Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>
> I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
> the question was directed.

In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.

But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
mere bad manners.

I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
it whatever you like.

Just my two cents.

Andre Jute
 
Andre Jute wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>>> I then asked Krygowski:
>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>> private emails...
>>> and then replied to his version of my question:
>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>>>> public forum.
>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
>> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
>> the question was directed.
>
> In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
> is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
> the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.
>
> But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
> form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
> mere bad manners.
>
> I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
> to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
> below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
> it whatever you like.

With a threaded newsreader, anyone interested can read Ozark Bicycle's
post in its entirety.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski opined:
>
> >>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>
> > I then asked Krygowski:
>
> > Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>
> > Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>
> >>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>> private emails...
>
> >  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> >> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> >> public forum.
>
> > Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>
> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.


You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.


> I do not see why this
> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,


Who did Krygowski do in?


> since that is to whom
> the question was directed.
>
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>>> I then asked Krygowski:
>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>> private emails...
>>> and then replied to his version of my question:
>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>>>> public forum.
>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>
>
> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>
That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.

>
>> I do not see why this
>> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,
>
>
> Who did Krygowski do in?
>
The butler?
>
>> since that is to whom
>> the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> >>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> >>> I then asked Krygowski:
> >>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> >>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> >>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>> private emails...
> >>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since oneof
> >>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> >>>> public forum.
> >>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
> >> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>
> > You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> > my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>
> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> Krygowski, not me.


Which simply compounds your faux pas.

As an example:

I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"

And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."

See?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I do not see why this
> >> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,
>
> > Who did Krygowski do in?
>
> The butler?
>
> >> since that is to whom
> >> the question was directed.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> >>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> >>> I then asked Krygowski:
> >>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> >>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> >>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>> private emails...
> >>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since oneof
> >>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> >>>> public forum.
> >>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
> >> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>
> > You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> > my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>
> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> Krygowski, not me.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I do not see why this
> >> would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,
>
> > Who did Krygowski do in?
>
> The butler?

Did he gas him?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
>>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>>>> private emails...
>>>>> and then replied to his version of my question:
>>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>>>>>> public forum.
>>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
>>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
>> Krygowski, not me.
>
>
> Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>
> As an example:
>
> I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>
> And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>
> See?

This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
answer a posed question. Sheesh!

Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
Sheesh, again.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> >>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> >>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> >>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
> >>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> >>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> >>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>>>> private emails...
> >>>>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> >>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emailson a
> >>>>>> public forum.
> >>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
> >>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
> >>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> >>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
> >> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> >> Krygowski, not me.
>
> > Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>
> > As an example:
>
> > I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>
> > And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>
> > See?
>
> This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
> answer a posed question. Sheesh!

If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.


>
> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.


The only thing clear was that you changed the question.


> Sheesh, again.
>

You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
 
On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> > >>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> > >>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles somethinglike
> > >>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> > >>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
> > >>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > >>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> > >>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> > >>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > >>>>>>> private emails...
> > >>>>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> > >>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company sinceone of
> > >>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> > >>>>>> public forum.
> > >>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
> > >>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
> > >>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> > >>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
> > >> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> > >> Krygowski, not me.
>
> > > Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>
> > > As an example:
>
> > > I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>
> > > And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>
> > > See?
>
> > This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
> > answer a posed question. Sheesh!
>
> If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>
>
>
> > Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
> > Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>
> The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>
> > Sheesh, again.
>
> You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here and meanwhile you're giving
aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.

Andre Jute
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> ...
> If you want to answer a question not asked,...

I will do so if I feel like it.

> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>
Does Ozark Bicycle know what an ellipsis is?

Does Ozark Bicycle know that he is not the group moderator?

>> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
>> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>
>
> The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>
Well, duh! See above about the ellipsis.

>
>> Sheesh, again.
>>
>
> You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>
What error? What I did was deliberate. I never intended to answer Ozark
Bicycle's question exactly as posted, especially since it was directed
to Frank Krygowski. And yes, I am aware that I am not Frank Krygowski.

For the third time, Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Andre Jute wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
>>>>>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>>>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>>>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>>>>>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
>>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>>>>>>> private emails...
>>>>>>>> and then replied to his version of my question:
>>>>>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>>>>>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>>>>>>>>> public forum.
>>>>>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>>>>>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>>>>>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
>>>>>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>>>>> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
>>>>> Krygowski, not me.
>>>> Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>>>> As an example:
>>>> I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>>>> And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>>>> See?
>>> This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
>>> answer a posed question. Sheesh!
>> If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
>> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
>>> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>> The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>>
>>> Sheesh, again.
>> You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>
> Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here and meanwhile you're giving
> aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.
>
I believe that Ozark Bicycle would find it offensive to be considered in
the same camp with myself, based on the evidence of his past posts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 8, 10:57 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > ...
> > If you want to answer a question not asked,...
>
> I will do so if I feel like it.

And I will remind you that you are being an ass.


>
> > Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>
> Does Ozark Bicycle know what an ellipsis is?
>
> Does Ozark Bicycle know that he is not the group moderator?

Are you, Sherman? Or shall I remind you that you are not the group
moderator the next time you nitpick regarding top posting, how a post
"looks", quoting heirarchy, etc. And the next time you tell somone to
"get a real newsreader".

Clearly, you are more concerned about form, than about content.


>
> >> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
> >> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.

I don't give a **** about your response. I do object, strenuously, to
your stealth editing of my question. Leave the question intact and do
whatever you want, but the editing is just not right.


>
> > The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>
> Well, duh! See above about the ellipsis.
>
>
>
> >> Sheesh, again.
>
> > You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>
> What error? What I did was deliberate. I never intended to answer Ozark
> Bicycle's question exactly as posted, especially since it was directed
> to Frank Krygowski. And yes, I am aware that I am not Frank Krygowski.
>
> For the third time, Sheesh!
>
 
On Feb 8, 11:01 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got asmall,
> >>>>>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> >>>>>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> >>>>>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
> >>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> >>>>>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> >>>>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> >>>>>>>>>> private emails...
> >>>>>>>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> >>>>>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> >>>>>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> >>>>>>>>> public forum.
> >>>>>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
> >>>>>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
> >>>>>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essenceof
> >>>>>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
> >>>>> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> >>>>> Krygowski, not me.
> >>>> Which simply compounds your faux pas.
> >>>> As an example:
> >>>> I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
> >>>> And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
> >>>> See?
> >>> This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
> >>> answer a posed question. Sheesh!
> >> If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
> >> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>
> >>> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
> >>> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
> >> The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>
> >>> Sheesh, again.
> >> You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>
> > Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here and meanwhile you're giving
> > aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.
>
> I believe that Ozark Bicycle would find it offensive to be considered in
> the same camp with myself, based on the evidence of his past posts.
>

IMO, you are really not a bad sort, Sherman.
 
On Feb 8, 10:29 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
> > > >>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
> > > >>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> > > >>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
> > > >>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
> > > >>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > > >>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
> > > >>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
> > > >>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> > > >>>>>>> private emails...
> > > >>>>>  and then replied to his version of my question:
> > > >>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> > > >>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> > > >>>>>> public forum.
> > > >>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you dothat?
> > > >>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
> > > >>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
> > > >>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
> > > >> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
> > > >> Krygowski, not me.
>
> > > > Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>
> > > > As an example:
>
> > > > I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>
> > > > And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>
> > > > See?
>
> > > This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
> > > answer a posed question. Sheesh!
>
> > If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
> > Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>
> > > Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
> > > Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>
> > The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>
> > > Sheesh, again.
>
> > You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>
> Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here

I believe the point regarding the "stealth" editing of my question,
which changed it's meaning, is a serious one.



> and meanwhile you're giving
> aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.
>
> Andre Jute
 
DI Who? wrote:
> "Andre Jute" wrote
>
>> Just my two cents.
>
> That's about all it's worth.
>
>> Andre Jute

I fixed "DI's" post to show proper attribution.

Note that "DI" is using Micro$oft Outlook Express 6.00 and Andre Jute is
using Google Groups.

It is becoming increasing clear that the latest Micro$oft email products
are not compatible with Google Groups, since the quoting attributions
are often messed up when the Micro$oft user responds to a post made
through Google Groups.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:29 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski opined:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>>>>>>>>>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>>>>>>>>>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
>>>>>>>>> I then asked Krygowski:
>>>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>>>>>> private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>>>>>>>>>>> private emails...
>>>>>>>>> and then replied to his version of my question:
>>>>>>>>>> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
>>>>>>>>>> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
>>>>>>>>>> public forum.
>>>>>>>>> Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
>>>>>>>> I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
>>>>>>> You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
>>>>>>> my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
>>>>>> That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
>>>>>> Krygowski, not me.
>>>>> Which simply compounds your faux pas.
>>>>> As an example:
>>>>> I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
>>>>> And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
>>>>> See?
>>>> This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
>>>> answer a posed question. Sheesh!
>>> If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
>>> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>>>> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
>>>> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>>> The only thing clear was that you changed the question.
>>>> Sheesh, again.
>>> You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?
>> Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here
>
> I believe the point regarding the "stealth" editing of my question,
> which changed it's meaning, is a serious one.
>
The intent of my trimming Ozark Bicycle's post that set this whole side
discussion off was not to change the intent of his question (which was
directed to Frank Krygowski) but to set my reply in a particular
context. That is all.

Unless my news feed dropped the post, Frank Krygowski has yet to answer
Ozark Bicycle's question.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Feb 8, 10:57 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If you want to answer a question not asked,...
>> I will do so if I feel like it.
>
> And I will remind you that you are being an ass.
>
Above Seat Steering or donkey/burro?
>
>>> Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.
>> Does Ozark Bicycle know what an ellipsis is?
>>
>> Does Ozark Bicycle know that he is not the group moderator?
>
> Are you, Sherman? Or shall I remind you that you are not the group
> moderator the next time you nitpick regarding top posting, how a post
> "looks", quoting heirarchy, etc. And the next time you tell somone to
> "get a real newsreader".
>
Does it bother Ozark Bicycle that I implicitly point it out when people
improperly put their email address in the user name field, e.g. Carl
Fogel, Jobst Brandt and Frank Krygowski?

> Clearly, you are more concerned about form, than about content.
>
Proper form shows consideration for the others who read the newsgroup.

Some care about that, others do not.

>>>> Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
>>>> Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
>
> I don't give a **** about your response. I do object, strenuously, to
> your stealth editing of my question. Leave the question intact and do
> whatever you want, but the editing is just not right....
>
The ellipsis made it clear the quoted material was trimmed, so it was
clear I was NOT trying to imply that Ozark Bicycle wrote something that
he did not. The later behavior is inexcusable, and I have (and will)
call out anyone who does it. The difference between the two cases is clear.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Question on Jobst Brandt entry in FAQ 8f.5
Replies
6
Views
444
Cycling Equipment
Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
R
O
a question for Jobst Brandt
Replies
3
Views
433
Cycling Equipment
Mark Hickey
M
J
spoke lacing question for jobst
Replies
3
Views
319
Cycling Equipment
datakoll
D
C
Question for Jobst (or any other "wheel wizard")
Replies
1
Views
367
Cycling Equipment
Burke Gilman
B
J
Rim question for Jobst
Replies
3
Views
524
Cycling Equipment
Zog The Undeniable
Z
L
Question for Jobst and other individuals the feel so inclined.
Replies
21
Views
897
Cycling Equipment
Michael Press
M
E
question for Jobst and other wheel builders
Replies
21
Views
888
Cycling Equipment
Mr. Bill
M
B
  • Locked
Stress Relieving question for Jobst
Replies
7
Views
928
Cycling Equipment
Meccanico Di Bi
M
S
  • Locked
A question for Jobst.......
Replies
7
Views
1K
Road Cycling
George Beinhorn
G
R
Seatpost question
Replies
25
Views
762
Bike Cafe
TGVZG
T
Top Bottom Back