RailBikes



B

Bill Patterson

Guest
http://www.railbike.com/
>
>>In the US we have many miles of abandoned railroad track. It is lawful to ride on the old
>>unused track.
>
>
> fair enough. how would you make the bike-car profitable?
I'm an academic. I have now idea about profit. But for the bottom posters you can visit this
site again.

http://www.railbike.com/

Us top posters got it already at the top of the page. :)

I promise to bottom post as long as we stay free from grammar Nazis.

--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html

Class and Helicopter

http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/

Reply to [email protected]
 
J

John Riley

Guest
"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]_s03>...
> Since I already know the subject I'd rather not see it a zillion times during the thread but
> instead like to see the replies, if it annoys some welp sorry but I'm more annoyed scrolling down
> to see a one line reply

Or having to scroll down, and _then_ go to another screen to see the one line reply. That's better?
That's stupid.
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
Yay! I get to join the war... <G>

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 05:12:03 GMT, "Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tomato, tomato. For people following the thread, they have access to the most recent text
>contribution to the thread without having to scroll down.

That's great for a linear thread where each post gets exactly one reply. Once a single post
gets multiple replies or zero replies, or the thread continues for days, it sure gets helpful
to have context.

You'll notice that I trim, divide, and comment. This is a very useful option.

>recommendation and neither a rule nor a law. Additionally, when other people snip out extraneous
>bits of previous posts for brevity, neither posting method makes any more or less sense.

I've snipped well, but mine ought to make sense.

>Lastly, in letters and conversation, when someone comes along and picks up the conversation or
>message, does each successive person recap the entire conversation before adding their input? No.
>If bottom posting was so

No. In conversation, you're talking immediately back and forth to one person, and not having bits of
other conversations in-between. With letters, again, you're only writing to one person, in a very
linear fashion.

Here, however, we read a few messages in a thread today, post a reply or two, then go on to another
thread; tomorrow, we do it again. A single thread may go in ten or twenty different directions, all
related, and all on-topic for the subject line.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:22:22 -0500,
<[email protected]>, Top-posting dufus,
Bill Hole <[email protected]> snivelled:

>
>This is not the ignorant response of an "absolute beginner". I've been on Usenet for over a decade
>and on other BBS's and online services for over 2 decades.

And because you're an idiot never read RFC 1855:
>"- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
>top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
>sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
>proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include
>the entire original!

IOW, your preference means spit. Top posting shows everybody that you're a lazy rude idiot who
probably hasn't anything worth contributing. You won't be missed.

See ya.
--
zk
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
Mon, 01 Mar 2004 05:12:03 GMT,
<[email protected]>,
Idiotically, "Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> lazily top-posted:

>Also, it's merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.

RFC 1855 states:
>"- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
>top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
>sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
>proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include
>the entire original!

That's as close to a "rule" as anything else governing Usenet.

You're preference is as irrelevant as yourself.
--
zk
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:50:22 GMT, "Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> brainlessly spewed the following ill-conceived response . . .
>
>I'll add the header info for RFC 1855, and top post it, just for you, laddie. .
>
>Network Working Group Request For Comments: 1855 FYI: 28 Category: Informational
>
> Netiquette Guidelines
>
>"Guidelines" ?? Yeah, well that sounds pretty much "engraved in stone". Not. So, like I said, it's
>merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.

your flagrant disregard and disdain for the regular and established etiquette on r.b.m. is pretty
good grounds for your being killfiled.

Have a nice life.

-Luigi
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... [...]

> Top post if you must, but do us the favour of trimming the post as well. We never know if the
> spirit will move you one day to intersperse a comment on a particular phrase--one of the benefits
> of the quote-and-response system.

Top posting is never acceptable. Only morons and idiots do this sort of thing. It shows nothing but
disrespect for others. Those who do it are deserving of a swift kick in their derrières.

As to trimming (editing), yes, but too much trimming is worse than too little. The problem is that
some on this newsgroup simply do not know how to edit because they do not know how to think.
"Sticker Jim" is the foremost example that I can think of, but there are many others here who trim
way too much. At the other extreme are those who trim nothing but simply post the whole mess at the
top or at the bottom of their message. It's like look Ma ... no brains!

About the only good editor here I ever knew was Mr. Tom Sherman. I am not bad, but I am not perfect
either. Frankly, it takes brains to know how to edit.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
S

Sticker Jim

Guest
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> brainlessly spewed the following ill-conceived response . . .

I'll add the header info for RFC 1855, and top post it, just for you, laddie. .

Network Working Group Request For Comments: 1855 FYI: 28 Category: Informational

Netiquette Guidelines

"Guidelines" ?? Yeah, well that sounds pretty much "engraved in stone". Not. So, like I said, it's
merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.

> > Idiotically, "Sticker Jim" <[email protected]> lazily top-posted:
>
> >Also, it's merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.
>
> RFC 1855 states:
> >"- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
> >top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> >sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
> >proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> >response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not
> >include the entire original!
>
> That's as close to a "rule" as anything else governing Usenet.
>
> You're preference is as irrelevant as yourself.

Ditto.
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:31:55 GMT, Bill Patterson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> fair enough. how would you make the bike-car profitable?
>I'm an academic. I have now idea about profit. But for the bottom posters you can visit this
>site again.
>
>http://www.railbike.com/

But profit is key. Fine words butter no parsnips; city authorities, especially in the present fiscal
environment, will not be in the least willing to preserve and maintain railroad track merely because
you think it's a 'nice' thing to have.

For this society, nothing is 'nice' that does not have cash value. Unfair, sure. But when public
monies are involved, you'll have a hard time convincing the public that rail-cars are any more
worthwhile than a MUP (which might not be all that objectionable, if it runs like the W&OD does in
Northern Virginia), or the sale of the rights of way outright for some reason or other.

-Luigi
 
B

Bill Hole

Guest
Interesting that such a poisonous flamer should quote an RFC on netiquette.

Zoot Katz wrote:

> IOW, your preference means spit. Top posting shows everybody that you're a lazy rude idiot who
> probably hasn't anything worth contributing. You won't be missed.
>
> See ya.

I hope not.

Bill Hole
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
> As to trimming (editing), yes, but too much trimming is worse than too little. The problem is that
> some on this newsgroup simply do not know how to edit because they do not know how to think.
> "Sticker Jim" is the foremost example that I can think of, but there are many others here who trim
> way too much. At the other extreme are those who trim nothing but simply post the whole mess at
> the top or at the bottom of their message. It's like look Ma ... no brains!
>
> About the only good editor here I ever knew was Mr. Tom Sherman. I am not bad, but I am not
> perfect either. Frankly, it takes brains to know how to edit.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

thanks ed, that was great. besides being pretty mean spirited was there a point to all that? or was
it just that we (except for you and tom) are all in the wrong so everything is ok? kind of a posting
nihilist or should we all be striving for some kind of properly edited bottom posting nirvana?

your post was actually hard to trim since you left no summary so i just left most of it intact.

tom, care to give me some tips?
--
david reuteler
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
> your flagrant disregard and disdain for the regular and established etiquette on r.b.m. is pretty
> good grounds for your being killfiled.

well, he's certainly not picking his battles very well.
--
david reuteler
 
M

Mike Rice

Guest
> Netiquette Guidelines
>
>"Guidelines" ?? Yeah, well that sounds pretty much "engraved in stone". Not. So, like I said, it's
>merely a recommendation and neither a rule nor a law.
>

Not a law, no such thing here. Just a recognized convention that makes communication easier and more
considerate.

Guess that rules you out.

Mike
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:55:27 -0000, <[email protected]>,
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.misc Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> your flagrant disregard and disdain for the regular and established etiquette on r.b.m. is pretty
>> good grounds for your being killfiled.
>
>well, he's certainly not picking his battles very well.

Who?
--
zk
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:54:16 -0000, David Reuteler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>thanks ed, that was great. besides being pretty mean spirited was there
<snip>
>your post was actually hard to trim since you left no summary so i just left most of it intact.

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head -- make your posts easy to trim. I put blank lines between
separate ideas in my posts, or at least single line breaks.

Occasionally, for long posts, I put a summary / table of contents / index at the top.

By making easily-trimmed posts, there is no excuse for somebody not to trim it, and for that matter,
not to intersperse his comments.
--
Rick Onanian
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
David Reuteler wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.misc Edward Dolan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As to trimming (editing), yes, but too much trimming is worse than too little. The problem is that
>>some on this newsgroup simply do not know how to edit because they do not know how to think.
>>"Sticker Jim" is the foremost example that I can think of, but there are many others here who trim
>>way too much. At the other extreme are those who trim nothing but simply post the whole mess at
>>the top or at the bottom of their message. It's like look Ma ... no brains!
>>
>>About the only good editor here I ever knew was Mr. Tom Sherman. I am not bad, but I am not
>>perfect either. Frankly, it takes brains to know how to edit.
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
> thanks ed, that was great. besides being pretty mean spirited was there a point to all that? or
> was it just that we (except for you and tom) are all in the wrong so everything is ok? kind of a
> posting nihilist or should we all be striving for some kind of properly edited bottom posting
> nirvana?
>
> your post was actually hard to trim since you left no summary so i just left most of it intact.
>
> tom, care to give me some tips?

David,

Mr. Dolan enjoys being disagreeable, and especially enjoys disagreeing with me. [1] His favorite
expression is "left wing extremist wacko nuts". You can make him happy by giving him a chance to
insult you.

[1] Read the following thread at your own peril. <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
off&threadm=7d49e514.0306221931.74a525a3%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-
8%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dot%2Band%2Bflammable%26spell%3D1&as_drrb=b&as_maxd=22&as_maxm-
=6&as_maxy=2003&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995>.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:55:27 -0000, <[email protected]>, David Reuteler
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In rec.bicycles.misc Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> your flagrant disregard and disdain for the regular and established etiquette on r.b.m. is
>>> pretty good grounds for your being killfiled.
>>
>>well, he's certainly not picking his battles very well.
>
> Who?

sticker jim.

see, i'm a crappy editor. i have much to learn.
--
david reuteler
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:42:30 -0000, <[email protected]>,
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.misc Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:55:27 -0000, <[email protected]>, David Reuteler
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.bicycles.misc Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> your flagrant disregard and disdain for the regular and established etiquette on r.b.m. is
>>>> pretty good grounds for your being killfiled.
>>>
>>>well, he's certainly not picking his battles very well.
>>
>> Who?
>
>sticker jim.
>
>see, i'm a crappy editor. i have much to learn.

He's still around?
--
zk
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:22:22 -0500, <[email protected]>, Top-posting dufus,
> Bill Hole <[email protected]> snivelled:
>
> >
> >This is not the ignorant response of an "absolute beginner". I've been on Usenet for over a
> >decade and on other BBS's and online services for over 2 decades.
>
> And because you're an idiot never read RFC 1855:
> >"- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the
> >top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> >sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
> >proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> >response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not
> >include the entire original!
>
> IOW, your preference means spit. Top posting shows everybody that you're a lazy rude idiot who
> probably hasn't anything worth contributing. You won't be missed.
>
> See ya.

Like your style Zoot Katz! You and I are right of course and all those who disagree with us are
wrong. It always amazes me that others can come on to a forum and think they can post anyway they
want and that one way is as good as another. They are woefully ignorant of course but that is the
one thing they do not know. Ignorance feeds on itself and just gets dumber and dumber.

There are conventions for doing most everything in human affairs. Language is the biggest convention
of all and it only makes sense provided everyone observe those conventions. Posting on Usenet is the
same. It is especially rankling when someone of great experience has decided that the conventions
are all wrong and that he will do it his way in the future. Even if the convention were wrong (which
in this case it is not) it would still be a good idea to follow the convention for the benefit of
all unless it can be changed in toto for the benefit of all.

The trouble with this newsgroup is that most of the guys here are getting to be old codgers and we
are all turning into cranks and crackpots. I learned over a year ago that the only way to survive
here is to just call someone who is outrageously transgressing a norm an idiot and move on to the
next idiot. I am going to get out a thesaurus one of these days and look up synonyms for "idiot" as
I find that I am over using the term lately. But there are so many and they are so deserving!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota