[email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed bicycle
> jerseys.
Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
**** Durbin wrote:
> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed bicycle
>> jerseys.
>
> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> **** Durbin wrote:
> > [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed bicycle
> >> jerseys.
> >
> > Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
> > asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
have no need of jerseys.
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>**** Durbin wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>>I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed bicycle
>>>>jerseys.
>>>
>>>Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
>>>asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
>
>
> They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
> possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
> have no need of jerseys.
>
>
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> **** Durbin wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed
>>>> bicycle jerseys.
>>>
>>> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
>>> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
>
> They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
> possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
> have no need of jerseys.
Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't write anything
you included above.)
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> **** Durbin wrote:
> >>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
> >>> news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed
> >>>> bicycle jerseys.
> >>>
> >>> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
> >>> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
> >
> > They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
> > possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
> > have no need of jerseys.
>
> Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't write anything
> you included above.)
>
> Bill "attribution" S.
The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
>> They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
>> possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
>> have no need of jerseys.
>>
>>
>
>Or a bicycle.
We played transcendental volleyball once. Gave up the ball first,
then the net. I felt quite centered.
Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:15:01 -0800, JimLane <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
>>>possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
>>>have no need of jerseys.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Or a bicycle.
>
>
> We played transcendental volleyball once. Gave up the ball first,
> then the net. I felt quite centered.
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> **** Durbin wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Peter W.) wrote in message
>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>> I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed
>>>>>> bicycle jerseys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
>>>>> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
>>>
>>> They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
>>> possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
>>> have no need of jerseys.
>>
>> Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't write
>> anything you included above.)
>>
>> Bill "attribution" S.
>
> The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote! (**** Durbin
asked the question to which you replied; you posted under MY reply for some
reason, however.)
Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
>
> Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote! (**** Durbin
> asked the question to which you replied; you posted under MY reply for some
> reason, however.)
>
> Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.
Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last two times.
The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
30 years.
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> The level of '>' symbols clearly indicate who said what.
>>
>> Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote!
>> (**** Durbin asked the question to which you replied; you posted
>> under MY reply for some reason, however.)
>>
>> Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.
>
> Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last two times.
>
> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
> saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
> quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
> 30 years.
*******************
Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.)
****'s question and my reply is below:
**** Durbin wrote:
> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
Ummm, burning in hell?
Bill "eternal Lycration" S.
Then you posted this:
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> **** Durbin wrote:
>>
>> Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
>> asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?
They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
have no need of jerseys.
*********
My only point is that nothing *I* wrote is included, even though it says
"Sorni writes:" at the top.
Bill "time to hit the shower; missing that hour of sleep" S.
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
> saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
> quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30
> years.
Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted
since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone
back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the
attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That
would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of
these conventions for 30 years.
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
> > saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
> > quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
> > was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
> > 30 years.
>
> *******************
>
> Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.)
> <snip>
> Ummm, burning in hell?
You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words),
which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet
quoting convention determine who said what?
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
> > saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
> > quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
> > was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30
> > years.
>
> Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted
> since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone
> back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the
> attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That
> would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of
> these conventions for 30 years.
Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you
replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone
else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging
it. If (as a hypothetical case) **** Durbin then complained that he
wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30
years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone
on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical
today.
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
>>> saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
>>> quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
>>> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
>>> 30 years.
>>
>> *******************
>>
>> Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a
>> big deal.) <snip>
>> Ummm, burning in hell?
>
> You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words),
> which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet
> quoting convention determine who said what?
NO!!! My objection is that your post said "Sorni writes:" and is followed
by words which came from someone else! All I'm saying is LEARN HOW TO QUOTE
(or to reply to the post you intend, instead of someone else's, as you did
in this case).
Bill Z. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
>>> saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
>>> quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
>>> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30
>>> years.
>>
>> Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted
>> since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone
>> back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the
>> attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That
>> would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of
>> these conventions for 30 years.
>
> Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you
> replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone
> else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging
> it. If (as a hypothetical case) **** Durbin then complained that he
> wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30
> years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone
> on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical
> today.
Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're
commenting. Your reply was directed at **** Durbin, not me, so why did you
reply to MY post instead of his?
Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will you?" S.
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
> >>
> >>> The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
> >>> saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
> >>> quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
> >>> was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30
> >>> years.
> >>
> >> Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted
> >> since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone
> >> back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the
> >> attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That
> >> would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of
> >> these conventions for 30 years.
> >
> > Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you
> > replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone
> > else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging
> > it. If (as a hypothetical case) **** Durbin then complained that he
> > wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30
> > years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone
> > on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical
> > today.
>
> Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're
> commenting. Your reply was directed at **** Durbin, not me, so why did
you
> reply to MY post instead of his?
>
> Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will you?" S.
>
>
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
>>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
>>>saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
>>>quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
>>>was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
>>>30 years.
>>
>>*******************
>>
>>Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.)
>><snip>
>>Ummm, burning in hell?
>
>
> You mean your objection is that I snipped your quip (all 4 words),
> which wasn't relevant to my quip, and let the standard usenet
> quoting convention determine who said what?
>
> Bill
If there is nothing of Sorni left because of your editing, you should
have gone back up the thread a step. You might want to step back and
take a look instead of being defensive. Bill is right.
Bill Z. wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>>
>>
>>>The first line of my message started with '> ' and quoted you as
>>>saying "**** Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
>>>quoting **** Durbin, so those lines started with '> > '. Everything
>>>was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over 30
>>>years.
>>
>>Except the attribution to Bill S. (Sorni) should have been deleted
>>since you didn't include anything he wrote, and you should have gone
>>back to the source article instead. Or you could have deleted the
>>attribution to Bill S and removed one '>' from all the lines. That
>>would have removed any ambiguity- which IIRC has also been part of
>>these conventions for 30 years.
>
>
> Actually, it is better not to do that, and indicate whose message you
> replied to. These days, you have some posters who modify someone
> else's text, either quoting it selectively or (more rarely) forging
> it. If (as a hypothetical case) **** Durbin then complained that he
> wasn't quoted properly, it would be obvious who was responsible. 30
> years ago, you didn't have to worry about willful misquotes - everyone
> on the ARPAnet had a much higher standard of conduct that is typical
> today.
>
You're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just a
petulant child?
