Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Z. wrote:

> >
> > Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
> > snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
> > notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
> > too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission,
> > actually your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.
>
> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something and you
> replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And just because I
> applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow "own" the words. Like
> you need to be told that!)

Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
now trying to deny that. Typical of you fools. If you want your
idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is
considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of
what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.")

> Bill "you never DID answer about the 'neutral nerds' who also told you that
> you're incorrect" S.

Well, the one or two people who sort of agreed with you were wrong
(possibly they didn't see the original post.) A couple raised points
that were additional comments independent of what we were discussing.

Regardless, I answered the points being raised, and it is not
necessary to respond to each and every post to do that.

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something
>> and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And
>> just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow
>> "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!)
>
> Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
> now trying to deny that.

A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE
WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did).

Typical of you fools. If you want your
> idiotic posts to be read, you might avoid top posting (which is
> considered bad form, and in your case your top-posted text was part of
> what would normally be the line saying "X wrote.")

Now you're really grasping, Zaumbie. I learned to not top-post years ago,
and most certainly never did in this pathetic excuse for a thread.
Modifying the "X wrote:" isn't top-posting; nor is stating something for the
reader's understanding before posting new content. (And shouldn't your holy
color-coded crapper allow you perfect comprehension of who said what
anyway?!? Sounds like it just confuses you!)

All someone has to do is look at Rick's very well crafted flame of you. I
then posted a reply (basically saying "well done, ol' smokey"), and then you
replied to MY post but trying to answer Rick's arguments (and addressing him
as me!).

All you gotta do is say you ****ed up (which is obvious to anyone), but
you're incapable of it apparently.

Bill "enough of this; I actually ride a bike" S.
 
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:35:14 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I

It meant nothing considering all of the dancing that followed it.
Also, stuff like:
>Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
>yourself.
is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.

>snipped more than I thought this time, but the *first* time (your lies
>notwithstanding), you were quoted correctly. In this case, I snipped
>too much, but what I claimed you said was, by your own admission, actually
>your opinion, and your opinion was 100% wrong.

It was quite obviously not a snipping error:
I wrote:
<snip>
>>> conscious decision doesn't mean that you didn't choose the wrong
>>> word.

Then you wrote:
> Sigh. What a moron. Sorni (???) must also think that if you try a track
> stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is

Even with all your color coding newsreader glory, you responded to
my _words_ (not his opinion) by writing to _Sorni_.

Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
then it would be pretty easy to get confused, I guess. Possibly your
newsreader doesn't sort the messages properly, and you get confused
because you don't get to read them in order.

Whether or not any of those technical issues exist, the problem
remains you.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:35:14 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
> >Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant? I
>
> It meant nothing considering all of the dancing that followed it.
> Also, stuff like:
> >Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
> >yourself.
> is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.
>

> It was quite obviously not a snipping error:

It was a snipping error, and if you had half a brain, that would be
obvious. If you let a newsreader quote the text, and snip full lines,
you'd get what was posted. Sorni's "X wrote" line got snipped because
he filled in so much text between "wrote" and the following colon that
I noticed only his addition as I cut out irrelavant ****. So Sorni
himself contributed to the problem. Surely "(nothing snipped 'cuz
it's just so damned good!!! :)" is not a statement worth keeping in a
reply, and that's what I intended to snip.

Hint guys - don't try to be excessively cute on attribution lines - it
makes the attribution easy to miss. If you turn most of a line into
fluff, don't expect anyone to read the fluff, and anything next to the
fluff will probably not be noticed as well.

> Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
> attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
> then it would be pretty easy to get confused,

Hey moron, my newsreader color-codes posts, but shows all quoted
text in the same color when composing replies. And I do know
how to handle attributions - in the single mistake I made, I simply
edited the post quickly. What I quoted, however, did in fact
express Sorni's opinion, as he stated as much.

As to "an appology 100% meaningless," Sorni does not deserve an
appology, only a correction, which I did in fact post. After all,
he merely quoted someone else to say what he wanted to anyway,
being too lazy to make up something on his own, and his attempts
at being excessively cute contributed to the problem. Besides,
he owes me about 30 apologies and I have yet to see one.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Regardless of snipping, you can't even read. Rick wrote something
> >> and you replied as if *I* wrote it. Deja vu all over again. (And
> >> just because I applauded what he said doesn't mean I then somehow
> >> "own" the words. Like you need to be told that!)
> >
> > Hey moron - you agreed 100% with what the other moron said, and are
> > now trying to deny that.
>
> A lie. I *STILL* agree with what Rick wrote; the only point is that HE
> WROTE IT (you replied as if *I* did).

Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then complain
when I wrote:

+ Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track
+ stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
+ all "controlled by your brain."

If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you
think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence
the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots.

You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a
reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it
damn clear I was not replying just to you.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>> Maybe the problem is that you don't know how to operate
>> attributions, and depend entirely on your newsreader's color coding;
>> then it would be pretty easy to get confused,
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:16:43 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Hey moron, my newsreader color-codes posts, but shows all quoted
>text in the same color when composing replies. And I do know

Oh, really? So, your infallible color coding doesn't even exist
where it's most needed?

>As to "an appology 100% meaningless," Sorni does not deserve an
>appology, only a correction, which I did in fact post. After all,

If that's the case, then why did you write this:
>Sorry about getting confused. Of course, <snip>
and
>Hey dimwit, what do you think "sorry about getting confused" meant?

You implied in the second line that the first line was, in fact, an
apology; I then proceeded to question the validity of such apology:
>Face it Sorni, you are a loser. You even lose arguments with
>yourself.
is generally a proof that an included apology is 100% meaningless.

So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why
do you think that it was obviously not an apology?

You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written
"rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw
while reviewing this thread. Maybe you can trade your color-coded
newsreader in for one with a spell checker. Maybe it will help with
some of your typo issues.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> Hey slimeball, you said you agreed with that idiot Ric, and then
> complain when I wrote:
>
> + Sigh. What a moron. Sorni must also think that if you try a track
> + stand and fall off the bike, you "chose" to fall. After all, it is
> + all "controlled by your brain."
>
> If you agreed with him, then you must in fact think what I said you
> think (and neither of you two had an answer for what I said, hence
> the smokescreen about attributions.) Face it, you are both idiots.
>
> You also ignored my last sentence in the post, "Consider the above a
> reply to the other recent posts from you idiots as well." I made it
> damn clear I was not replying just to you.

Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it).
Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control
that you can't even tell who you're arguing with.

It's just Usenet, Bill. It's not that big a deal. I truly wish I'd never
noticed your original mistake (only did because it invoked MY user name). I
was really very light-hearted about it -- after all, it was just a "fun"
topic not something "serious" -- until you reacted so freaking defensively.
One last time, all you had to do was admit you left a few extra words (the
"Sorni says:" attribution with no corresponding text) OR that you replied to
wrong post and just didn't snip enough. That would have ended it.

Bill "but NOOOOOOOOO" S.
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> It was a snipping error

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE CAN NOW END!

Bill "are those angels I hear singing?!?" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Rick blasted you about your obvious NON-typo (or rather, your denial of it).
> Your reply then whimpers about ME. You've lost so much emotional control
> that you can't even tell who you're arguing with.
>
> It's just Usenet, Bill.

Only on usenet would two complete and utter idiots like you and Rick
make a big deal about a trivial typo.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why
> do you think that it was obviously not an apology?
>

It meant that I missed the two or three words at the start of a line
indicating that it was an attribution line, which could have been
avoided if I read the text more carefully, to see if there actually
was something worth keeping on a line that primarily consided of
Sorni's mindless ****.

> You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written
> "rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw
> while reviewing this thread.

Do you think I'm going to waste time fixing my erratic typing on short
replies to you two morons? You morons aren't work the effort of
running the checker.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Only on usenet would two complete and utter idiots like you and Rick
> make a big deal about a trivial typo.

One of your many infantile spoon-bangings was the always reliable "Can't you
understand English?".

The you wrote that something was do (sic) to something else.

You really like serving up the ironies, doncha?

Bill "almost as good as replying to wrong post in a thread ABOUT replying to
wrong post" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Only on usenet would two complete and utter idiots like you and Rick
> > make a big deal about a trivial typo.
>
> One of your many infantile spoon-bangings was the always reliable "Can't you
> understand English?".

The fact remains that you morons are making a big deal about a trivial
typo to the point that it is consuming your miserable lives.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>So, what _did_ you mean by "Sorry about getting confused.", and why
>>do you think that it was obviously not an apology?
>>
>
>
> It meant that I missed the two or three words at the start of a line
> indicating that it was an attribution line, which could have been
> avoided if I read the text more carefully, to see if there actually
> was something worth keeping on a line that primarily consided of
> Sorni's mindless ****.
>
>
>>You really ought to invest in a spell checker, Bil...you've written
>>"rediculous", "irrelavant", "appology", and a few others I saw
>>while reviewing this thread.
>
>
> Do you think I'm going to waste time fixing my erratic typing on short
> replies to you two morons? You morons aren't work the effort of
> running the checker.
>
>

Nor are we, collectively, worth replying to, so SHUT UP already, Z. You
dig yourself in deeper and deeper each time you defend your idiocy. Only
the brain dead wouldn't have noticed by now.


jim
 
JimLane wrote:
> Nor are we, collectively, worth replying to, so SHUT UP already, Z.
> You dig yourself in deeper and deeper each time you defend your
> idiocy. Only the brain dead wouldn't have noticed by now.

Jim, you KNOW he'll reply to this; just let it go when he does.

Bill "didn't reply to his last on to me (and it was a big ol' softball that
I could've knocked out of park, too!)" S.
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
> >

>
> Nor are we, collectively, worth replying to, so SHUT UP already,
> Z. You dig yourself in deeper and deeper each time you defend your
> idiocy. Only the brain dead wouldn't have noticed by now.

Mindless assertions such as yours are usually made by usenet idiots
who bluster when it becomes obvious that they don't know what they
are balthering about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>
>
>>Nor are we, collectively, worth replying to, so SHUT UP already,
>>Z. You dig yourself in deeper and deeper each time you defend your
>>idiocy. Only the brain dead wouldn't have noticed by now.
>
>
> Mindless assertions such as yours are usually made by usenet idiots
> who bluster when it becomes obvious that they don't know what they
> are balthering about.
>

You remain clueless, billieboy. A real live mental midget. Is yo momma
proud of you?


jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
<snip>
> > Mindless assertions such as yours are usually made by usenet idiots
> > who bluster when it becomes obvious that they don't know what they
> > are balthering about.
>
> You remain clueless, billieboy. A real live mental midget. Is yo momma
> proud of you?

You really are a child, aren't you.


Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Mindless assertions such as yours are usually made by usenet idiots
>>>who bluster when it becomes obvious that they don't know what they
>>>are balthering about.
>>
>>You remain clueless, billieboy. A real live mental midget. Is yo momma
>>proud of you?
>
>
> You really are a child, aren't you.
>
>
> Bill
>

Perhaps, baby. The question remains: is yo momma proud of you?

You're not bad for a mentalmidgetmikeyboy sock puppet, not bad.


jim
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Don't forget your hat.

Thank you.

And thanx loads for making r.b.m. what it is today.
You, et al, have improved it so much, it's now too
good for the humble likes of me.

Enjoy riding your keyboard. I'm just gonna ride
my God-damned bikes.

All the good stuff is already in the FAQ, anyways.


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> > You really are a child, aren't you.
> > Bill
> >
> Perhaps, baby. The question remains: is yo momma proud of you?
> You're not bad for a mentalmidgetmikeyboy sock puppet, not bad.

Is that how you talk to the other boys in your kindergarden class?
Does your mother know?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back