Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> 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 seem determined to miss the central concern in your insistence on
adherence to the standards. Obviously your mind is made up and not
amenable to change. IMHO (and the HO of several others) your use of
the standards in this case was non-standard, hence the controversy.
If you were concerned about whether **** Durbin was quoted properly,
then you should have climbed back up the thread and quoted ****'s post
directly. However, you are determined to see your actions as correct
and therefore no argument will sway you. Classic Usenet crapola.
 
To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be
interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not
generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the
essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery that
challenges the viewer to wake up.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
> To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be
> interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not
> generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the
> essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery that
> challenges the viewer to wake up.

Maybe these folks might have something to offer:
http://www.magentastudios.com/129753

They've got all kinds of interesting design stuff.
But they seem to be more into T-shirts than jerseys.
Their web site is a little too gnarly for my old version
of Netscrape to explore.


cheers,
Tom

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

> > 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).
>

Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with the
attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows what is
going on.

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


> 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.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content
of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad
silly.

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


> 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?

Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the
comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.

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

>
> You're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just
> a petulant child?

Go f___ yourself, twirp. The only person being petulant was Sorni.
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> You seem determined to miss the central concern in your insistence on
> adherence to the standards. Obviously your mind is made up and not
> amenable to change.

Yep - you guys are whining about trivia. Anyone looking at the text
can tell who said what, so as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing
to complain about, particularly since I didn't comment on either guy's
statement, but simply added something to the discussion.
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content
> of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad
> silly.
>

And you are not?

Step back and look at your idiocy with a neutral eye. Everyone else here
sees it clearly. Get over yourself, bimbo.


jim



jim
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the
> comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.
>

Then preface your comment, clown. Say with, "this isn't in direct reply,
but I am jumping in here," or something to that effect.

You are still in the wrong, despite your delusions of grandeur.


jim
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> 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).
>>
>
> Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with the
> attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows what is
> going on.

I give up.

Bill "why would I use Zippy the Pinhead's post to reply to YOU?" S.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content
> of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad
> silly.

Whether the content was a quip or some heartfelt message has nothing to do
with the fact that YOU REPLIED TO THE WRONG POST and just won't admit it.

(I *can* think of one legitimate reason, by the way. Say your server
dropped **** Durbin's original post, so you used my quoting of it to reply
to him. That's fair, but you should STILL delete the "Sorni says:" since it
had no place in your content; or change it to say "Sorni quotes DD as
saying:".)

This is how "SERIOUS" misquotes happen, by the way. Someone reads a poor
post and attributes something /of consequence/ to the wrong person.

Jim is right :)

Bill "really trying to give up now" S.
 
JimLane wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the
>> comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.

See how this (my reply now) is posted incorrectly?!? I left the "Jim Lane
wrote:" but deleted all his words. Pretty stupid, right?

A new reader would be confused as to who wrote what, as Jim Lane is
mentioned but nowhere to be found! (And no, I don't think the '>'
convention makes it any clearer.)

Bill "OK, I swear I'm giving up now!!!" S.
 
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be
>> interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not
>> generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the
>> essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery
>> that challenges the viewer to wake up.
>
> Maybe these folks might have something to offer:
> http://www.magentastudios.com/129753
>
> They've got all kinds of interesting design stuff. But they seem to
> be more into T-shirts than jerseys. Their web site is a little too
> gnarly for my old version of Netscrape to explore.

There was a company called "Dharma Ink" or something like that which
produced a fun line of T-shirts that were classic Ch'an an dZen
images, and came with a card which explained the image and its
source. That was years ago, I think I saw an ad in Tricycle and
bought one of their T-shirts, but they seem to have vanished.
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with
> the attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows
> what is going on.

You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to continue
to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Like I
said, classic Usenet crapola.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
>> Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with
>> the attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows
>> what is going on.
>
> You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to continue
> to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Like I
> said, classic Usenet crapola.

Thank you, Tim. I asked for someone to explain it better, and you did just
that.

Bill "time for Arrested Development" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

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

> > Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with the
> > attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows what is
> > going on.
>
> I give up.
>
> Bill "why would I use Zippy the Pinhead's post to reply to YOU?" S.

You should give up. You should also grow up - you silly statements in
quotes like the above are simply childish. This wasn't a serious
discussion after all, just you making a wisecrack and me adding a
funny quip that was independent of yours.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> > Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with
> > the attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows
> > what is going on.
>
> You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to continue
> to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Like I
> said, classic Usenet crapola.

I'm claiming the attribution of the quotes is clear given standard
usenet conventions. You can claim it is slightly more work to
check the attribution (by one level of '>') but this is not
rocket science.

You'd have no complaint if I had included a single word that Sorni had
typed as a comment, which most readers would miss anyway, so your whole
point is just plain silly.

The quotes I put in where generated by my newsreader - I always let
the newsreader handle it because the chances of messing it up are
far less. Modern newsreaders sometimes highlight each level of quotation
in a differnet color, so it is very easy to distinguish one person's
comment from another. If you guys have that much trouble, get a better
newsreader.

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>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.
> > Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content
> > of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad
> > silly.
> >
>
> And you are not?
>
> Step back and look at your idiocy with a neutral eye. Everyone else
> here sees it clearly. Get over yourself, bimbo.

"Everyone else" are a few idiots with their heads up their butts.

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


> Whether the content was a quip or some heartfelt message has nothing to do
> with the fact that YOU REPLIED TO THE WRONG POST and just won't admit it.
>
> (I *can* think of one legitimate reason, by the way. Say your server
> dropped **** Durbin's original post, so you used my quoting of it to reply
> to him. That's fair, but you should STILL delete the "Sorni says:" since it
> had no place in your content; or change it to say "Sorni quotes DD as
> saying:".)

Sigh. "Sorni quotes DD as saying" is what "> > " at the start of each
line indicates.

In fact, what I think I did was to reply to your post, and when done,
my quip didn't go well with your 4-word quip, so I deleted your quip
to make it read better. So what? For a quip, do you think anywone is
going to cancel the post, retrieve an old post no longer displayed,
and re-write the whole thing? Get real.

Bill

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