Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right -- I forgot
>> to snip your name so it looked like you said something you didn't",
>> or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong post" and that would have been the
>> end of it (seen it many, many times).
> <idiotic comments snipped>.
>
> Sorni, if you are such a complete and utter idiot as to think that
> anyone couldn't tell who said what, you are hopeless. I quoted you as
> quoting someone else, with that someone else mentioned by name. It
> basically said, "Sorni said that Dave said that ...." If I had
> eliminated the "Dave said," you'd have a legitimate complaint, but I
> didn't do that. If you are such an idiot that you can't tell the
> difference, that's your loss.

So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that so & so said:"?
Sorry, it's not.

You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it and/or clean it up before
hitting "Send", and you just won't admit it.

God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where you
need to admit and error or -- horrors! -- apologize.

Bill "learned long ago I'd rather be happy than *right* (at all costs)" S.

PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't make you seem any more rational,
Bill. (And you called ME petulant!)
 
S o r n i wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Anyone else would have just said, "Whoops, you're right -- I forgot
>>>to snip your name so it looked like you said something you didn't",
>>>or "Ooops, I replied to the wrong post" and that would have been the
>>>end of it (seen it many, many times).
>>
>><idiotic comments snipped>.
>>
>>Sorni, if you are such a complete and utter idiot as to think that
>>anyone couldn't tell who said what, you are hopeless. I quoted you as
>>quoting someone else, with that someone else mentioned by name. It
>>basically said, "Sorni said that Dave said that ...." If I had
>>eliminated the "Dave said," you'd have a legitimate complaint, but I
>>didn't do that. If you are such an idiot that you can't tell the
>>difference, that's your loss.
>
>
> So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that so & so said:"?
> Sorry, it's not.
>
> You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it and/or clean it up before
> hitting "Send", and you just won't admit it.
>
> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where you
> need to admit and error or -- horrors! -- apologize.
>
> Bill "learned long ago I'd rather be happy than *right* (at all costs)" S.
>
> PS: Resorting to name-calling doesn't make you seem any more rational,
> Bill. (And you called ME petulant!)
>
>

Nah, I called Z petulant, didn't I? If he did, he was cribbin off me.


jim
 
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:38:21 -0700, JimLane <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
>> I've read the entire thread thus far, and I think both of your mothers
>> wear combat boots.
>
>At least we had mothers.

Yes, I made the acquaintance of yours here: http://www.hoslap.net/
 
Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:38:21 -0700, JimLane <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
>>
>>>I've read the entire thread thus far, and I think both of your mothers
>>>wear combat boots.
>>
>>At least we had mothers.
>
>
> Yes, I made the acquaintance of yours here: http://www.hoslap.net/
>
>


Hmmm, so that's who you are trying to associate with, eh? You probably
were too low on the totem to get anywhere. After all, they do have
standards and you can't even make that cut.


jim



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

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

> So "Sorni writes:" is the same as saying "Sorni says that so & so said:"?
> Sorry, it's not.

Sigh. The text
+
+ Sorni writes:
+ > Durbin writes:
+ > > ....
+
is expressed in English as "Sorni writes that Durbin write that ...."
The quoting convention is 100% clear. It is *not* the same as
+
+ Sorni writes:
+ > > ....
+
which most readers would figure out, but might be read as "Sorni write
that ....". Do you see the difference or are you really that dense?

>
> You replied to the wrong post and didn't catch it and/or clean it up before
> hitting "Send", and you just won't admit it.

Not "cleaning up" by making the text ever so slightly more succinct is
not a misquote, which was what you complaining about.

If your complaint is about style, not accuracy, you should have said
that, but you didn't.
>
> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where you
> need to admit and error or -- horrors! -- apologize.

Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as you seem to,
really does have a few serious problems to deal with.

Bill

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

> Nah, I called Z petulant, didn't I? If he did, he was cribbin off me.

I don't remember if I used the word, but I take it you now claim to
have a copyright on the use of a single word? You really are out to
lunch.

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

>> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where
>> you need to admit an error or -- horrors! -- apologize.
>
> Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as you seem to,
> really does have a few serious problems to deal with.

Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant issue for you to
deal with, not this inane blather.

Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.

Bill "just wish I'd never noticed the misattribution in the first place" S.
 
PLEASE ALL DON'T REPLY TO ANY MORE MESSAGES ON THIS THREAD
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where
> >> you need to admit an error or -- horrors! -- apologize.
> >
> > Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as you seem to,
> > really does have a few serious problems to deal with.
>
> Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant issue for you
to
> deal with, not this inane blather.
>
> Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.
>
> Bill "just wish I'd never noticed the misattribution in the first place"
S.
>
>
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> God help you if there's ever an /important/ issue in your life where
> >> you need to admit an error or -- horrors! -- apologize.
> >
> > Anyone who expects an apology when nothing happened, as you seem to,
> > really does have a few serious problems to deal with.
>
> Learn to read. I said if there's ever a truly significant issue for you to
> deal with, not this inane blather.

This *is* a truly significant issue to you given how you've been ranting
about it, but I will agree that your complaints are in fact "inane
blather."

> Now go ahead and take the last word; I'm done.

You said you were "done" quite a few times, of course ...

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:49:24 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:
>In article <lQJcc.86562$JO3.44558@attbi_s04>,
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Bill Z, Sorni, JimLane, take a deep breath in. Then, let a deep breath out.
>> Next inhalation, breathe in, and relax.
>> Exhale, and smile.
>> Breathe in, and relax; breathe out and smile.
>>
>> This simple practice, taught by Thich Nhat Hanh in his book, Peace is Every
>> Step (http://tinyurl.com/3fmnz), will help you find the path to your true
>> self.
>
>That's the basic pot smoking technique, too.

Same technique, same results, eh?
--
Rick Onanian
 
>"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> writes:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Zaumen's been this way as long as I can remember. And that's many,
>> many years.

I've snipped properly according to your rules. Can you spot what's
wrong?

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:59:14 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>Frank Krygowski (the guy posting this) is an anti-helmet nut whose
>been on my case for 10 years for not agreeing with his idiotic
>views on that subject and has a long term grudge and axe to grind.

You're both nuts for continuing to argue the same point for so long.

Frank is effectively anti-helmet, and I spent a lot of time in a
helmet war sparring with him. I did learn to respect him, even if I
don't agree. His views may (or may not) be mistaken and/or
inaccurate, but they are well-reasoned, not idiotic.

>Much of what Krygowski posted consisted of pure propaganda.

I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited out of an
unrelated courtesy issue.

>Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-word,
>content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my post due to his

No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.

Sheldon Brown uses a tagline that says something like "The nice
thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from".
Consider that clarity, even if it requires flouting a standard (it
didn't in this case), beats a standard whose clarity may be
questionable, even if you think it looks obvious.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> Frank is effectively anti-helmet, and I spent a lot of time in a
> helmet war sparring with him. I did learn to respect him, even if I
> don't agree. His views may (or may not) be mistaken and/or
> inaccurate, but they are well-reasoned, not idiotic.

There is a difference between well-written and well-reasoned. I
think you are confusing the two. While Frank would occasionally
make resonable statements, he would then continue by going off
the deep end in an attempt to butress his argument by throwing
up strawmen, and using other such tactics.

> >Much of what Krygowski posted consisted of pure propaganda.
>
> I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited out of an
> unrelated courtesy issue.

I'd rather not see propaganda. It distracts from rational dicussions.

> >Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-word,
> >content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my post due to his
>
> No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.

What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any quoted
text, which is what he claimed.

> Sheldon Brown uses a tagline that says something like "The nice
> thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from".
> Consider that clarity, even if it requires flouting a standard (it
> didn't in this case), beats a standard whose clarity may be
> questionable, even if you think it looks obvious.

One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was to make it
readable by both machines and by people, to aid in such tasks as
archving, where you might want to search for a keyword someone used,
as opposed to a keyword someone quoted another poster as using.

Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For instance, if I
write, "Candidate for Governor in love nest with 'singer'," a line
(approximately) from _Citizen Kane_, the quote around the word
_singer_ would not necessarily mean that I was quoting someone's
statement but rather questioning if the woman was really a singer. The
usenet convention avoids such ambiguities.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
>The usenet convention avoids such ambiguities.

"Singer In Love Nest With Kane."

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> writes:
>>The usenet convention avoids such ambiguities.
>
> "Singer In Love Nest With Kane."

I never knew Hearst the Elder was so passionate about sewing.

Will wonderments never cease.

I never dared suppose that Usenet has its own quoting
system, separate from the normal, either. I guess stuff
might go like:

[email protected] writes:
>
>> Quoth The Raven:
>>
>> Nevermore.


If Sylvia Plath had to write her stuff on Usenet,
she'da gone nutz way sooner.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Where, where the Hell is Bill?
Where, where the Hell is Bill?
Where, where the Hell is Bill?
Where, where the Hell is Bill?
Well, maybe he went to get a sideways haircut
Maybe he went to get a striped shirt
Maybe he went to get some plastic shoes
Maybe he went to get some funny sunglasses
Well, maybe he went to get an Air Force parka
Maybe he went to get a Vespa scooter
Maybe he went to get a British flag
Maybe he went to go Mod Ska dancing
Well, maybe he went to get a mohawk
And maybe he went to get some gnarly thrash boots
Maybe he went to go ride his skateboard
Maybe he went to see the Circle Jerks
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

> Same technique, same results, eh?

So long as ppl mellow out, cheer up, and chip-in some good
vibes into the Collective Consciousness, everything's cool.

Claire's way doesn't need herbs, roach clips or Bic lighters.
Just oxygen and brains.

Happiness and good will is not only infectuously self-
replicating -- it's cheap and handy. Hell, it's the
opposite of war & militarism. Kinda like Ray Charles' grin.

It's pretty good stuff.

I recently transcribed a documentary about the research sub,
the 'Ben Franklin'. One of the objectives was to study
(for NASA) the effects of isolation & confinement on an
operational crew's effectiveness. Early on, they decided
that if a dispute arose, they would endeavour to let the other
person have the last word, rather than to try to have the last
word for their self. It worked wonderfully, and everybody got
along just fine.

Sometimes I luv my job. I learn stuff from it. Sometimes
it's even useful.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:

> So long as ppl mellow out, cheer up, and chip-in some good
> vibes into the Collective Consciousness, everything's cool.
{snip}
> Happiness and good will is not only infectuously self-
> replicating -- it's cheap and handy. Hell, it's the
> opposite of war & militarism. Kinda like Ray Charles' grin.
>
> It's pretty good stuff.

Who let THIS guy in here?!? :)

Bill "flow disrupted" S.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Who let THIS guy in here?!? :)

I just kinda stumbled in, in a Jim Ignatowski way.

Sorry.

I'll let myself out, if I could just find the fuggin' door.
Or at least a window that's not stuck shut.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Frank is effectively anti-helmet, and I spent a lot of time in a
>>helmet war sparring with him. I did learn to respect him, even if I
>>don't agree. His views may (or may not) be mistaken and/or
>>inaccurate, but they are well-reasoned, not idiotic.
>
>
> There is a difference between well-written and well-reasoned. I
> think you are confusing the two. While Frank would occasionally
> make resonable statements, he would then continue by going off
> the deep end in an attempt to butress his argument by throwing
> up strawmen, and using other such tactics.
>
>
>>>Much of what Krygowski posted consisted of pure propaganda.
>>
>>I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited out of an
>>unrelated courtesy issue.
>
>
> I'd rather not see propaganda. It distracts from rational dicussions.
>
>
>>>Sorni's complaint basically hinges on me snipping a four-word,
>>>content-free wisecrack of his after finishing my post due to his
>>
>>No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.
>
>
> What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any quoted
> text, which is what he claimed.
>
>
>>Sheldon Brown uses a tagline that says something like "The nice
>>thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from".
>>Consider that clarity, even if it requires flouting a standard (it
>>didn't in this case), beats a standard whose clarity may be
>>questionable, even if you think it looks obvious.
>
>
> One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was to make it
> readable by both machines and by people, to aid in such tasks as
> archving, where you might want to search for a keyword someone used,
> as opposed to a keyword someone quoted another poster as using.
>
> Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For instance, if I
> write, "Candidate for Governor in love nest with 'singer'," a line
> (approximately) from _Citizen Kane_, the quote around the word
> _singer_ would not necessarily mean that I was quoting someone's
> statement but rather questioning if the woman was really a singer. The
> usenet convention avoids such ambiguities.
>
> Bill
>

It's obvious you could teach a mule about stubbornness and a dunce about
stupidity.


jim
 
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
>> don't agree. His views may (or may not) be mistaken and/or
>> inaccurate, but they are well-reasoned, not idiotic.
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:54:49 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
Z.) wrote:
>There is a difference between well-written and well-reasoned. I
>think you are confusing the two. While Frank would occasionally
>make resonable statements, he would then continue by going off
>the deep end in an attempt to butress his argument by throwing
>up strawmen, and using other such tactics.

I haven't gone back and studied the Rick vs. Frank helmet war of
2003, but I came away believing that his reasoning was sound. I
could be remembering a more rosy picture than reality, but it's more
likely that his reasoning evolved between his old arguments with you
and the time he spent on me.

I suspect that it's even more likely that you're showing similar
characteristics regarding Frank as you are regarding Sorni. I think
it's you, not the rest of the world.

>> I'd rather see propaganda than another helmet war incited out of an
>> unrelated courtesy issue.
>
>I'd rather not see propaganda.

Me neither...but it beats another fruitless helmet war.

>It distracts from rational dicussions.

What, like this one? Don't you suppose a helmet war would distract
from this discussion (regardless of how rational it may be)?

>> No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.
>
>What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any quoted
>text, which is what he claimed.

I'll note that you didn't address my example of similar technique
that is within the rules but could be obfuscatory for some.

>One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was to make it
>readable by both machines and by people, to aid in such tasks as
>archving, where you might want to search for a keyword someone used,
>as opposed to a keyword someone quoted another poster as using.

That's why there's "From:" headers.

>Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For instance, if I
<irrelevance snipped>

You don't seem to mind ambiguity, as long as it's within your
interpretation of rules.
--
Rick Onanian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back