Re: Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys



JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

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

> And all you've proven is that you haven't a real clue. And that is
> bankable. You're wrong. everyone but you knows it. But you can't face
> the truth of it. Who would you rather be?

What we have is Jim Lane and a few other idiots whose intelligence
is so limited that they cannot disambiguate quoting conventions that
even my newsreader can handle automatically and reliably in only a
few lines of code.

Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>And all you've proven is that you haven't a real clue. And that is
>>bankable. You're wrong. everyone but you knows it. But you can't face
>>the truth of it. Who would you rather be?
>
>
> What we have is Jim Lane and a few other idiots whose intelligence
> is so limited that they cannot disambiguate quoting conventions that
> even my newsreader can handle automatically and reliably in only a
> few lines of code.
>
> Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
> of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
>
> Bill
>

Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state of
denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.

You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at the
wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused by
color-coded readers.

You are plain WRONG, clown. As a grown-up man you should be able to
admit your mistake. But we're not holding our collective breath.


jim
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

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

> > Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
> > of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
> > Bill
> >
>
> Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state of
> denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.
>
> You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at
> the wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused by
> color-coded readers.

Hey moron, Sorni claimed he was *misquoted*. He wasn't. Even my
newsreader could figure it out. I guess it is smarter than the
lot of you put together.

The only valid criticism is that my original post was longer than
it needed to be (by a few words.) So what? If you don't like it,
whine to the style police.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Sorry guys, all of you are wrong, as should be evident by any number
>>> of programs that manage to color-code text to show who quoted whom.
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, loser. Your format was wrong. You know it but are in a state
>> of denial. See your shrink before you get put back in a rubber room.
>>
>> You should have deleted Sorni or acknowledged you were jumping in at
>> the wrong level. You lack of manners and protocol cannot be excused
>> by color-coded readers.
>
> Hey moron, Sorni claimed he was *misquoted*. He wasn't. Even my
> newsreader could figure it out. I guess it is smarter than the
> lot of you put together.

I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about ATTRIBUTION,
not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits an error, Bill :) Had
*NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted cluster coitus.

Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.

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

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about ATTRIBUTION,
> not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits an error, Bill :) Had
> *NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted cluster coitus.
>
> Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
> refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.

The attribution was right was well, as who said what could be
unambiguously determined. Your claims to the contrary are simply
lies on your part - it was explained to you enough that you can't
pretend ignorance.

The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
post could have been a few words shorter.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> JimLane <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> I used the wrong term initially, as clearly I was talking about
>> ATTRIBUTION, not quoting per se. (See? That's how someone admits
>> an error, Bill :) Had *NO IDEA* it would lead to such a protracted
>> cluster coitus.
>>
>> Still, once it was painfully clear what the issue was, you absolutely
>> refused to own up to even the most inconsequential of mistakes.
>
> The attribution was right was well, as who said what could be
> unambiguously determined. Your claims to the contrary are simply
> lies on your part - it was explained to you enough that you can't
> pretend ignorance.
>
> The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
> post could have been a few words shorter.

THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were "Sorni
says:"!

Bill "God, you're dense" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
> > post could have been a few words shorter.
>
> THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were "Sorni
> says:"!

That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
because he can't read proper English?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> The only legitimate complaint (which you didn't make) is that the
>>> post could have been a few words shorter.
>>
>> THAT WAS the complaint, you moronic egomaniac! The few words were
>> "Sorni says:"!
>
> That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
> about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
> that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
> because he can't read proper English?

Last reply (this round).

You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your ****ing holy
newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case said "Sorni says:").

All I did was point that out (yes, I used the term "quote", which IS THE
ACTUAL INTENTION of said attribution, but I admit is technically incorrect
in this context).

Everyone else saw it; many chimed in to tell you so, but you just won't own
it. I'm guessing you never will. (You conveniently ignored a few of your
fellow "ARPA era nerds" who ALSO saw your minor little stupid error and let
you know.)

Now if Jim Lane will resist the urge to respond to you any longer, this
seemingly endless thread can die a merciful, Zen-like death. (I say Jim
because your replies to him have pulled me back in more than a few times;
just can't seem to help myself!)

Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me froth at
the keyboard" S.

PS: AFAIK no one called you a "liar" in all this, the way you like to throw
around names. You're just a small asshole.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

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

> > That's another lie - you complained about quotes or attribution, not
> > about writing style being merely slightly verbose. Are you really
> > that stupid or are you just another usenet ass who froths at the mouth
> > because he can't read proper English?
>
> Last reply (this round).

We've heard that one before.

>
> You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your ****ing holy
> newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case said "Sorni says:").

Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously not
being done by accident.

>
> Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me froth at
> the keyboard" S.

Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what emotional
problem?

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

>> You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your
>> ****ing holy newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case
>> said "Sorni says:").
>
> Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
> The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
> the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
> was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously
> not being done by accident.

Now you ARE lying. Anyone can read the original posts and judge for
themselves.
>
>>
>> Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me
>> froth at the keyboard" S.
>
> Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
> emotional problem?

The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
English.

Bill "just go away for God's sake" S.
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your
> >> ****ing holy newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case
> >> said "Sorni says:").
> >
> > Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
> > The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
> > the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
> > was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously
> > not being done by accident.
>
> Now you ARE lying. Anyone can read the original posts and judge for
> themselves.

Now you've lied twice. First you said you would not reply again. Now
you are trying to cover up your lies. The original in fact said

+ Sorni wrote:
+ > Durbin wrote:
+ > > ....
+ > > ....

It is very clear that you are lying through your teeth about what
was actually posted. The meaning was perfectly clear to anyone but
a complete and utter idiot, regardless of whether the first level of
quotes could have been snipped (which is style, not substance.)

> >> Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me
> >> froth at the keyboard" S.
> >
> > Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
> > emotional problem?
>
> The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
> English.

Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>"S o r n i" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>>You replied to **** Durbin under MY reply, and didn't snip your
>>>>****ing holy newsreader's automatic attribution (which in this case
>>>>said "Sorni says:").
>>>
>>>Minor wording aside, what I posted said "Sorni says that Durbin says:"
>>>The attribution is clear to anyone with half a brain. By suppressing
>>>the "Durbin says" portion of it, you are willfully distorting what
>>>was actually said, which makes you dishonest, since it is obviously
>>>not being done by accident.
>>
>>Now you ARE lying. Anyone can read the original posts and judge for
>>themselves.
>
>
> Now you've lied twice. First you said you would not reply again. Now
> you are trying to cover up your lies. The original in fact said
>
> + Sorni wrote:
> + > Durbin wrote:
> + > > ....
> + > > ....
>
> It is very clear that you are lying through your teeth about what
> was actually posted. The meaning was perfectly clear to anyone but
> a complete and utter idiot, regardless of whether the first level of
> quotes could have been snipped (which is style, not substance.)
>
>
>>>>Bill "would take a lot more than YOUR immature whining to make me
>>>>froth at the keyboard" S.
>>>
>>>Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
>>>emotional problem?
>>
>>The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
>>English.
>
>
> Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.
>
> Bill
>

Hey, putz, you're still in the wrong. Get used to it and act like a man
and admit your error.


jim
 
JimLane wrote (of poor little Bill Zee):

> Hey, putz, you're still in the wrong. Get used to it and act like a
> man and admit your error.

I think I'll clean the Stairway to Hell out at Noble Canyon before THAT
happens, Jim.

Bill "bloody (!) unlikely" S.
 
"I'm never wrong" wrote:
>> > Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
>> > emotional problem?
Sorni replied:
>> The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
>> English.
"It's not me, it's the whole world" then said:
>Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.

You can't even admit that you chose the wrong word when it's 100%
certain that you did.

In a book by Douglas Adams, there's a character named Wonko The Sane
who built his house inside-out. He claimed that what we would call
the inside of his house was actually outside, and the rest of the
world surrounding his house was an asylum. This character believed
that he was right and the whole world wrong, that he was the only
sane one. He had a similar outlook to yours, but was much funnier
(and probably much wiser) than you.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian wrote:
> "I'm never wrong" wrote:
>>>> Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
>>>> emotional problem?
> Sorni replied:
>>> The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
>>> English.
> "It's not me, it's the whole world" then said:
>> Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.
>
> You can't even admit that you chose the wrong word when it's 100%
> certain that you did.
>
> In a book by Douglas Adams, there's a character named Wonko The Sane
> who built his house inside-out. He claimed that what we would call
> the inside of his house was actually outside, and the rest of the
> world surrounding his house was an asylum. This character believed
> that he was right and the whole world wrong, that he was the only
> sane one. He had a similar outlook to yours, but was much funnier
> (and probably much wiser) than you.

Damn Skippy, that was good! (I wanted to blast him, too, but only had Betty
& Veronica comics to draw upon for inspiration.)

Bill "AKA Jughead" S.
 
Apparently the same thing happened in wreck tech, and here is what the
"victim" posted:

> wle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3hw*[email protected]... [no text quoted from me]

> Watch that - don't include attribution lines that don't have corresponding
text.

EXACTLY!!!

Bill "succinct recap" S.
 
JimLane <[email protected]> writes:

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

> Hey, putz, you're still in the wrong. Get used to it and act like a
> man and admit your error.

Hey jerk, the post was neither a misquote nor a misattribution, so
Sorni is lying. If you want to complain about writing style, I could
care less.

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

> "I'm never wrong" wrote:
> >> > Then I take it your colorful language is do to precisely what
> >> > emotional problem?
> Sorni replied:
> >> The word is "due", moron. And you question MY ability to understand
> >> English.
> "It's not me, it's the whole world" then said:
> >Oooooooooooooh. Little Sorni is upset about a typo.
>
> You can't even admit that you chose the wrong word when it's 100%
> certain that you did.

Rick, you are you so dumb as to not know what a typo is? Sorni simply
has something up his butt and needs to whine about it. I guess you do
too. Why don't you two get together and help each other out - with
your butt problems, that is.


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

> Apparently the same thing happened in wreck tech, and here is what the
> "victim" posted:
>
> > wle <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3hw*[email protected]... [no text quoted from me]
>
> > Watch that - don't include attribution lines that don't have corresponding
> text.
>
> EXACTLY!!!

Except it *did* have corresponding text. Read the original very
carefully. The text Sorni put in (or at least, his newsreader put in)
said approximately, "Durbin wrote." (I only snipped a 4-word sentence
at the end of his post, and that sentence was content-free.)

The attribution was 100% clear due to the '>' quoting convention. So
Sorni lied about the attribution.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> Now you've lied twice.

Actually, Bill, you're being every bit as dishonest as you accuse
Sorni of being. More so in fact, since you're also a troll.

I wish that Sorni and Jim, et al, will take this clue from me:
killfiles are good. Put Bill Z in your killfile, the thread will stop
iommediately, and life goes on. He will be in my killfile from now
on, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back