Re: What products do you buy

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages?

Quoted message said:

I don't know.

Very helpful and informative.

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages?

Quoted message said:

I don't know.

Very helpful and informative.

BS, it's better than making stuff up.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
> riders on particular stages?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very helpful and informative.

Quoted message said:

BS, it's better than making stuff up.

Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
>> riders on particular stages?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I don't know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Very helpful and informative.

Quoted message said:

BS, it's better than making stuff up.

Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?

Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question and I
wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:42:14 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
>>> riders on particular stages?

Quoted message said:

>> I don't know.

Quoted message said:

> Very helpful and informative.

Quoted message said:

BS, it's better than making stuff up.

Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?

Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question and I
wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.

Ah. Well, due to your compulsive over-snipping -- AND the fact that on my
newsreader at least your post did not appear within its thread but instead
in a stand-alone fashion -- I'll have to take your word for it.

(Of course, if the tables were turned then no doubt at this point you'd
lecture me on how to post correctly on Usenet, but I won't stoop to your
usual level of pettiness.)

Toodles, John.

Bill

Bill Sornson said:

(Of course, if the tables were turned then no doubt at this point you'd
lecture me on how to post correctly on Usenet, but I won't stoop to your
usual level of pettiness.)

Lecture you about what? I don't see anything I said that was
inaccurate or outside the bounds of normal usenet behaviour.

And speaking of pettiness, how about your "Why reply at all when
you've nothing to add?" which seems pretty petty.

Indeed, you seem to be taking a number of gratuitous jibes at me in
this thread. That seems pretty petty as well.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:42:14 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
>>>> riders on particular stages?

>>> I don't know.

>> Very helpful and informative.

> BS, it's better than making stuff up.

Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?

Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question and I
wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.

Ah. Well, due to your compulsive over-snipping -- AND the fact that on my
newsreader at least your post did not appear within its thread but instead
in a stand-alone fashion -- I'll have to take your word for it.

Sorry for the second reply, but actually you do deserve a usenet
lecture, you dope.

In the post you made above, you have Carl Fogel saying to me "Do you
know of any" -- that is to say he used the word "you" in referring to
me. So your comment about my post appearing off-thread and my
snipping somehow making it unclear that I was responding to a direct
question seem to demonstrate you don't even read stuff before you jump
on me and that you're just looking for some excuse to needle me.

Once again you demonstrate your dopiness.

LOL.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

(Of course, if the tables were turned then no doubt at this point
you'd lecture me on how to post correctly on Usenet, but I won't
stoop to your usual level of pettiness.)

Lecture you about what? I don't see anything I said that was
inaccurate or outside the bounds of normal usenet behaviour.

John, your post (now deleted by you, of course) appeared on my newsreader as
a "stand-alone"; that is, it wasn't in the thread but looked like a new
topic (except that the Subject: line did start with "Re:"😉. Why did this
happen? Don't know; don't care. (I really think that you would make a big
deal about it if I'd done it.)

However, /because/ of that there were no "reference posts" around it to
provide any context. Therefore, since you trimmed Gazoo's question to you,
there was no way to why you bothered to reply with "I don't know." (ALSO now
deleted by you).

Quoted message said:

And speaking of pettiness, how about your "Why reply at all when
you've nothing to add?" which seems pretty petty.

Because it seemed like a strange thing to do. Leaving the context (that his
question was directed at you) would have been quite helpful to the reader --
a difficult concept for you, I realize.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, you seem to be taking a number of gratuitous jibes at me in
this thread. That seems pretty petty as well.

"In this thread"? Since your post in effect started a /new/ thread, my
initial question was sincere. I had no idea why you or anyone would go to
the trouble to post "I don't know." unless the question in question was in
fact addressed to you -- evidence of which you (or your post) failed to
provide.

Satisfied? I've really gone to a lot of trouble trying to make this clear
for you. I know how you like to question things.

(Long sig line deleted. If you put a little "--" before it, then it would
/appear/ as a sig and not get copied in replies, necessitating "manual"
removal. These little conventions -- like not over-trimming -- are
considerd considerations for the reader, something I know you don't
/consider/ important.)

B (now that's a /short/ sig!)

PS: "behaviour"? Whaddya now, British?

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:17:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:42:14 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from
>>>>> TdF riders on particular stages?
>
>>>> I don't know.
>
>>> Very helpful and informative.
>
>> BS, it's better than making stuff up.
>
> Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?

Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question and
I wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.

Ah. Well, due to your compulsive over-snipping -- AND the fact that
on my newsreader at least your post did not appear within its thread
but instead in a stand-alone fashion -- I'll have to take your word
for it.

Sorry for the second reply, but actually you do deserve a usenet
lecture, you dope.

In the post you made above, you have Carl Fogel saying to me "Do you
know of any" -- that is to say he used the word "you" in referring to
me.

You dope -- please explain how a reader would know that meant YOU.

{I'll wait.}

Quoted message said:

So your comment about my post appearing off-thread and my
snipping somehow making it unclear that I was responding to a direct
question seem to demonstrate you don't even read stuff before you jump
on me and that you're just looking for some excuse to needle me.

Absolutely incorrect. Dealing with you is like pulling thorns out my ass;
it hurts, but sometimes it's just gotta be done.

Quoted message said:

Once again you demonstrate your dopiness.

Not my fault you don't know how to post in a thread AND compulsively
over-trim text to remove context.

I repeat: how in the hell was anyone supposed to know that Fogle's question
was directed at you?

Bill Sornson said:

...
I repeat: how in the hell was anyone supposed to know that Fogle's question
was directed at you?

I don't know.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Impact is not a synonym of affect or effect

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:17:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:42:14 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from
>>>>>> TdF riders on particular stages?
>>
>>>>> I don't know.
>>
>>>> Very helpful and informative.
>>
>>> BS, it's better than making stuff up.
>>
>> Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?
>
> Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question and
> I wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.

Ah. Well, due to your compulsive over-snipping -- AND the fact that
on my newsreader at least your post did not appear within its thread
but instead in a stand-alone fashion -- I'll have to take your word
for it.

Sorry for the second reply, but actually you do deserve a usenet
lecture, you dope.

In the post you made above, you have Carl Fogel saying to me "Do you
know of any" -- that is to say he used the word "you" in referring to
me.

You dope -- please explain how a reader would know that meant YOU.

You dope -- because, as you quoted above, Carl was writing a post in
response to a post by me. He quoted me and said "you."

It's not complicated. I thought you had a degree in English?

Quoted message said:

{I'll wait.}

Quoted message said:

So your comment about my post appearing off-thread and my
snipping somehow making it unclear that I was responding to a direct
question seem to demonstrate you don't even read stuff before you jump
on me and that you're just looking for some excuse to needle me.

Absolutely incorrect. Dealing with you is like pulling thorns out my ass;
it hurts, but sometimes it's just gotta be done.

Quoted message said:

Once again you demonstrate your dopiness.

Not my fault you don't know how to post in a thread AND compulsively
over-trim text to remove context.

Even if my post was "over-trimmed" for your dimwittedness, you
actually posted an exceprt from this thread that demonstrated -- via a
quote from Carl -- exactly what you claim to not have known due to my
post appearing outside the thread -- that he wrote a post in response
to a comment of mine with a question including the word "you." If you
took the time to actually read what you were quoting, you might have
understood that. Instead you divert us on this little bit of
nonsense..

This is usenet and of course anyone is free to answer the question
Carl asked in terms of the sources of info. But he was particularly
asking me that question -- as your quoting showed -- and I felt it was
only polite to answer.

One other thing. It's remarkable that you suggest I'm petty when you
started this little exchange in response to a simple post by me saying
I didn't know something. That demonstrates both that you are petty,
and perhaps also that you find it odd for someone to publicly admit
their ignorance about something. I don't know the answer to Carl's
question and I see no problem in telling him that. *Your* personality
is one of bluff and bluster and lack of recognition of your own
ignorance, and frankly it amuses me.

Please continue.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:56:05 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:17:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:42:14 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from
>>>>>>> TdF riders on particular stages?
>>>
>>>>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>>>> Very helpful and informative.
>>>
>>>> BS, it's better than making stuff up.
>>>
>>> Why reply at all when you've nothing to add?
>>
>> Because Carl referred to me specifically in asking the question
>> and I wanted him to know I wasn't ignoring him.
>
> Ah. Well, due to your compulsive over-snipping -- AND the fact
> that on my newsreader at least your post did not appear within its
> thread but instead in a stand-alone fashion -- I'll have to take
> your word for it.

Sorry for the second reply, but actually you do deserve a usenet
lecture, you dope.

In the post you made above, you have Carl Fogel saying to me "Do
you know of any" -- that is to say he used the word "you" in
referring to me.

You dope -- please explain how a reader would know that meant YOU.

You dope -- because, as you quoted above, Carl was writing a post in
response to a post by me. He quoted me and said "you."

It's not complicated. I thought you had a degree in English?

{Hey John, why the "alt.humor" trick? Now MY post will likely do what yours
did -- start a "new thread"?}

Anyway, here's my reply, Dope:

Sigh. I'll go get your COMPLETE POST -- which, one last time, did NOT
appear in a thread but instead as a stand-alone starting a NEW thread.

You wrote, with zero context provided:

""

Quoted message said:

Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages?

I don't know.

""

How is one supposed to know that Carl was addressing you? (AGAIN: NO
THREAD.)

Can you at least see how one would wonder why you'd answer like that without
that knowledge? (Be honest; might start a trend.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

{I'll wait.}

Quoted message said:

So your comment about my post appearing off-thread and my
snipping somehow making it unclear that I was responding to a direct
question seem to demonstrate you don't even read stuff before you
jump on me and that you're just looking for some excuse to needle
me.

Absolutely incorrect. Dealing with you is like pulling thorns out
my ass; it hurts, but sometimes it's just gotta be done.

Quoted message said:

Once again you demonstrate your dopiness.

Not my fault you don't know how to post in a thread AND compulsively
over-trim text to remove context.

Even if my post was "over-trimmed" for your dimwittedness, you
actually posted an exceprt from this thread that demonstrated -- via a
quote from Carl -- exactly what you claim to not have known due to my
post appearing outside the thread -- that he wrote a post in response
to a comment of mine with a question including the word "you."

When someone quotes "How are you" with no context whatsoever, the reader has
no idea who "you" is. HTH

{Rest of ranting and needlessly long sig deleted.}

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

...
I repeat: how in the hell was anyone supposed to know that Fogle's
question was directed at you?

I don't know.

Well there ya go!

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages?

I don't know.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dear John,

Thanks for a short, sensible, obvious, polite reply to my question,
which was directly addressed to you.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
riders on particular stages?

I don't know.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dear John,

Thanks for a short, sensible, obvious, polite reply to my question,
which was directly addressed to you.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/cef0fef67b452e82/98d8bdadac9e2b5d#98d8bdadac9e2b5d

Read posts 89, 90, 91.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:16:47 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

> Do you know of any site that has maximum speed readings from TdF
> riders on particular stages?

I don't know.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dear John,

Thanks for a short, sensible, obvious, polite reply to my question,
which was directly addressed to you.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/cef0fef67b452e82/98d8bdadac9e2b5d#98d8bdadac9e2b5d

Read posts 89, 90, 91.

Now 91, 92, 93. Find the quoted question in the replied-to post.

Bill Sornson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/cef0fef67b452e82/98d8bdadac9e2b5d#98d8bdadac9e2b5d

Quoted message said:

Read posts 89, 90, 91.

Those numbers aren't static. They index the threaded sorting of the
thread, so newer posts on older branches shift older posts on newer
branches to higher indices. There are a couple of ways to get static
links to each message, including clicking the post's Show Options link
and then Individual Message.

--Blair

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Blair P. Houghton said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/cef0fef67b452e82/98d8bdadac9e2b5d#98d8bdadac9e2b5d

Quoted message said:

Read posts 89, 90, 91.

Those numbers aren't static. They index the threaded sorting of the
thread, so newer posts on older branches shift older posts on newer
branches to higher indices. There are a couple of ways to get static
links to each message, including clicking the post's Show Options link
and then Individual Message.

He could post the Message-ID: headers but has shown that
he does not understand them, even with help.

--
Michael Press

Blair P. Houghton said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/cef0fef67b452e82/98d8bdadac9e2b5d#98d8bdadac9e2b5d

Quoted message said:

Read posts 89, 90, 91.

Those numbers aren't static. They index the threaded sorting of the
thread, so newer posts on older branches shift older posts on newer
branches to higher indices. There are a couple of ways to get static
links to each message, including clicking the post's Show Options link
and then Individual Message.

Thanks.

OK, http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1a5688fbb5fd7b9b is
the message.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/8d899be194a87940 was
the reply.

One will note that the quoted question in said reply appears nowhere in the
first message. This would probably explain why it appeared as a
"stand-alone" post on my newsreader, and not within its "corrupted" thread.

(Of course, if it weren't for JFT's nearly /pathological/ habit of
over-snipping, then it still _could_ have been apparent that the question
had been addressed to him, and the reader wouldn't be left to guess why he'd
bother answering.)