Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

Rick Onanian writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
The rest of you are IMHO out to lunch on the present discussion.

Jay Hill writes:

You're wrong, asshole. You incorrectly attributed something to
Sorni.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:13:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

He is wrong. He also suffers from that peculiar middle-aged male
malady that prevents him from being able to see it or admit it.
Nothing you can do about it. Just be glad you're not married to
him.

I hope that as I approach middle age, I don't suffer from that
malady. I find it's quite satisfying sometimes to admit being wrong
and get on with stuff. Google groups for onanian "i stand corrected"
for the most common way I admit I'm wrong...

Sadly, a cursory glance through Google on my name will prove that I
am severely in the grips of this malady myself. Sigh. :-P

Rick Onanian 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"------------------
in.edu__________

In article ,
"Eric S. Sande" 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:

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

In article ,
Rick Onanian 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 ,
"S o r n i" 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 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 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, (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