Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

(Bill Z.) writes:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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.

Dick Durbin wrote:
(Peter W.) wrote in message . com...

I'm thinking about making a very small run of Buddhist-themed bicycle
jerseys.


Where are all the folks who gave a poster a ration of hate when he
asked about a Christian jersey a couple of years ago?

There's a difference between derision and hate.

"S o r n i" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with ' '. Everything
was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
30 years.

*******************

Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.)
snip
Ummm, burning in hell?

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?

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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) Dick 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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
"S o r n i" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with ' '. Everything
was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
30 years.

*******************

Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a
big deal.) snip
Ummm, burning in hell?

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).

Bill "can someone else explain this better?" S.

Bill Z. wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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) Dick 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.

Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're
commenting. Your reply was directed at Dick Durbin, not me, so why did you
reply to MY post instead of his?

Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will you?" S.

Good Lord...or Good Buddha...guys, MOVE ON!!!!

"S o r n i" wrote in message
...
Bill Z. wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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) Dick 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.

Actually, then, it's better to reply to the post upon which you're
commenting. Your reply was directed at Dick Durbin, not me, so why did
you
reply to MY post instead of his?

Bill "you just won't admit to a small mistake, will you?" S.

Bill Z. wrote:
"S o r n i" writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick Durbin, so those lines started with ' '. Everything
was quoted correctly using a convention that has existed for over
30 years.

*******************

Last belaborment of this, I promise! (Besides, it really isn't a big deal.)
snip
Ummm, burning in hell?


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?

Bill

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.


jim

Bill Z. wrote:

Tim McNamara writes:


(Bill Z.) writes:


The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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) Dick 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're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just a
petulant child?


jim

(Bill Z.) writes:

Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

The first line of my message started with ' ' and quoted you as
saying "Dick Durbin wrote." The remaining lines quoted you as
quoting Dick 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) Dick 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 Dick Durbin was quoted properly,
then you should have climbed back up the thread and quoted Dick's post
directly. However, you are determined to see your actions as correct
and therefore no argument will sway you. Classic Usenet crapola.