Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

Tim McNamara writes:

(Bill Z.) writes:

Immediately after "Sorni writes:" there was "Durbin writes:", with
the attribution made clear by *your* indentation. Everyone knows
what is going on.

You're just not going to hear it are you? You are going to continue
to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Like I
said, classic Usenet crapola.

I'm claiming the attribution of the quotes is clear given standard
usenet conventions. You can claim it is slightly more work to
check the attribution (by one level of '') but this is not
rocket science.

You'd have no complaint if I had included a single word that Sorni had
typed as a comment, which most readers would miss anyway, so your whole
point is just plain silly.

The quotes I put in where generated by my newsreader - I always let
the newsreader handle it because the chances of messing it up are
far less. Modern newsreaders sometimes highlight each level of quotation
in a differnet color, so it is very easy to distinguish one person's
comment from another. If you guys have that much trouble, get a better
newsreader.

Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

JimLane writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

JimLane writes:

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.
Do you honestly think anyone is going to check that when the content
of the post is a mere quip? I think you guys are being just a tad
silly.


And you are not?

Step back and look at your idiocy with a neutral eye. Everyone else
here sees it clearly. Get over yourself, bimbo.

"Everyone else" are a few idiots with their heads up their butts.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"S o r n i" writes:


Whether the content was a quip or some heartfelt message has nothing to do
with the fact that YOU REPLIED TO THE WRONG POST and just won't admit it.

(I *can* think of one legitimate reason, by the way. Say your server
dropped Dick Durbin's original post, so you used my quoting of it to reply
to him. That's fair, but you should STILL delete the "Sorni says:" since it
had no place in your content; or change it to say "Sorni quotes DD as
saying:".)

Sigh. "Sorni quotes DD as saying" is what " " at the start of each
line indicates.

In fact, what I think I did was to reply to your post, and when done,
my quip didn't go well with your 4-word quip, so I deleted your quip
to make it read better. So what? For a quip, do you think anywone is
going to cancel the post, retrieve an old post no longer displayed,
and re-write the whole thing? Get real.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

JimLane writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

"S o r n i" writes:

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?
Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the
comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.


Then preface your comment, clown. Say with, "this isn't in direct
reply, but I am jumping in here," or something to that effect.

You are still in the wrong, despite your delusions of grandeur.

Jim, you are a moron. There was *no* discussion of any kind going on.
Just some wisecracks.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
JimLane writes:


You're wrong. Sorni's right. Get over it and move on. Or are you just
a petulant child?

Go f___ yourself, twirp. The only person being petulant was Sorni.

Petulant? PETULANT?!?

Why I oughtta...

Bill "isn't twerp spelled...nevermind" S.

"S o r n i" writes:

JimLane wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

"S o r n i" writes:

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?


Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and the
comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.

See how this (my reply now) is posted incorrectly?!? I left the "Jim Lane
wrote:" but deleted all his words. Pretty stupid, right?

A new reader would be confused as to who wrote what, as Jim Lane is
mentioned but nowhere to be found! (And no, I don't think the ''
convention makes it any clearer.)

Nonsense. My newsreader showed "Bill Z. wrote:" and my comment in
red. It showed "S o r n i ... writes:" and Sorni's comment in
green. It showed "JimLane wrote:" in black, and no matching text. It
is perfectly clear, including to someone who is reading the post for
the first time. If a user doesn't know what '' means, he'll figure
it out in under an hour, unless he is inordinately dumb.

The '' convention made it clear enough for my newsreader to figure
out how to color the text. That is why it was introduced - to make
the attribution machine readable while also making it easy for people
to follow.

Bill "OK, I swear I'm giving up now!!!" S.

And in the next one, you'll "swear" with ice cream on top?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

JimLane wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

"S o r n i" writes:

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?


Because your post was the one I saw and started to reply to, and
the comment I added was about the general topic under discussion.

See how this (my reply now) is posted incorrectly?!? I left the
"Jim Lane wrote:" but deleted all his words. Pretty stupid, right?

A new reader would be confused as to who wrote what, as Jim Lane is
mentioned but nowhere to be found! (And no, I don't think the ''
convention makes it any clearer.)

Nonsense. My newsreader showed "Bill Z. wrote:" and my comment in
red. It showed "S o r n i ... writes:" and Sorni's comment in
green. It showed "JimLane wrote:" in black, and no matching text. It
is perfectly clear, including to someone who is reading the post for
the first time. If a user doesn't know what '' means, he'll figure
it out in under an hour, unless he is inordinately dumb.

The '' convention made it clear enough for my newsreader to figure
out how to color the text. That is why it was introduced - to make
the attribution machine readable while also making it easy for people
to follow.

Bill "OK, I swear I'm giving up now!!!" S.

And in the next one, you'll "swear" with ice cream on top?

The vast majority of people use "plain text" newsreaders (Outlook Express
being foremost), and it does NOT color-code posts and replies. (I use
Quote-fix, but that didn't prevent me from seeing you attribute something to
me that I did not write.)

I regret pointing out your error in this matter. Go forth and be right in
all things, evidence to the contrary be damned.

Bill "and make it Rocky Road, please" S.

"S o r n i" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Nonsense. My newsreader showed "Bill Z. wrote:" and my comment in
red. It showed "S o r n i ... writes:" and Sorni's comment in
green. It showed "JimLane wrote:" in black, and no matching text. It
is perfectly clear, including to someone who is reading the post for
the first time. If a user doesn't know what '' means, he'll figure
it out in under an hour, unless he is inordinately dumb.

The '' convention made it clear enough for my newsreader to figure
out how to color the text. That is why it was introduced - to make
the attribution machine readable while also making it easy for people
to follow.

Bill "OK, I swear I'm giving up now!!!" S.

And in the next one, you'll "swear" with ice cream on top?

The vast majority of people use "plain text" newsreaders (Outlook Express
being foremost), and it does NOT color-code posts and replies. (I use
Quote-fix, but that didn't prevent me from seeing you attribute something to
me that I did not write.)

My newsreader is a "plain text" newsreader, and it can color code the
text. It does not display graphics. There are a number of editors
that handle text only that color code it - BBEdit, emacs, etc. If
you edit C code or Java code, for example, it will color code keywords.
What gets read or saved is plain, ordinary text. They simply used
the same techniques for a newsreader.

I regret pointing out your error in this matter. Go forth and be right in
all things, evidence to the contrary be damned.

The fact is you really don't know what you are talking about. You don't
even know what widely used "plain text" software does.

Bill "and make it Rocky Road, please" S.

Uh huh.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

The fact is you really don't know what you are talking about.

I know you posted "Sorni writes:" followed by exactly NOTHING I wrote.

My only mistake was pointing it out to you.

Bill "you're right and we're all wrong" S.

Bill Z. wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

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.

Wouldn't it be stupid of me to use Bill Z.'s snipped post to reply to Tim
here?

Bill "but I'll never admit it" S.