Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

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.

Give it up.

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.

Wrong, you twit. You're wrong, & you haven't got the cajones to admit
it, & you're doing it in front of thyousands of people.

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

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).


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

I give up.

Bill "why would I use Zippy the Pinhead's post to reply to YOU?" S.

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.

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:".)

This is how "SERIOUS" misquotes happen, by the way. Someone reads a poor
post and attributes something /of consequence/ to the wrong person.

Jim is right

Bill "really trying to give up now" S.

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.)

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

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
Tim McNamara writes:

To reply back to the original poster's question- I for one would be
interested in a Buddhist themed jersey, but not this one. I am not
generally attracted by devotional images as I think they miss the
essential point of Buddhism- I prefer the Ch'an and Zen imagery
that challenges the viewer to wake up.

Maybe these folks might have something to offer:
http://www.magentastudios.com/129753

They've got all kinds of interesting design stuff. But they seem to
be more into T-shirts than jerseys. Their web site is a little too
gnarly for my old version of Netscrape to explore.

There was a company called "Dharma Ink" or something like that which
produced a fun line of T-shirts that were classic Ch'an an dZen
images, and came with a card which explained the image and its
source. That was years ago, I think I saw an ad in Tricycle and
bought one of their T-shirts, but they seem to have vanished.

(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.

Jay Hill writes:

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.

Wrong, you twit. You're wrong, & you haven't got the cajones to
admit it, & you're doing it in front of thyousands of people.

Well, more likely tens of people. Normal people stopped reading this
about 12 posts back when Bill Z.'s intransigence was shown to be
utterly entrenched. There's no reason to join him in rudeness.

Tim McNamara wrote:
(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.

Thank you, Tim. I asked for someone to explain it better, and you did just
that.

Bill "time for Arrested Development" S.

"S o r n i" writes:

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

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

I give up.

Bill "why would I use Zippy the Pinhead's post to reply to YOU?" S.

You should give up. You should also grow up - you silly statements in
quotes like the above are simply childish. This wasn't a serious
discussion after all, just you making a wisecrack and me adding a
funny quip that was independent of yours.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB