Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

Rick Onanian writes:

Rick Onanian writes:

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.

It is neither me nor the rest of the world. There were a few anti-
helmet people didn't like any statement that was not 100% anti-helmet.
I disagreed with them, but so did others.

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)?

Now you are babbling.

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.

You didn't give any example that at all matched.

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.

You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent a message, and
that message typically contains text from that poster and possibly
text that poster quoted from another poster's message. Distinguishing
quotes of what you are replying to (provided for context) from what
you are saying is useful, partciularly when other software provides a
search capability. For example, if person A uses the word "foo" and B
replies to that post, and does not snip the quoted lines containing
"foo," someone searching for "foo" might want to get A's posts but not
B's.

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.

You missed the point again, as there is *no* ambiguity within the
rules I was referring to.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,

I'll let myself out, if I could just find the fuggin' door.
Or at least a window that's not stuck shut.

Don't forget your hat.

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I forgot all during
back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}

"S o r n i" writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,

I'll let myself out, if I could just find the fuggin' door.
Or at least a window that's not stuck shut.

Don't forget your hat.

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I forgot all during
back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.

Sorni is still acting like a little child.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I forgot all
during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.

Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).

Bill "rush of nostalgia" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}

"S o r n i" writes:

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

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I forgot all
during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.

Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

Then you should have left me out of your infantile name calling.

b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).

Bill "rush of nostalgia" S.

The only thing that was snipped was a signature, you moron, which by
convention is separated from the text of the post by a line containing
"--". If you didn't intend that to be a signature, you shouldn't have
typed it as such.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

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

Bill "just replied as excuse to use quote below, which I forgot all
during back 'n forth w/Zaumie" S.

Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

Then you should have left me out of your infantile name calling.

Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-calling (see below).
And "Zaumie" is bad?!?

b) you snipped my quote (seems like old times).

The only thing that was snipped was a signature, you moron, which by
convention is separated from the text of the post by a line containing
"--". If you didn't intend that to be a signature, you shouldn't have
typed it as such.

BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know that's something
you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT!!!

Bill "come to think of it, I'd envy that person" S.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}

"S o r n i" writes:


Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

Then you should have left me out of your infantile name calling.

Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-calling (see below).
And "Zaumie" is bad?!?

Is that the way you talk when your parents are watching you?

BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know that's something
you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT!!!

If you want people to read things like the following:

{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}

then don't put them in your signature. Most people would be thankful
that such statements were snipped. I guess you have even less respect
for yourself than you have for anyone else.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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


Sorni is still acting like a little child.

a) Wasn't talking to YOU; and

Then you should have left me out of your infantile name calling.

Hey asslick, you're hardly one to complain about name-calling (see
below). And "Zaumie" is bad?!?

Is that the way you talk when your parents are watching you?

Dad's 87; Mom's dead...but thanks for caring.

BUT YOU LEFT MY REFERENCE TO IT, SO A NEW READER (I know that's
something you never consider) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!

If you want people to read things like the following:

{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}

then don't put them in your signature. Most people would be thankful
that such statements were snipped. I guess you have even less respect
for yourself than you have for anyone else.

Once again, you have "edited" (butchered) this to where it doesn't make
sense. I specifically said I was replying to Tom just to add a funny (to
most people) little quotation -- and in fact was poking fun at MYSELF in the
process (for having engaged in such a silly thread with you for so long -- a
mistake I shall not repeat)... It's obviously not an always-used signature,
as anyone who could read would understand ("conventions" be damned; common
sense also allowable, you know).

Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply to you,
again -- at least in this subthread.

Bill "should have Googled your contrary, argumentative ass the very first
time you whined" S.

--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERMINABLE BILL ZAUMEN}

Various and sundry people wrote:

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.

You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent a message, and
that message typically contains text from that poster and possibly
text that poster quoted from another poster's message. Distinguishing
quotes of what you are replying to (provided for context) from what
you are saying is useful, partciularly when other software provides a
search capability. For example, if person A uses the word "foo" and B
replies to that post, and does not snip the quoted lines containing
"foo," someone searching for "foo" might want to get A's posts but not
B's.



I've avoided this conversation for a while now. One thing that's been
neglected is the relevance of messages, and the relevance of content
that's quoted as it pertains to the message being currently written by
whomever.

If you need to quote 3 messages back in the thread, you have to ask
yourself "Are you making a new point in this message?" If you are, do
you really need to quote that many messages back? If you aren't, why
are you posting it?

I saw a very smart bit in the faq for one computer programming
newsgroup:

Before you post, remember that it takes an average of 30 seconds to read
a post. Granted, that's not alot, but you can write a line of code in
30 seconds. Most of us code in our spare time. Given that about 10,000
people read this newsgroup, your message will cause 10,000 lines of code
to never be written.

So, to translate that to cycling terms . . . roughly 1,600 kilometers
that will never be ridden.


And as far as keyword searches, References: takes care of that. Each
message has the messageID of the message(s) that it is in reply to.
Search for the messageID and you'll find the replies.

"S o r n i" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

If you want people to read things like the following:

{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA -- guess we can forget THAT!}

then don't put them in your signature. Most people would be thankful
that such statements were snipped. I guess you have even less respect
for yourself than you have for anyone else.

Once again, you have "edited" (butchered) this to where it doesn't make
sense.

Once again, what was "snipped" originally was a signature and with
statements like yours, those *deserve* to be snipped.

Now go ahead and get in your last word, again. I won't reply to you,
again -- at least in this subthread.

You've said that umpteen times already and it has rarely if ever been
true.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB