Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

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.

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.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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.

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.

Yep - you guys are whining about trivia. Anyone looking at the text
can tell who said what, so as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing
to complain about, particularly since I didn't comment on either guy's
statement, but simply added something to the discussion.

Jay Hill wrote:

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.


Perhaps he enjoys making a fool of himself in public?


jim

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.


jim



jim

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