Buddhist Bicycle Jerseys

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:15:01 -0800, JimLane
wrote:



They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
have no need of jerseys. :-)



Or a bicycle.


We played transcendental volleyball once. Gave up the ball first,
then the net. I felt quite centered.


Indoors or outdoors- grass or sand?


jim

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

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

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?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
have no need of jerseys. :-)

Perhaps so, but they don't know how to quote!!! (I didn't write
anything you included above.)

Bill "attribution" S.

The level of '' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote! (Dick Durbin
asked the question to which you replied; you posted under MY reply for some
reason, however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

"S o r n i" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

The level of '' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote! (Dick Durbin
asked the question to which you replied; you posted under MY reply for some
reason, however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last two times.

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.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:55:34 -0800, JimLane
wrote:

Indoors or outdoors- grass or sand?

At that level, Grasshopper, it is all one and the same.

Ensign Nada, huh?

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

Bill Z. wrote:

The level of '' symbols clearly indicate who said what.

Wrong. You left the "Sorni writes:" but deleted what I wrote!
(Dick Durbin asked the question to which you replied; you posted
under MY reply for some reason, however.)

Bill "re-read the thread if you don't believe me" S.

Hmm. My newreader has failed to post this the last two times.

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.)

Dick's question and my reply is below:

Dick Durbin wrote:

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?

Ummm, burning in hell?

Bill "eternal Lycration" S.

Then you posted this:

"S o r n i" writes:

Dick Durbin wrote:

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?

They became Buddhists and are no longer concerned with material
possessions. When you become sufficiently enlightened, you will
have no need of jerseys.

*********

My only point is that nothing *I* wrote is included, even though it says
"Sorni writes:" at the top.

Bill "time to hit the shower; missing that hour of sleep" S.

(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.

"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.