Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?

Yo, Slowie, in only two days you've sent six messages, none of them
about bikes or cycling, all of them about me. Sorry, I'm not as
fascinated by me as you are. Ciao. -- Andre Jute

On Sep 1, 1:55*pm, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute





wrote:
On Sep 1, 2:06*am, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:53*am, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:41:10 -0500, Tim McNamara

wrote:
In article
,
Dan O wrote:

On Aug 30, 6:45 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 8/30/2010 5:43 PM, Dan O wrote: [...
Mother ****ing cross-posting ****head asswipe divulging personal
information about others on the ****ing internet!

???

Andre revised the subject line to feature my full name (personal
information that I had chosen not to publish here) and he
cross-posted it to several groups that I do not even read.

Welcome to the steaming pile of ****-ola that is "Andre Jute." *
Unfortunately there are enough people who think he's somehow vaguely
entertaining that they don't ignore or killfile him so that he'd go
away. *He has a history of killing newsgroups and is trying to do so
here.

Stop feeding the troll!

I read a couple of groups where they simply ignoring Trolls. Usually
after the first two posts it is obvious whether it is a Troll or
someone trying to learn. It is surprising how quickly the trolls fade
from sight when absolutely no one replies to their posts.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

Yo, Slowie, that's two posts you've sent *about* me, and none on any
of the substantive matters, like the New York compilation of cycling
traffic accidents, that I'm discussing. I'd be delighted if the scum,
including you, who talk about me all the time, turning RBT into a
sewer of their mindless hatred, would stop reading me. They make zero
contribution anyway.

Furthermore, declaring someone a "troll" is just another way of
saying, "We were here first and we know everything and nobody else is
permitted to have any other ideas." Funny how you don't call the anti-
helmet zealots Krygowski and McNamara and the jerkup Berlin (who was
dumb enough to threaten me!) trolls, yet the first two sent dozens
more posts on the subject of cycling helmets than I ever did, and that
was just in last fortnight.

I might also mention that, like Krygowski, you're too thick to
understand that I wasn't even taking sides in the helmet debate,
merely putting some honest numbers on the table for those involved to
do with as they will. On a previous instance, when Krygowski for weeks
screeched that my investigation would make cycling look dangerous, he
was in the end forced to accept that my numbers in fact make cycling
look safer than the numbers he'd been using; he had since used my
numbers, with zero thanks of course.

I'll tell you something though, the anti-helmet zealots, including
you, are such an unattractive bunch of schoolyard bullies and anti-
social elements, it is tempting to join the pro-helmet crowd just to
kick such loudmouthed trash in the face. Take one guess who is likely
to be more persuasive.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

Beautifully done Sir!

You take a completely neutral statement about some other Usenet groups
treatment of Trolls and apply it to yourself. You then further your
paranoia by a sliding off into a totally unprovoked discussion of the
helmet question and finally you add a rebuttal to the title "Troll"
which, again with no provocation. you seem to be applying to yourself.

You really are a nasty piece of work, aren't you.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

Well, here stands John D. Slocomb revealed as just another run of the
mill flame warrior. We had such high hopes of his superior moral tone
when he arrived, but it was a hypocritical veneer.

You are a good case for instant killfiling, Slowie. Wasn't that what
you recommended only three posts ago?

Unsigned out of contempt

You certainly display a penchant for misstating what others write. I
did not recommend kill filling anyone I used the word "ignore" and now
you have twisted that to say "kill file" even though the original post
is included above.

Further you accuse me of being a flame warrior while in fact it is you
that did the flaming. I simply stated two facts. (1) that other groups
ignored Trolls, and (2) that having set my filters to delete posts to
three or more groups and you posts disappeared. You morphed that into
a tirade about helmets.

I just finished a book, written by James Lee Burke, in which the
author has the protagonist say:

Question: What can dumb and fearful people always be counted on to do?

Answer: To try to control and manipulate everyone in their
environment.

Question: What is the tactic used by these same dumb people as they
try to control others?

Answer: They lie.

Apt I thought.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Sep 1, 4:14*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

MikeWhy
I have some old tapes and disks from the old C64, but I'm thinking
that's still a year or two too young. Gawd. What a pack rat you must
be.

Andre Jute
I raise you some microcassettes from an Epson PX8 laptop (called an
Epson Paris in the States)...In fact, you can still get those
microcassettes as they're a current standard in Olympus and other
microrecorders.

Andre Jute:
Gawd, what did I do with those magnetic strips we used to feed the
Olivetti Programma 101, the first desktop computer (c1968)?

MikeWhy:
Now that you mention it, if I dig deep enough, I'll find punched card decks.
1970 would be the first. Not that I'd want it, even for bragging rights on
your Paris (never heard of it). That was a fun stroll down memory lane. 30
years. There's a fixer stain on my darkroom table about that old.

Andre Jute:
My first computer had glowing thermionic tubes and we communicated
with it by a sort of teletype keyboard. Honest. A cousin of mine who
ran a big insurance company gave me this obsolete computer against a
promise to remove it tidily, for which purpose I brought the entire
school of electrical engineering (now just that detail tells one it
happened in the mists of history!). My college built a temperature and
humidity controlled temple for it and one of my sporting sponsors gave
a fund to pay white coats to tend it. Among other things I used that
clumsy computer to design better hemi-heads for my racing engines. Six
years later you could buy a scientific calculator that weighed perhaps
a pound that could do everything that hall full of computer did in a
fraction of the time The calculator cost my girlfriend about a quarter
of her month's salary and everyone marveled at how cheap such elevated
electronics had become! -- today you can get several maxed-out Apple
Macs for that much. (I was so grateful for the calculator, I gave her
a Porsche. Thus true love was cemented forever.)

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

On Sep 1, 5:22*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...





On Aug 31, 11:34 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:

In ,
* Tom Sherman *wrote:

On 8/30/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* *Tom Sherman * wrote:

On 8/30/2010 5:58 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* * Tom Sherman * *wrote:

On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* * *Tom Sherman
wrote:

On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
* * * Tom Sherman
wrote:

On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks
that the quoted person did not write.

Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention
of
brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion.
Therefore,
there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I did.

You cite a paper and ink rule.
This is not paper and ink.

Thanks for letting me know.

We can leave quoted text intact.
Exercise this option.

What if the text is both boring and annoying?

As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in
my
reply was the point.

Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed
writer did not write. To do so is unnecessary,
misleading, and not good manners. That is my point.
I only mentioned it after you had done it more than once.

Sheesh, angle brackets are not quotation marks.

They mark a quotation in usenet and email.
Everybody takes them that way.

But please yourself. What remains is that
you put text in a place that everybody takes
to be the place for the text somebody else wrote.

Oh nonsense. Nobody thought that "crickets" was a quote. *Mr. Press
is
just being unreasonably pedantic and Mr. Jute is just being an ass.

I am not talking about the "crickets" am I?

Then what are you writing about? *The "[...]" obviously indicated
snippage of quoted text, which only Bill Sornson seems to object to.

And me. My text that was snipped by the scumball Tom Sherman and then
replaced in square brackets by an ellipsis *which I didn't write*. The
ellipsis is an offensive lie about me because it implies that I don't
know what I want to say, whereas everyone knows I say what I mean most
pointedly. Moreover, that ellipsis which the lying scumball Tom
Sherman inserted in square brackets *as if I wrote it*, implies that I
am no better than Creepy Mike LaFevre, a commercial crook, an enemy of
free speech and society, and lying scum besides, whom I put down on
RAT as "The Walking Ellipsis" for his tendency to lose the trend of
his though in an incontinence of ellipses. You owe me an apology,
Sherman, you lying piece of something unmentionable. It doesn't matter
whether you know it is wrong and did it out of malice, or you did it
out of the ignorance of an inadequate upbringing, in either case you
owe me an apology.

Unsigned out of contempt for a non-kulturny liar.

JFTR, there's a world of difference between /trimming/ a post (deleting old
material not relevant to the reply OR ITS CONTEXT) and deliberate misleading
or evasive DELETION of text to either change meaning or hide inconvenient,
damning points.

Of course the scumballs who regularly practice this know exactly what
they're doing; it's why they feign such righteous indignation when called on
it.

BS

It's a visible part of the systemic sleaze of a certain group of
immoral posters here, made pretty obvious when they form a circle-jerk
to congratulate each other on "winning the argument" by cutting
telling points or fraudulently substituting text the original poster
didn't write. It's amusing that most of these neo-marxist sleazeballs
are also global warmies, anti-helmet zealots, and "vehicular cycling"
thugs.

Certainly, that some scumball or the other believes in any "movement"
is a good indication that rational people should view it with
suspicion and investigate thoroughly before investing time or
credibility. As an example, the fact that the anti-helmet zealots are
almost universally such bullying, lying scumballs makes an emotional
revulsion to their "cause" entirely understandable, and is anyway the
outcome of any investigation of their perverted and inhumane
"reasoning". We're seeing that again and again on RBT right now, when
people Krygowski clumsily tried to stroke are turning on him for his
stupidities.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:09 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...] [1]
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.


Mr. Press's contention is illogical. The indicator that text has been
deleted or modified should be at the place where the deletion or
modification occurred. Putting it where Mr. Press indicates would be
misleading - why would a person trim part of their own response in such
a manner?

[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.

Observe how your foot note marker and your
footnote are at different levels of quotation.
Do not lecture me about logic.

Excision of quoted text is indicated in
the editor's text space, not in the
quoted writer's text space.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks that
the quoted person did not write.

Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention
of brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion.
Therefore, there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I
did.

You cite a paper and ink rule. This is not paper and ink.

Thanks for letting me know.

We can leave quoted text intact. Exercise this option.

What if the text is both boring and annoying?

As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in
my reply was the point.

Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed writer did not
write. To do so is unnecessary, misleading, and not good manners.
That is my point. I only mentioned it after you had done it more than
once.

Using brackets around text is not an indication of quotation.

Why are you telling me that?

Proper
newsreaders and repaired versions of Outlook Express use a quote string,
typically an end-bracket (); the open bracket () should not be used as
a quote string.

Why are you telling me that?


Snipping irrelevant text and putting in a bracketed statement to that
effect is acceptable and traditional Usenet etiquette. Indeed, this is
even considered good practice in order to avoid posts with hundreds of
lines of jute****. Normally snip is used but Tom was being humorous
given the proclivities of his correspondent, Mr. Jute, for being an
unbridled ass.

Changing quoted text is not funny.
Is there one law for the people you
favor, and another for those you do
not favor?

--
Michael Press

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:59:46 -0500, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Methinks Mr. Jute would be much happier if he kill-filed those he
imagines as enemies.

Well he did, for a while at least - or so he said - most of us were in
his KF!

Michael Press wrote:
*Tim McNamara wrote:

Snipping irrelevant text and putting in a bracketed statement to that
effect is acceptable and traditional Usenet etiquette. *Indeed, this is
even considered good practice in order to avoid posts with hundreds of
lines of jute****. *Normally snip is used but Tom was being humorous
given the proclivities of his correspondent, Mr. Jute, for being an
unbridled ass.

Changing quoted text is not funny.
Is there one law for the people you
favor, and another for those you do
not favor?

--
Michael Press

Gee, Mikey, did it take till now for you to discover your erstwhile
bumbuddies are disgusting hypocrites?

Andre Jute
At least not a hypocrite

On 9/1/2010 2:15 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:09 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...] [1]
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.


Mr. Press's contention is illogical. The indicator that text has been
deleted or modified should be at the place where the deletion or
modification occurred. Putting it where Mr. Press indicates would be
misleading - why would a person trim part of their own response in such
a manner?

[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.

Observe how your foot note marker and your
footnote are at different levels of quotation.

Well, duh.

Do not lecture me about logic.

Request noted, but not necessarily followed,

Excision of quoted text is indicated in
the editor's text space, not in the
quoted writer's text space.

And the editor's text space is indicated by brackets, no? rhetorical
question

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

Yo, Slowie, in only two days you've sent six messages, none of them
about bikes or cycling, all of them about me. Sorry, I'm not as
fascinated by me as you are. Ciao. -- Andre Jute


Yes, well as President Truman. once said, If you can't stand the heat
then get out of the kitchen.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 9/1/2010 2:15 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:09 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...] [1]
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.


Mr. Press's contention is illogical. The indicator that text has been
deleted or modified should be at the place where the deletion or
modification occurred. Putting it where Mr. Press indicates would be
misleading - why would a person trim part of their own response in such
a manner?

[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.

Observe how your foot note marker and your
footnote are at different levels of quotation.

Well, duh.

Do not lecture me about logic.

Request noted, but not necessarily followed,

A lecture in logic for you.
Footnote marker and footnote belong at the same quotation level.


Excision of quoted text is indicated in
the editor's text space, not in the
quoted writer's text space.

And the editor's text space is indicated by brackets, no? rhetorical
question

No. People us square brackets in their own text.
That is the great problem of quoting. The quoted
writer may use any string he wants. Where multiple
levels of quoting manifest the problem compounds.
Fortunately we have an easy solution in email and
usenet dialogues: the responder does not put his
own text in the quotation.

--
Michael Press