Let's Fight!
carl...@comcast.net
http://books.google.com/books?id=uHKba6joRZsC&pg=PA43&output=html&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1&sig=ACfU3U2sejUrYIsiFLJ0MvLX3ci7h8a8vQ
or http://tinyurl.com/5rt55j
For those who can't get at Google Books or whose Italian is as feeble
as mine . . .
Editors of the French bicycling world fighting a duel in 1903:
http://i38.tinypic.com/em5h3.jpg
The reason fir the duel was the squabble between L'Auto, the newspaper
putting on the first Tour de France, and the envious and contemptuous
L'Velo, a rival rag:
La notizia che si sarebbe corso un Tour de France intanto aveva
stimolato la fantasi della gente. Di girono in giorno le aspettative e
le curiosita aumentavano. Quali strade sarebbero state percorse? E
quali i campioni che vi avrebbero partecipato. Desgrange non sapeva
dare risposte a queste domande. Il Tour, a cinque mesi dal suo
annuciato svolgimento, era ancora e solo una splendida idea. E
tuttavia, per mantenere viva l'attenzione dell gente bisognava
parlarne ogni giorno. E bisognava anche tenre a bada la velenosita di
Le Velo che, se mai scriveva del Tour, era solo per screditarlo.
Very roughly: "The news that a Tour de France would be run stimulated
the fantasy of people. From day to day, expectations and curiosity
increased. Which roads would be covered? And which champions would
participate? Desgrange [the Tour de France organizer for L'Auto] did
not know how to answer these questions. The Tour, five months after
its announcement, was still only a splendid idea. Moreover, in order
to keep public attention alive, L'Auto had to mention the Tour every
day. And L'Auto also had to put up with the venomous Le Velo the next
year], which only wrote about the Tour in order to discredit it."
La tensione fra le due testate raggiunse tali livelli che un giorno di
febbraio due redattori di Le Velo e de L'Auto, Frantz Reichel e Leon
Manaud, arrivarono a sfidarsi a duello per una banalissima questione
su dove si sarebbe dovuto svolgere un incontro di pugilato. Per la
storia, vinse Le Velo: Manaud fu ferito a un braccio dalla spad
dell'avversario.
Very roughly: "The tension between the two sides rose to such levels
that one February day [the Tour was announced January 17th] two
editors of Le Velo [the bad guys] and L'Auto [the Tour newspaper],
Frantz Reichel and Leon Manaud, went so far as to duel over a petty
issue more suited to a fist-fight. According to the story, Le Velo
[the bad guys] triumphed: Manaud was wounded in the arm by the sword
of his adversary.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uHKba6joRZsC&pg=PA43&output=html&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1&sig=ACfU3U2sejUrYIsiFLJ0MvLX3ci7h8a8vQ
or http://tinyurl.com/5rt55j
The newspaper names are confusing because they both changed.
The Tour de France was put on by Desgrange and what was originally
L'Auto-Velo, but which changed its name to L'Auto the day before it
announced on February 17th, 1903 that it would sponsor "a major road
race" in the bicycle-race wars between French newspapers.
[Yay!]
The bad guys published a rag known at the time as Le Velo, but they
changed its name to L'Journal de l'Automobile in 1904. They had
already sponsored a Paris-Bordeaux race in the bicycle wars between
various French papers.
Desgrange first worked for the bad guys before he left and started the
good-guy Tour-de-France paper--and he took some of bad-guys' staff
with him when he left.
Apparently the bad guys kept the better swordsman.
[Boo!]
En garde!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> The newspaper names are confusing because they both changed.
>
> The Tour de France was put on by Desgrange and what was originally
> L'Auto-Velo, but which changed its name to L'Auto the day before it
> announced on February 17th, 1903 that it would sponsor "a major road
> race" in the bicycle-race wars between French newspapers.
>
> [Yay!]
>
> The bad guys published a rag known at the time as Le Velo, but they
> changed its name to L'Journal de l'Automobile in 1904. They had
> already sponsored a Paris-Bordeaux race in the bicycle wars between
> various French papers.
>
> Desgrange first worked for the bad guys before he left and started the
> good-guy Tour-de-France paper--and he took some of bad-guys' staff
> with him when he left.
>
> Apparently the bad guys kept the better swordsman.
>
> [Boo!]
>
> En garde!
Actually L'Auto and Desgrange were the bad guys.
The reason there were two newspapers is that
the editor of Le Velo was a Dreyfusard (supporter
of Alfred Dreyfus's innocence, the historically correct
position), and anti-Dreyfusards fomented the
publication of a rival and brought in Desgrange
to run it.
L'Auto ceased publication after the war because
it had printed under the Germans (although they
had not run the Tour de France). For various
reasons, Goddet was allowed to start a new publication,
L'Equipe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Équipe
The extreme polarization of France caused by the
Dreyfus Affair has no immediate present-day European
or US analog, I think. Current US politics aren't a
patch on it.
Ben
andre...@aol.com
> I can't help wondering if it was just a publicity stunt:
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/5rt55j
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/5rt55j
>
> The newspaper names are confusing because they both changed.
>
> The Tour de France was put on by Desgrange and what was originally
> L'Auto-Velo, but which changed its name to L'Auto the day before it
> announced on February 17th, 1903 that it would sponsor "a major road
> race" in the bicycle-race wars between French newspapers.
>
> [Yay!]
>
> The bad guys published a rag known at the time as Le Velo, but they
> changed its name to L'Journal de l'Automobile in 1904. They had
> already sponsored a Paris-Bordeaux race in the bicycle wars between
> various French papers.
>
> Desgrange first worked for the bad guys before he left and started the
> good-guy Tour-de-France paper--and he took some of bad-guys' staff
> with him when he left.
>
> Apparently the bad guys kept the better swordsman.
>
> [Boo!]
>
> En garde!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
jim beam
you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bullshitters would
still bullshit if there were tangible consequences. it would simply be
darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but the
socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
Tom Sherman
> ...
> I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
> jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
> lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
>
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Tom Sherman
> andre...@aol.com wrote:
>> ...
>> I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
>> jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
>> lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
>>
world".
>
> you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bullshitters would
> still bullshit if there were tangible consequences. it would simply be
> darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but the
> socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
>
Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have prepared
all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable for damages if
there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence. But since "jim"
(apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe he does not
understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign deliverables (doing
so would be criminal fraud).
jim beam
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> andre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
>>> jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
>>> lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
>>>
> I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in "beam
> world".
>
>>
>> you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bullshitters would
>> still bullshit if there were tangible consequences. it would simply
>> be darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but the
>> socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
>>
> Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
>
> As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have prepared
> all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable for damages if
> there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence. But since "jim"
> (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe he does not
> understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign deliverables (doing
> so would be criminal fraud).
>
you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.
if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot, would
you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only a
lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their opponent's
capabilities.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> andre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
>>>> jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
>>>> lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
>>>>
>> I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in
>> "beam world".
>>
>>>
>>> you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bullshitters
>>> would still bullshit if there were tangible consequences. it would
>>> simply be darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but
>>> the socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
>>>
>> Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
>>
>> As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have
>> prepared all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable for
>> damages if there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence. But
>> since "jim" (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe he does
>> not understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign deliverables
>> (doing so would be criminal fraud).
>>
>
> you probably think you're being witty, but in fact, you've just
> committed a slander. and as such i could call you out.
>
When asked in the past if he had professional credentials, "jim" ducked
the question, therefore APPARENTLY he does not. Does "jim" understand
the meaning of "apparently"?
By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot, would
> you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only a
> lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their opponent's
> capabilities.
>
How can a sock hold a pistol?
jim beam
APPARENTLY you're a bit lightweight than normal this evening!
> Does "jim" understand
> the meaning of "apparently"?
>
> By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
you can prosecute anonymously though.
>
>> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot, would
>> you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only a
>> lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
>> opponent's capabilities.
>>
> How can a sock hold a pistol?
>
do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your eligibility
for a darwin award.
andre...@aol.com
wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
What do u mean that he doesn't sign deliverables? He clearly signs
millions more than you. His named after him and consumed all over the
world.
andre...@aol.com
wrote:
> andresm...@aol.com aka Andres Muro wrote:> ...
Hey, I have no quarrel with either one of you. I haven't been called a
lightweight, a retard, f..g stupid or anything like that. Otherwise,
I'll be the first to challenge him to a duel at dawn.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Andres,
I, for one, am willing to swear unconditional loyalty to the theories
(no matter how silly) of all combatants who remain standing after the
formal discharge of cow chips at ten paces.
I'm sure that's how Einstein won the Nobel Prize, so it ought to be
good enough to settle disputes among grown men about trivial bicycle
matters.
Of course, a video will be required.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman
puppets the same rights as real people (and corporations)?
>
>> Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
>>
>> By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
>
> you can prosecute anonymously though.
>
Where? Guantanamo Bay?
Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander victim
is illogical.
>>> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot, would
>>> you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only a
>>> lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
>>> opponent's capabilities.
>>>
>> How can a sock hold a pistol?
>>
>
> do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your eligibility
> for a darwin award.
Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
Tom Sherman
> wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I'd like to see jb and JB settling their disputes this way. Or maybe
>>>> jb and Tom, or jb and Tim, or jb and any of those f...g retards,
>>>> lightweights, etc, etc. Duels would get broadcast in utube.
>> I am the lightweight, Tim is the retard and Frank is the idiot in "beam
>> world".
>>
>>
>>
>>> you know, i'd be /really/ interested to see whether bullshitters would
>>> still bullshit if there were tangible consequences. it would simply be
>>> darwin for the stupid because they don't understand, but the
>>> socio-pathological? they understand. it would be fascinating.
>> Interesting that this comment is coming from a sock puppet.
>>
>> As for consequences "jim", I sign and seal deliverables I have prepared
>> all the time. I can be sued for negligence and be liable for damages if
>> there are any mistakes OR omissions of consequence. But since "jim"
>> (apparently) is not a licensed professional, maybe he does not
>> understand that? And no, sock puppets can not sign deliverables (doing
>> so would be criminal fraud).
>>
>
> millions more than you. His named after him and consumed all over the
> world.
Whiskey is a product, not a deliverable.
jim beam
eh? go back to how we came upon the word "slander", then try to figure
out how you may have committed it.
>
>>
>>> Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
>>>
>>> By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
>>
>> you can prosecute anonymously though.
>>
> Where? Guantanamo Bay?
dmca. mpaa. riaa.
>
> Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander victim
> is illogical.
how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
illogical.
>
>>>> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
>>>> would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only
>>>> a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
>>>> opponent's capabilities.
>>>>
>>> How can a sock hold a pistol?
>>>
>>
>> do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your eligibility
>> for a darwin award.
>
> Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
>
ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!
Tom Sherman
English language.
>>>
>>>> Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
>>>>
>>>> By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
>>>
>>> you can prosecute anonymously though.
>>>
>> Where? Guantanamo Bay?
>
> dmca. mpaa. riaa.
>
But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?
>> Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
>> victim is illogical.
>
> how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
> illogical.
>
Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
for damages?
>>>>> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
>>>>> would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment? only
>>>>> a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of their
>>>>> opponent's capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>> How can a sock hold a pistol?
>>>>
>>>
>>> do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
>>> eligibility for a darwin award.
>>
>> Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
>>
>
> ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!
[Yawn] "jim" is all bark.
jim beam
[wriggle. squirm.]
tom, you're a lightweight.
>
>>>>
>>>>> Does "jim" understand the meaning of "apparently"?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way "jim", you can not file a slander lawsuit anonymously. ;)
>>>>
>>>> you can prosecute anonymously though.
>>>>
>>> Where? Guantanamo Bay?
>>
>> dmca. mpaa. riaa.
>>
> But could those organizations prosecute as "John Doe" being the plaintiff?
>
>>> Prosecuting a slander case without revealing the alleged slander
>>> victim is illogical.
>>
>> how about slandering someone you don't know? that seems pretty damned
>> illogical.
>>
> Since a sock puppet is not a legal entity with rights, how can it sue
> for damages?
[wriggle. squirm.]
"it" can't, but that doesn't mean you didn't slander. lightweight.
>
>>>>>> if it were pistols at dawn, and you knew that i'm a crack shot,
>>>>>> would you be so quick to make such an ill-considered comment?
>>>>>> only a lightweight would fail to account for the potential of
>>>>>> their opponent's capabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How can a sock hold a pistol?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do you /really/ want to find out? i always suspected your
>>>> eligibility for a darwin award.
>>>
>>> Is this a threat? You are not THAT anonymous.
>>>
>>
>> ooo, is /that/ a threat? bring it on, lightweight!
>
> [Yawn] "jim" is all bark.
[wriggle. squirm.]
you were barking big boy. be a man - stand(*) behind your threat.
* - that means you can't lie down on the job.
andre...@aol.com
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > "jim beam" wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
Are you guys sure you are not third grade schoolmates or little
brothers. I think you need to go to your corners for a time out,right
about now and you cannot go out and play.
The only one who gets to go out and play is Jobst.
Tom Sherman
I am arguing with "beam" solely for YOUR PERSONAL entertainment [1]. :)
> The only one who gets to go out and play is Jobst.
I think I see Jobst:
<http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ll=46.532591,10.447397&spn=0.013758,0.027637&t=k&z=15>.
[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/26ab0819a819b28e?hl=en&dmode=source>.
andre...@aol.com
wrote:
>
> [1]
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/26ab0819a819b28e...>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
I know that I want entertainment but this is what it amounts too now.
Tom: Stop barking!
whiskey boy: no, you started
Tom: no, you did
whiskey boy: no, you did
Tom: you did!
Actually, I have to admit that it is fun to see adults arguing like
this.