Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?
Andre Jute
> Wow. And I suppose Cheney's meetings with oil executives - before
> setting Bush's energy policy - were just to share vacation photos?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
There's your true fascist dictator speaking. This wanker Krygowski
wants the industrial policy of the nation to be set without consulting
with the relevant industry. That single short paragraph, given in its
entirety, is an adequate and sufficient, indeed overwhelming reason
why we should not permit Krygowski to speak for cycling, for us, for
anybody. Why should Krygowski consult us when he knows better than we
do what we need and want?
Andre Jute
Anti-Helmet Zealotry is like Scientology, only with less science
Tom Sherman °_°
>[...]
<crickets>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Bill Sornson
news:3481d05f-b96c-4217...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 4:32 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow. And I suppose Cheney's meetings with oil executives - before
>> setting Bush's energy policy - were just to share vacation photos?
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> There's your true fascist dictator speaking. This wanker Krygowski
> wants the industrial policy of the nation to be set without consulting
> with the relevant industry. That single short paragraph, given in its
> entirety, is an adequate and sufficient, indeed overwhelming reason
> why we should not permit Krygowski to speak for cycling, for us, for
> anybody. Why should Krygowski consult us when he knows better than we
> do what we need and want?
Like a lot of things these days, because the elites say so.
Bill "pass the salt (better hurry)" S.
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
> >[...]
>
> <crickets>
A word to the wise. Do not put text it quotation marks
that the quoted person did not write.
--
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<i5ebhj$2n4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> <crickets>
>
> that the quoted person did not write.
>
brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion. Therefore,
there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I did.
Andre Jute
Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> <crickets>
The little scumball Tom Sherman is trying to shut me up altogether:
"Who wants the fascist André Jute to speak at all?" Not that it
matters to braindead name-callers like Liddell Tommi, but I can prove
Krygowski has fascist tendencies, while Liddell Tommi can prove no
fascist tendencies about me at all. In fact, Liddell Tommi knows so
little about fascism, he thought Mussolini was the Fuhrer of the Third
Reich, until I straightened him out. That favour is the source of
Liddell Tommi's present resentment. (Never do a petty jerkoff a favour
-- he won't thank you for it.)
I merely want to stop the fascist Krygowski pretending to speak for
all cyclists: "Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?"
My headline makes clear that I'm not prescribing for anyone else;
those who want Krygowski are free to choose him. They'll only get to
choose once, but that's the way it works with the Thousand Year Reichs
of fascists and commos and mullahs, all of them antidemocratic
totalitarians.
What Liddell Tommi is is too nasty to describe in a family conference.
Andre Jute
A real liberal, not a closet control freak
Chalo
>
> Like a lot of things these days, because the elites say so.
To break down the jargon a bit for anyone who would like to follow
what Bill is saying:
By "elites", Bill means "people who disagree with me, but
coincidentally are much smarter than me and everybody else who shares
my opinions".
And by "things", Bill means "things Fox News told me".
Chalo
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:> In article<i5ebhj$2n...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> 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're an ignorant clown, Liddell Tommi. Here is the standard
convention among educated and civilized writers and other workers in
publishing: Angle brackets, like this < > are the same as quotation
marks, just as Michael says. Half-round brackets like this ( ) are
used for thoughts in parenthesis by the author himself. Square
brackets like this [ ] are used for matter inserted by an editor,
normally understood to be explicatory. What you're doing, Liddell
Tommi, is to lie, in quotes, about what I wrote. You're a cheat and a
liar, Tom Sherman, and now you're lying about your first lie.
Andre Jute
Where shall we hold the Global Warming Trials? Nuremberg sounds
good.
Tom Sherman °_°
First of all, where I wrote "<crickets> was not proceeded by a ">",
indicating it was new text by me, and not quoted text as any but the
newest n00b to Usenet knows. Secondly, on Usenet, putting something in
angle brackets indicates it is either a URL or a representation of a
non-written effect (as was the case here).
However, I do enjoy Mr. Jute making himself look silly.
-- ,
Tom Sherman °_°
> Under the headline "Who wants the fascist André Jute to speak at all?"
> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> <crickets>
>
> The little scumball Tom Sherman is trying to shut me up altogether:
> "Who wants the fascist André Jute to speak at all?" Not that it
> matters to braindead name-callers like Liddell Tommi, but I can prove
> Krygowski has fascist tendencies, while Liddell Tommi can prove no
> fascist tendencies about me at all. In fact, Liddell Tommi knows so
> little about fascism, he thought Mussolini was the Fuhrer of the Third
> Reich, until I straightened him out. That favour is the source of
> Liddell Tommi's present resentment. (Never do a petty jerkoff a favour
> -- he won't thank you for it.)
>
Mr. Jute continues to lie on this matter.
> I merely want to stop the fascist Krygowski pretending to speak for
> all cyclists: "Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?"
> My headline makes clear that I'm not prescribing for anyone else;
> those who want Krygowski are free to choose him. They'll only get to
> choose once, but that's the way it works with the Thousand Year Reichs
> of fascists and commos and mullahs, all of them antidemocratic
> totalitarians.
>
> What Liddell Tommi is is too nasty to describe in a family conference.
>
> Andre Jute
> A real liberal, not a closet control freak
Oh pish posh.
andre...@aol.com
Yeah, I don't want you to shut up as Tom does. I want you to continue
writing. You provide lots of entertainment for the group. Your
cathartic rants, while you stump your little feet under the table are
utterly amusing. On rare occasions, as if by accident, you may post an
intelligent comment or question. However, in general, you provide lots
of comedy for the rest of us in which, for some masochistic reason,
you make yourself the target of your own jokes.
Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
rms
"CROWD ATTENDING BECK RALLY ESTIMATED AT OVER 500,000" -- Fox News
rms
Edward Dolan
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cf0984c-174b-4f43...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
By "elites" Mr. Sornson means the same thing as everyone else in the country
means - over educated bastards and academic know-nothings who do not have a
clue about anything - period!
Thank God for Fox News. Only the brainwashed ignorant follow the rest of the
media like lambs to the slaughter. Keith Olbermann and the rest of that
fucked-up crew at MSNBC anyone?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Andre Jute
I always assume the elites are on my side. After all, the likelihood
is that I, or people very much like me, told them what to eat, drink,
wear, drive, smoke, desire, hate and think. When there is a small
difference of opinion, as there has successively been on the ozone
layer, global freezing and global warming, they always adopt my view
after a short interregnum. They're not called elites for being stupid,
you know, and smart people rarely differ from me for long.
Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
Andre Jute
The linguistic and moral crim has confessed. QED. Case closed. -- AJ
Tom Sherman °_°
Stating a lie as truth does not make it so, even when done by Mr.
Jute/McCoy.
--
Tim McNamara
control people's behavior (e.g., mandatory helmet laws) like Frank does
would be anti-fascist.
Unfortunately Jute, being less than acute about such matters, doesn't
know this. What a maroon.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 3:14 PM, André Jute wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Under the headline "Who wants the fascist André Jute to speak at all?"
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >> <crickets>
>
> > The little scumball Tom Sherman is trying to shut me up altogether:
> > "Who wants the fascist André Jute to speak at all?" Not that it
> > matters to braindead name-callers like Liddell Tommi, but I can prove
> > Krygowski has fascist tendencies, while Liddell Tommi can prove no
> > fascist tendencies about me at all. In fact, Liddell Tommi knows so
> > little about fascism, he thought Mussolini was the Fuhrer of the Third
> > Reich, until I straightened him out. That favour is the source of
> > Liddell Tommi's present resentment. (Never do a petty jerkoff a favour
> > -- he won't thank you for it.)
>
> Mr. Jute continues to lie on this matter.
Prove it, Liddell Tommi.
> > I merely want to stop the fascist Krygowski pretending to speak for
> > all cyclists: "Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?"
> > My headline makes clear that I'm not prescribing for anyone else;
> > those who want Krygowski are free to choose him. They'll only get to
> > choose once, but that's the way it works with the Thousand Year Reichs
> > of fascists and commos and mullahs, all of them antidemocratic
> > totalitarians.
>
> > What Liddell Tommi is is too nasty to describe in a family conference.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > A real liberal, not a closet control freak
>
> Oh pish posh.
Liddell Tommi stands accused of favouring totalitarians, fascists,
communists and fundie terrorist mullahs, and of trying
unconstitutionally to interfere with my free speech, and the best he
can come up with in self-defense is "Oh, pish posh."
Even Andres Muro, who runs with the same gang of street corner thugs
as Liddell Tommi, agrees I'm right about Liddell Tommi's anti-
constitutional intentions: "I don't want you to shut up as Tom
does. ... Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement."
QED. Tom Sherman is an enemy of free speech. That makes him ipso facto
an enemy of democracy and an enemy of civil society.
Case closed.
Andre Jute
The Magisterium has arrived
andre...@aol.com
rarely differ from me for long".
argue with an ass.
Andre Jute
You should read what you write before you send it, Muro. As your text
stands, you're admitting to being one of the benighted fools who argue
with me because they know no better. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> Someone speaking *against* a private sector-public sector collusion to
> control people's behavior (e.g., mandatory helmet laws) like Frank does
> would be anti-fascist.
By the same "logic" the opponents of seatbelt laws were anti-fascists,
and it follows that those who proposed seatbelts were fascists.
Only in Timmie McNamara's fantasy land.
> Unfortunately Jute, being less than acute about such matters, doesn't
> know this. What a maroon.
Yo, Timmie, Krygowski is a fascist because of what he does and say,
not because I say he is a fascist. Krygowski is a fascist because of
his intolerance of opposition, his irrationality, his attempts to
annihilate opposition, his stupid adherence to an ideological stance
with zero scientific support, his deliberate perversion of science,
his mindless lying as tool of policy, and his brutish attitudes in
general.
It is possible that you know more fascists than I do, Timmie, as like
attracts like, but the ones I knew got to put their destructive dream
into practice, which you may be certain Krygowski won't.
Andre Jute
"A young man with a total lack of respect" -- Otto Skorzeny
complaining to my chairman
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article<i5ebhj$2n4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> <crickets>
> >
> > A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks
> > that the quoted person did not write.
> >
> Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention of
> brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion. Therefore,
> there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I did.
You cite a paper and ink rule.
This is not paper and ink.
We can leave quoted text intact.
Exercise this option.
--
Michael Press
andre...@aol.com
Well, Jute, you should read my text too. As it stands, I am not
arguing with you. I am just ridiculing you. I tried to do so in the
past and realized that when someone disagreed with you, you would go
from engaging the argument to insulting the messenger. At that point I
decided that you were not capable of dialog and because of your
limited knowledge in any subject that you attempted to engage, and you
would merely copy and paste citations and texts that you hardly
comprehended. When people called you on this, you merely resorted to
throwing tantrums while stumping you little feet under the table. And
this brings me back to an earlier question; do you still stump your
little feet while writing your overwhelmingly dweeby posts? This is
what is truly relevant and we all really want to know. If you doubt
me, please poll the group.
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<i5edom$mep$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article<i5ebhj$2n4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> 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.
Bill Sornson
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cf0984c-174b-4f43...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Sornson wrote (must have been about SOMETHING):
There's the Country Class, held in contempt by the Ruling Class (AKA
elites), and then for Chalo there's the No Damned Class.
Bill "Chalo never met a lo-flo toilet (mandated, of course) that could
accommodate him" S.
Dan O
> "Chalo" <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Can you hear me now? ;-)
Bill Sornson
news:f96d9036-f0c0-43da...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
Dan O
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f96d9036-f0c0-43da...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
>
> That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
Wheeeeeeee! Bill's a computer security whiz now :-)
(I see a spiral to deep paranoia ahead ;-)
Andre Jute
> <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
>
> That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
Just another example of the stupid malice of the worthless scum on
RBT. I've done these little sleazeballs no harm -- in fact I wouldn't
even notice such useless people if they didn't constantly put
themselves in my face in an effort to give meaning to their pointless
little lives -- but they just can't help these wretched expressions of
their congenitally weak characters. As I've said before, they're not
scum because I say so, they're scum because they constantly behave
like scum. This scumball Andres Muro wrecking everyone's computer to
get at me is the measure of their irresponsibility and malice. The
irony is that I'm the one person he can't get at because I have a
firewall and that sits behind a proxy and anyhow I'm not so cheap as
to use a virus-prone PC.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly
Andre Jute
As usual, Danno, in your hurry to join the first street corner gang
that passes, you shout out your ignorance for all to hear. You owe
Bill an apology. Or, if you can explain how to remove and make the
virus Muro sent safe, we will let you off the apology and give you
three cheers instead. (We're not giving brownie points for the obvious
lateral-thinking answer though; that's so obvious that any old moron
will get it.)
Andre Jute
"By definition, the presence of a cam tells you it's not 2-stroke."
-- "jim beam", internet ignoramus, proving his "competence"
Neil Brooks
> "Chalo" <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Never forget: Chalo may be heavy, but you're stupid ... and ... he
could diet ;-)
Dan O
> On Aug 30, 6:06 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 9:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@askme.net> wrote:
>
> > > <andresm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f96d9036-f0c0-43da...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
>
> > > That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
>
> > Wheeeeeeee! Bill's a computer security whiz now :-)
>
> > (I see a spiral to deep paranoia ahead ;-)
>
> As usual, Danno, in your hurry to join the first street corner gang
> that passes, you shout out your ignorance for all to hear. You owe
> Bill an apology. Or, if you can explain how to remove and make the
> virus Muro sent safe, we will let you off the apology and give you
> three cheers instead. (We're not giving brownie points for the obvious
> lateral-thinking answer though; that's so obvious that any old moron
> will get it.)
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.mountain-bike/msg/1d8bc50fd339818e
/************************************/
"What the Bloodhound.Exploit.6?
The Bloodhound.Exploit.6 virus is a Microsoft Internet Explorer/
Outlook Express vulnerability discovered in February 2004. The
vulnerability results from the incorrect handling of HTML files
embedded in CHM files. (CHM is the Microsoft-compiled HTML help
format.) However, because of Norton Antivirus' (and other antivirus
programs) ability to detect virus patterns, this heuristic detection
of viruses can sometimes lead to false positives.
In most cases the antivirus program detects the virus in Temporary
Internet files that have been downloaded from a web page. Such as:
C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE5\KXURSTI7\10523[1].htm
In these cases, the Bloodhound.Exploit.6 ends up being a false
positive detection of a virus. It looks like a virus to the scanner,
but in reality it isnt. Now although the exploit is a real threat and
can cause damage to a system, these false positive diagnoses from the
antivirus software usually are the cause."
/************************************/
You're welcome :-)
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article<i5edom$mep$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article<i5ebhj$2n4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> Tom Sherman °_°<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> <crickets>
> >>>
> >>> A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks
> >>> that the quoted person did not write.
> >>>
> >> Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention of
> >> brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion. Therefore,
> >> there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I did.
> >
> > You cite a paper and ink rule.
> > This is not paper and ink.
>
> Thanks for letting me know.
>
> > We can leave quoted text intact.
> > Exercise this option.
> >
> What if the text is both boring and annoying?
>
> As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in my
> reply was the point.
Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed
writer did not write. To do so is unnecessary,
misleading, and not good manners. That is my point.
I only mentioned it after you had done it more than once.
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
> In article <i5f5i2$m3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> 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.
>
> --
> Michael Press
I'm not holding my breath for Tom Sherman to apologize for the
repeated lies he told by putting material I never wrote in quotation
marks. Sherman has a long and slimy history of that manner of
dishonesty. -- AJ
James
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@askme.net> wrote:
> > <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
>
> > That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
> The irony is that I'm the one person he can't get at because I have a
> firewall and that sits behind a proxy and anyhow I'm not so cheap as
> to use a virus-prone PC.
I'm very cheap, free in fact. Free as in speech that is, but not
virus prone.
Regards,
James.
Andre Jute
Okay, I'll bite; that's either a monstrous troll, or a valuable tip.
How do you manage not to be virus prone without spending any money? --
AJ
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<i5f5i2$m3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman °_°" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:i5hmlq$opd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Mr. Sherman has got it exactly right. Angle brackets are not quotation
marks. See what I mean about him being as smart as a whip.
James
For the benefit of those who don't follow links without description,
the following is the home page of Ubuntu, a distribution of the GNU/
Linux OS.
JS
Andre Jute
Thanks. And you say it is immune to viruses? If true, that's almost as
good as a Mac, which isn't in theory immune but in practice infections
are exceedingly unlikely. -- AJ
Edward Dolan
"James" <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80f4f6b8-46d6-42cf...@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Linux is strictly for geeks. Pay Bill Gates (Microsoft Windows) the big
money and let him tweak your operating system for you. Linux is for those
who love to play cat and mouse games with just one problem after another.
Check the forums for this OS if you don't believe me.
Tim McNamara
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Using <brackets> around text is not an indication of quotation. 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.
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 juteshit. Normally <snip> is used but Tom was being humorous
given the proclivities of his correspondent, Mr. Jute, for being an
unbridled ass.
James
They share a common ancestor in the Unix specification. As you say,
infections are exceedingly unlikely.
Mac has the advantage of a well integrated platform, but costs real $$
Ubuntu works on a massive range of hardware, but not perfectly on some
because hardware vendors do not always make supporting their gear easy
for the developers, however is absolutely free.
I use it on my home PC and netbook (EEE), as well as the PC I use at
work, which has a dual head video card where the second screen is a
wide screen rotated vertical, which is ab. fab. for viewing documents
and hacking source code (Samsung SyncMaster 2243bw).
JS.
James
> "James" <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>http://www.ubuntu.com/
>
> Linux is strictly for geeks. Pay Bill Gates (Microsoft Windows) the big
> money and let him tweak your operating system for you. Linux is for those
> who love to play cat and mouse games with just one problem after another.
> Check the forums for this OS if you don't believe me.
Linux used to be for geeks, I'll give you that. It may be time for
you to revisit that notion though.
I would not pay Bill Gates for the rubbish he's produced. Such a
convoluted heap of crap.
If my mother-in-law can use Ubuntu, anyone can.
JS.
Michael Press
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.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
What is acceptable practice is to put the indicator for
excised text outside the quoted text; to put the indicator
in the area that is clearly the text of the message writer,
not the area of the quoted writer.
It is very simple. Do not change text that you are quoting.
--
Michael Press
Duane Hebert
<snip>
> It is very simple. Do not change text that you are quoting.
Snipping out the text that is not relevant to the reply if normally considered
good as it reduces bandwidth. Saying so with a note inside angle brackets
is AFAIK the way that this has been done politely for ever.
Although some languages use <> for quotes (Quebec French for example) that's
not usually how it's done in newsgroups.
Not sure what the <cricket> was for but ...
SMS
Or if you prefer Debian, Mepis is a very good distribution.
"http://www.mepis.org/". You still get all the advantages of Debian over
Ubuntu, but you still can have a "windows-like interface" which is the
primary attraction of Ubuntu. Of course if you only need a windows-like
interface you'd be happier with Windows.
Simon Lewis
There is nothing "Windows like interface" at all in Ubuntu. It's
Gnome. At least nothing more than any other of the multiple Gnome using
X based distros.
andre...@aol.com
Sonny, I haven't sent any viruses. However, your very tiny brain does
not allow you to see this. Regardless, when someone confronts you, as
I predicted, you proceed to shout insults since you are incapable of
dialogue. You are so derivative of jim beam.
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<i5hmlq$opd$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
just being unreasonably pedantic and Mr. Jute is just being an ass.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/30/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 8/30/2010 5:58 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
I did. It was substituted for my text in quotation marks with the
implication that I wrote it. I didn't write it. Sherman lied by
putting words into my mouth that I never spoke, and is now trying to
sneer his way out of the hole he dug for himself by lying with
quotation marks.
>Mr. Press is
> just being unreasonably pedantic and Mr. Jute is just being an ass.
Mr Press is precise, Mr Jute honours the conventions of literature and
decent grammar, and Liddell Tommi Sherman is a lying scumbag.
Andre Jute
The English language is my trade. I do not let malicious clowns diss
it.
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Andre Jute
That's what I hate about the Windows world, the efflorescence of
conflicting versions necessitated by bug fixes, demonic commercial
"differentiation", egotripping, and plain stupidity. My first Mac was
signed in the back by Steve 'n'Steve (and when I sold it paid for
every Mac I bought since) -- and thirty years later the interface is
still recognizably the same!
There's something else important about the Mac that isn't often
mentioned. Anyone who has been conscientious about transferring his
data as new storage media appeared has lost *nothing*. Can any PC/
Microsoft user truly say that? More: I can search thirty-year-old data
from my desktop and it hardly ever needs work, and then just a little,
to make it presentable. Who can say that in the PC/Microsoft world?
Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina
Michael Press
"Duane Hebert" <sp...@flarn.com> wrote:
I am not discussing the "cricket" in angle brackets.
Putting the indicator (<snip>) in your own text space as you did
is the best way. I am talking about the problems that arise
when someone puts the indicator inside the quoted text.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
I am not talking about the "<crickets>" am I?
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
> On Aug 30, 3:28 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill Sornson" <as...@askme.net> wrote:
> > > <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Unlike Tom, I would like t thank you for all the amusement.
>
> > > That why some "Bloodhound Exploit" trojan or worm was attached to your post?
>
> > Just another example of the stupid malice of the worthless scum on
> > RBT. I've done these little sleazeballs no harm -- in fact I wouldn't
> > even notice such useless people if they didn't constantly put
> > themselves in my face in an effort to give meaning to their pointless
> > little lives -- but they just can't help these wretched expressions of
> > their congenitally weak characters. As I've said before, they're not
> > scum because I say so, they're scum because they constantly behave
> > like scum. This scumball Andres Muro wrecking everyone's computer to
> > get at me is the measure of their irresponsibility and malice. The
> > irony is that I'm the one person he can't get at because I have a
> > firewall and that sits behind a proxy and anyhow I'm not so cheap as
> > to use a virus-prone PC.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
> > elegantly
>
> Sonny, I haven't sent any viruses.
If you're not lying again, you sent that virus ignorantly. I don't
know what is worse, maliciously sending a virus to a newsgroup, or
ignorantly sending a virus to a newsgroup. What do the IT experts
think?
>However, your very tiny brain does
> not allow you to see this.
So you wish. Two IT experts in my study saw it too. You did it, Muro,
whether you admit it or not.
>Regardless, when someone confronts you,
What did you confront me about, Muro? All I remember is that you and
the rest of the scum tried to run me out when I arrived, and hounded
me since. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,
scumball. It isn't as if I didn't warn you to stop trying to impress
the redneck trash in that gang of worthless nobodies you ran with.
And what makes you think I care shit for your opinion? What have you
ever done for me except needle constantly? What are you, some kind of
a comedy stereotype mother-in-law? What is of your business anyway
what I do or don't do?
>as
> I predicted, you proceed to shout insults since you are incapable of
> dialogue. You are so derivative of jim beam.
Once more, why should I care shit what you think? I have dialogue with
people who possess brains and goodwill. You lot of little schoolyard
bullies have neither; instead you're puffed full of baseless hubris
and malice. For several years now you and that scum you run with tried
to drain the glee from my hobby. You were warned that I don't forgive
and I don't forget. Now you worthless little creeps whine because I
step in your stupid fat faces not because you had the slightest
success but simply because the very attempt is impertinent.
You deserve what you have coming.
Unsigned out of contempt for another pointless fool
andre...@aol.com
If your computer is telling you that you have a virus, then your
computer is having a malfunction. I use google groups where I don't
send, or attach anything I don't open documents and I don't download
anything to read messages. Nor do I upload anything. so, no viruses in
what i post. Messages get posted in hyperspace and nothing should be
downloaded to your computer from google groups. Now, if you download
contaminated stuff, that ain't my problem.
Regarding me trying to run you out of anywhere, that is simply not
true. Otherwise, you should show proof. What you'll do instead is
proceed with a bunch of insults as you've done in the past when
someone calls you on mistakes.
I've disagreed with you on global warming on a few occasions. Instead
of dialoguing you engaged in insults. I don't even disagree with you
on helmets, since I am an advocate of helmets myself, as they have
saved me from serious injury. I only disagree with you in your
inability to engage in arguments without posting endless diatribes and
without insulting people. It is clear that you are incapable of doing
either of those two things. You will try to engage someone who
disagrees with you about helmets in brutal linguistic warfare.
I had disagreements about helmets with people a few times. I posted
what I had to say, got challenged, replied and moved on. I realized
that people had different views. I did not label them pond scum, lower
class, dumb Marxists, or anything else for that matter. You are
clearly no capable of moving on. You start with disagreement, then you
move on to ridiculing your foe, then you proceed to insult your foe
and finally you have tantrums where you stump your little feet. You
enter into a two-dimensional universe that ranges between amusing and
annoying.
For some of us, your tantrums, stumping feet and fist banging are
amusing. For others they are annoying. You clearly get satisfaction
from annoying others and you like to rub it in. You hate amusing your
foes and so you keep having fits.
MikeWhy
> There's something else important about the Mac that isn't often
> mentioned. Anyone who has been conscientious about transferring his
> data as new storage media appeared has lost *nothing*. Can any PC/
> Microsoft user truly say that? More: I can search thirty-year-old data
> from my desktop and it hardly ever needs work, and then just a little,
> to make it presentable. Who can say that in the PC/Microsoft world?
Yes, I can say that. This XP boot image was installed in Jan, 2001, making
it this moment a few months short of it's 10th birthday. It had since been
through two major hardware upgrades, the most recent 4 long years ago,
including motherboards and processors, and seen 3 whole generations of board
and bus architectures. Whole disk drives have come and gone, as has a small
pile of now dead keyboards and mice, and still the original XP installation
remains. It was cloned to its current home on a 1.5 TB SATA drive when the
original Seagate drive started to fail 3 years ago. Through it all, it has
never been burdened with the viral anti-virus software. The occasional
cleanups were accomplished easily using simple tools. It is my main desktop,
serving as a development workstation by day, at one point as much as 18
hours a day, and in the past, also hosted some very performance intensive
games by night. It is typically powered and connected to the web up to 20
hours each day, every day of every year of its long service. As for 30
years, no, I can't quite say that. The oldest harddrive in the deadwood pile
dates back to 1987. It was retired for its uselessly small capacity rather
than failure, although its 20 MB was pretty big once upon a time. I can
actually plug it into today's hardware if I so wanted. The old ATA
interfaces are still available on today's systems.
While I have nothing against Macs, I find nothing at all notable or
compelling about them, except now and again the very occasional oddity of
finding one or two in roles now utterly dominated by Microsoft and Windows
only points out their obscurity. I have little also to say about Linux. My
bug fix to an obscure TCP buffering problem in the very early 2.something
kernels, about 1997, likely are no longer even in the distributions. These
days, I run a Ubuntu distro on a VPC on this self same XP work horse rather
than devote a separate box. I've always found them less than suitable as
desktop workstations. The GUIs typically sucked a full core just updating
the display, as recently as 2007 when I last tried. Granted, it could easily
have just been the crap driver support for the (absolutely unremarkable and
unobscure) Nvidia. I find it much more usable as a headless server, even in
a virtual machine, serving up remote terminals hosted on the Windows
desktop.
As for longevity, stability, compatibility, and security, gimme a bleepin'
break. Apple's main claim to fame is continually leading the market with
glitzy products and promising technologies, often well ahead of their time,
and unfortunately, always it seems before the underlying technologies they
represent were ready. I have a like new Newton II still floating around, at
first waiting for relevance, and then retired as a novelty still unused when
that relevance soon came and swallowed it whole. I'd give you the full list,
but that would only bring me anguish to have to revisit that inventory. And
Linux? What can I say? It's most notable for the underground roots that it
still represents to this day, and is the collective sum of contributions
from some very talented (and some less talented) minds as they passed
through on their ways to their real lives and callings. That's Linux,
initially aspiring to no more than simply existing as an alternative, and in
maturity achieved that and little more. One might call that the definition
of mediocrity, but I don't in truth hold that dismal view.
And what about Windows, then? Windows had Dave Cutler, and Microsoft's deep
pockets, a visionary genius and the means to bring his vision to fruition.
Twenty plus years later, Cutler's NT architecture still defines the Windows
kernel. Nobody *loves* Windows, and in some circles, it's chic to hate and
disparage it. <Shrug> Said the bearded guy: I don't always drink beer, but I
do, I prefer Dos Equis. (No, that isn't supposed to make any sense. I just
tired of the thought and the drudgery of typing it.)
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > There's something else important about the Mac that isn't often
> > mentioned. Anyone who has been conscientious about transferring his
> > data as new storage media appeared has lost *nothing*. Can any PC/
> > Microsoft user truly say that? More: I can search thirty-year-old data
> > from my desktop and it hardly ever needs work, and then just a little,
> > to make it presentable. Who can say that in the PC/Microsoft world?
>
> Yes, I can say that. This XP boot image was installed in Jan, 2001, making
> it this moment a few months short of it's 10th birthday.
So you can't really say that your OS vendor has protected your data
integrity for 30 years, can you? Ten years is a looooong way short of
30 years.
Andre Jute
There are lies, damned statistics, and Apple WYSIWYG -- except that
all other wysiwygs are worse
Tom Sherman °_°
> In article<i5jdig$on9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
snippage of quoted text, which only Bill Sornson seems to object to.
Tom Sherman °_°
alleging he wrote "crickets" when he did not. Thanks for the clarification.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 8/30/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 8/30/2010 5:58 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
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.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Michael Press"<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:rubrum-02C02C....@news.albasani.net...
>
> >> <snip>
> >>> It is very simple. Do not change text that you are quoting.
>
> >> Snipping out the text that is not relevant to the reply if normally considered
> >> good as it reduces bandwidth. Saying so with a note inside angle brackets
> >> is AFAIK the way that this has been done politely for ever.
> >> Although some languages use<> for quotes (Quebec French for example) that's
> >> not usually how it's done in newsgroups.
>
> >> Not sure what the<cricket> was for but ...
>
> > I am not discussing the "cricket" in angle brackets.
> > Putting the indicator (<snip>) in your own text space as you did
> > is the best way. I am talking about the problems that arise
> > when someone puts the indicator inside the quoted text.
>
> So you (Michael Press) disagree with Mr. Jute who claims I am lying by
> alleging he wrote "crickets" when he did not. Thanks for the clarification.
What the devil? You're not very good at weaseling, are you, Sherman?
Just like you aren't any good at anything. Clearly you haven't got it
yet. We're hanging you for both the lamb and the sheep you tried
overambitiously to steal. You're guilty as sin and the smart thing
would have been to retract and apologize when your crimes were first
exposed, not carry on weaseling incompetently with transparent lies
and smoke from other incompetents like Weiner.
Unsigned out of contempt
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
>> 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.
No, trimming all the quoted text implies that I thought what you wrote
was not worth quoting. :)
> 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.
I would have thought Mr. Jute as an alleged professional writer would
have known that brackets mean editorial insertion or deletion.
MikeWhy
> On Aug 31, 9:23 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> There's something else important about the Mac that isn't often
>>> mentioned. Anyone who has been conscientious about transferring his
>>> data as new storage media appeared has lost *nothing*. Can any PC/
>>> Microsoft user truly say that? More: I can search thirty-year-old
>>> data from my desktop and it hardly ever needs work, and then just a
>>> little, to make it presentable. Who can say that in the
>>> PC/Microsoft world?
>>
>> Yes, I can say that. This XP boot image was installed in Jan, 2001,
>> making it this moment a few months short of it's 10th birthday.
>
> So you can't really say that your OS vendor has protected your data
> integrity for 30 years, can you? Ten years is a looooong way short of
> 30 years.
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
Tom Sherman has already been reprimanded from all sides for his
malicious transgressions of decent grammar and manners, one would
think he'd take special care. Not a bit of it: he aggravates the
offence:
On Sep 1, 12:22 am, Tom Sherman °_°
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 6:13 PM, André Jute whined:
>
> > [...]
> >> Then what are you writing about? The "[...]" obviously indicated
> >> snippage of quoted text, which only Bill Sornson seems to object to.
I didn't even write that, nor "whine" it, as the wretched little
scumball Sherman claims. He "whined" it himself and is now attributing
it to me. You're lying scum, Sherman, and your later layered lies to
escape from your earlier lies just tie you up in further knots. You
richly deserve what you're doing to yourself in full public view.
Unsigned out of contempt
Tim McNamara
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
He didn't change the text he was quoting; that was very clear to any
reader with an ounce of common sense.
Good grief. Pull that stick out already.
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)?
Tim McNamara
It's a cliche.
Tim McNamara
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Only you, apparently.
> 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.
Good grief. If I look up "pedant" on Wikipedia, will it include your
portrait in the article?
Tom Sherman °_°
> [rantings snipped]
I actually feel pity for Mr. Jute.
Edward Dolan
news:i5k52p$5d2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 8/31/2010 6:41 PM, André Jute wrote:
>> [rantings snipped]
>
> I actually feel pity for Mr. Jute.
Final Score: Mr. Sherman 100, Mr. Jute 0.
It always amaze me how Mr. Sherman can stay on point while all the rest of
us go off in all directions. And he does it with a minimum of words too.
Quite remarkable!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
AMuzi
Wow. 30 years ago we had to fit the program and the data
all on a 180k disk. Well, until we got the cassette drive,
that is. Such a long time ago!
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Dan O
In any case, bits are bits. Unless somebody loses the specification,
open source is always best.
Duane Hebert
Ok. I misunderstood then.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 6:41 PM, André Jute wrote:
>
> > [rantings snipped]
I didn't write "rantings snipped" either. I'm not such a frightened
rabbit that I need to snip everything people write to me so that I can
declare some petty false victory as Tom Sherman does:
> I actually feel pity for Mr. Jute.
So you lied, Sherman, you're still lying, Sherman, and now your claque
will lie for you. Lovely. That's all we need to know about you,
Sherman, that you're cowardly scum.
A gentleman would have apologized. There used to be gentlemen in the
Mid-West.
Andre Jute
Breeding will out
Andre Jute
There was a thin bellypan that fitted under the Epson PX8/Paris laptop
that was called a CMOS drive, which contained non-volatile memory in
which one could load programmes and data. c1980. I had one for my PX8s
that outlasted several of the computers, was given to a friend for his
PX8, went to his son, a journalist, was later returned to me, and was
the last bit of the PX8 chain to survive, c1990 when C/PM, the
operating system, wasn't even a memory for most of the new computer-
literates. I took a PX8 into the Arctic Circle; it was the sturdiest
laptop I knew of then or now.-- AJ
thirty-six
wrote:
>
> I would have thought Mr. Jute as an alleged professional writer would
> have known that brackets mean editorial insertion or deletion.
>
Mmm, certainly something amiss, not that I've been following your
'discussions' with the talented Mr. Jute.
Andre Jute
Sure there's something amiss. Sherman put the square and other
brackets after the net's angle quotation brackets, implying that I
wrote the ellipsis and word inside the brackets. He's a lying little
piece of shit who's been wriggling in the wind trying to claim he
didn't mean to lie. If true, why weasel, why not just apologize and
move on? -- AJ
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sep 1, 2:42 am, thirty-six<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 1 Sep, 00:22, Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would have thought Mr. Jute as an alleged professional writer would
>>> have known that brackets mean editorial insertion or deletion.
>>
>> Mmm, certainly something amiss, not that I've been following your
>> 'discussions' with the talented Mr. Jute.
>
> Sure there's something amiss. Sherman put the square and other
> brackets after the net's angle quotation brackets, implying that I
> wrote the ellipsis and word inside the brackets.
Only Mr. Jute thinks this. One wonders if he suffers from oncoming
dementia or psychosis?
> He's a lying little
> piece of shit who's been wriggling in the wind trying to claim he
> didn't mean to lie. If true, why weasel, why not just apologize and
> move on? -- AJ
So much anger from someone so (reportedly) privileged in life. Indeed,
we must pity Mr. Jute.
Andre Jute
tells you more about the causes of his spite than about me:
On Sep 1, 2:56 am, Tom Sherman °_°
Michael Press
Yes, that is what I am talking about.
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.
--
Michael Press
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.
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
I'll tell ya sumthin.
When I start to speak loosely, people will
deliberately misconstrue to score debating points.
Take it as you will.
--
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...] [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.
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-8E7C67....@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <i5f5i2$m3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Using <brackets> around text is not an indication of quotation. Proper
> newsreaders and repaired versions of Outlook Express use a quote string,
> typically an end-bracket (>); the open bracket (<) should not be used as
> a quote string.
I am not talking about the "<crickets>".
I am talking about the line that opens with
a left angle bracket-space-left square bracket-ellipsis-right square bracket.
In ASCII base 16 octet representation
e20 5b2e 2e2e 5d
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_° <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article<i5istj$le5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Duane Hebert"<sp...@flarn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Michael Press"<rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:rubrum-02C02C....@news.albasani.net...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> It is very simple. Do not change text that you are quoting.
> >>
> >> Snipping out the text that is not relevant to the reply if normally considered
> >> good as it reduces bandwidth. Saying so with a note inside angle brackets
> >> is AFAIK the way that this has been done politely for ever.
> >> Although some languages use<> for quotes (Quebec French for example) that's
> >> not usually how it's done in newsgroups.
> >>
> >> Not sure what the<cricket> was for but ...
> >
> > I am not discussing the "cricket" in angle brackets.
> > Putting the indicator (<snip>) in your own text space as you did
> > is the best way. I am talking about the problems that arise
> > when someone puts the indicator inside the quoted text.
> >
> So you (Michael Press) disagree with Mr. Jute who claims I am lying by
> alleging he wrote "crickets" when he did not. Thanks for the clarification.
I am not disagreeing with Mr. Jute because I am not
sure what he is saying.
--
Michael Press
Tom Sherman °_°
It is surprising such a stickler for pedantic detail as Michael Press
uses "talking" where he means "writing", as Usenet is a written medium
with no sound [2].
[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.
[2] Excluding some attached files in binary newsgroups.
Michael Press
"Duane Hebert" <sp...@flarn2.com> wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-BF059D....@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <i5istj$le5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Duane Hebert" <sp...@flarn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:rubrum-02C02C....@news.albasani.net...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > It is very simple. Do not change text that you are quoting.
> >>
> >> Snipping out the text that is not relevant to the reply if normally
> >> considered
> >> good as it reduces bandwidth. Saying so with a note inside angle
> >> brackets
> >> is AFAIK the way that this has been done politely for ever.
> >> Although some languages use <> for quotes (Quebec French for example)
> >> that's
> >> not usually how it's done in newsgroups.
> >>
> >> Not sure what the <cricket> was for but ...
> >
> > I am not discussing the "cricket" in angle brackets.
> > Putting the indicator (<snip>) in your own text space as you did
> > is the best way. I am talking about the problems that arise
> > when someone puts the indicator inside the quoted text.
>
> Ok. I misunderstood then.
That's all right.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
You still do not see it. Keep looking.
--
Michael Press
Kevan Smith
>
> I actually feel pity for Mr. Jute.
Not me. He's a blowhard. He's off my beer list, for sure.
Kevan
Kevan Smith
> Sure there's something amiss. Sherman put the square and other
> brackets after the net's angle quotation brackets, implying that I
> wrote the ellipsis and word inside the brackets. He's a lying little
> piece of shit who's been wriggling in the wind trying to claim he
> didn't mean to lie. If true, why weasel, why not just apologize and
> move on? -- AJ
OK, I'm going to do something here. Pay close attention.
Note that I quoted your paragraph verbatim above.
Now, below here, let's pretend that I am responding to that in a new
message, and I write the following:
On 8/31/10 8:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
[....]
<crickets>
----
Now, let's analyze.
The [....] doesn't mean I am falsely quoting you as writing "....." It
means I snipped everything you wrote.
The <crickets> doesn't mean I am quoting you as writing the word
crickets. It indicates a sound effect as in you played your heart out to
a packed audience and when you were done they were all gone and all that
was left was the noise of crickets. Haven't you watched any Bugs Bunny
cartoons?
HTH
Kevan
Kevan Smith
> I am not disagreeing with Mr. Jute because I am not
> sure what he is saying.
I'm not sure he does, either.
Andre Jute
> On 8/31/10 8:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Sure there's something amiss. Sherman put the square and other
> > brackets after the net's angle quotation brackets, implying that I
> > wrote the ellipsis and word inside the brackets. He's a lying little
> > piece of shit who's been wriggling in the wind trying to claim he
> > didn't mean to lie. If true, why weasel, why not just apologize and
> > move on? -- AJ
>
> OK, I'm going to do something here. Pay close attention.
>
> Note that I quoted your paragraph verbatim above.
>
> Now, below here, let's pretend that I am responding to that in a new
> message, and I write the following:
>
> On 8/31/10 8:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> [....]
>
> <crickets>
>
> ----
>
> Now, let's analyze.
Forget it, sonny, you've gone wrong already. What that slimeball
Sherman did is not your cleaned-up version but this, verbatim, copied
and pasted from his original post, which is what you too should have
done:
*****
On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
>[...]
<crickets>
******
Notice the righthand angle bracket (>) before the [...] hmm? By using
it Sherman clearly states that I wrote the [...]. I didn't write any
[...], I wrote something entirely different. Tom Sherman is not only a
fraud and a liar, he then libellously accused a professional writer of
not knowing how to quote. Sherman is illiterate, that's all.
What's your motivation for trying to cover up for Sherman by leaving
off the initial angle bracket, Kevan Smith?
> The [....] doesn't mean I am falsely quoting you as writing "....." It
> means I snipped everything you wrote.
But that is not what Sherman did. Sherman used an initial angle
bracket (rendered in a different colour on my newsreader!), as used
for quotation on the net, to imply I wrote something that I didn't
write. Once more, Smith, what is your motive for cleaning up Sherman's
act?
> The <crickets> doesn't mean I am quoting you as writing the word
> crickets.
Crap.
>It indicates a sound effect
Really? Man, illiterates like you and Sherman realy should leave
literature to those who know what they're doing. Sound effects are
nowhere in any radio or television or film script indicated by < >.
The capitalized abbreviation SFX is standard throughout the world and
in all languages.
Furthermore, not only doesn't < > indicate a sound effect, it is used
for direct quotes in several languages, including the second, possibly
soon to be the first, language in the States, Spanish. That's not the
worst. In some editing systems those angles < > are used for
transposed text by the original author. As I said, you little wankers
should leave literature to those who know what they're talking about.
I didn't write "crickets" either, whatever the fraud Tom Sherman may
try to imply with his
<crickets>
>as in you played your heart out to
> a packed audience and when you were done they were all gone and all that
> was left was the noise of crickets. Haven't you watched any Bugs Bunny
> cartoons?
Next you'll be quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
> HTH
If might have if you had managed to get anything right.
Why am I not surprised that your errors favour Sherman?
Andre Jute
Feed a tree today, produce more CO2!
Kevan Smith
> Notice the righthand angle bracket (>) before the [...] hmm?
Nope, it doesn't display like that in my client.
Kevan
Michael Press
Tim, do you see what I am talking about?
--
Michael Press
Kevan Smith
OTOH, I'm not surprised I got it and you didn't.
Bill Sornson
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f5f08b5-3f93-43d0...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 31, 11:34 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article<i5jdig$on...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 8/30/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>> >>> In article<i5hmlq$op...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On 8/30/2010 5:58 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>> >>>>> In article<i5f5i2$m3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article<i5edom$me...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In article<i5ebhj$2n...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman °_°<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net>
>> >>>>>>>>> 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
Andre Jute
> 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!
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
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