C
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:02:04 +0200, Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] a écrit :
>> On 8 Jun 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tony Raven a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>>>>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>> convince.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>>>>>>>>> did, ninny.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Sandy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>>>>>>>> lauding 'common sense'"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>>>>>>> it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>>>>>>> dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>>>>>>> resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Jay,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>>>>>> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>>>>>> "it" may be).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>>> convince."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>>>>>> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>>>>>> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>>>>>> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>>>>>> and unsupported assertions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>>>>>> Do you think Sandy has one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bewildered,
>>>>>>
>>>>> You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
>>>>> about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
>>>>> question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
>>>>> quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
>>>>> sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
>>>>> now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
>>>>> not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
>>>>> you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
>>>>> could have gotten it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
>>>>> to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
>>>>> "lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
>>>>> Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
>>>>> up. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>
>>>> Dear Jay,
>>>>
>>>> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>>>>
>>>> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>>>>
>>>> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
>>>> quote, explanation, or link.
>>>>
>>>> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>>>>
>>>> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
>>>> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
>>>> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
>>>> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>>>>
>>>> You two guys are lawyers, right?
>>>>
>>> This is what I saw:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
>>>>> the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
>>>>> read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
>>>>> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
>>>> seems to be prevailing...
>>>>
>>> There was no head information. O.K.? More careful reading indicates
>>> that Tony is not the speaker. Let's quit flogging this, and the lawyer
>>> thing too. I don't hammer anyone for their day job, whatever it may be.
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>> P.S. I don't know how to give a link. This news reader is hobbled, and
>>> I don't know how to use it anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> To find things on RBT, just go to Google Groups:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/
>>
>> Stuff a few search words into the convenient, God-fearing right-hand
>> box (not the wicked upper search box that includes all groups, not
>> just RBT).
>>
>> If you need to narrow things down, click on the "Advanced Groups
>> Search" and limit by group, author, time, heading, and so forth.
>>
>> Once you find the elusive post, click on its "show options" and then
>> click on "individual message" to get a page and link to just that
>> post, like this:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b96d6ef8e5d15c38
>>
>> (Guess who?)
>>
>> Cut-and-paste the link into your own post, and voila!
>>
>> In windows, click on address once to highlight it in blue, ctrl-c to
>> copy to the clipboard, then ctrl-v to paste the copied text to
>> wherever you want it.
>>
>> (I hear there are other computer operating systems, but that's about
>> 95% of the world.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>>
>You are such a *****, Fogel. You and a gang spend a night farting over
>what may be a misattribution of words to Raven, rather than someone
>else. It's morning, here, it's a nice day, so I'll make it all very
>clear - whoever the words came from, the snipping of context in the post
>was cowardly, much as your perpetuation of silliness here in an attempt
>to get my goat.
>
>So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
>However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.
>
>And, Fogel, addressing this to you ;
>
>
>
>That's right folks, no reason to answer emptiness.
>
>Ciao !
And still no link, quote, or explanation, just an increasingly nasty
attitude--without which Sandy never says anything.
>[email protected] a écrit :
>> On 8 Jun 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tony Raven a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>>>>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>> convince.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>>>>>>>>> did, ninny.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Sandy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>>>>>>>> lauding 'common sense'"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>>>>>>> it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>>>>>>> dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>>>>>>> resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Jay,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>>>>>> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>>>>>> "it" may be).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>>> convince."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>>>>>> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>>>>>> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>>>>>> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>>>>>> and unsupported assertions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>>>>>> Do you think Sandy has one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bewildered,
>>>>>>
>>>>> You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
>>>>> about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
>>>>> question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
>>>>> quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
>>>>> sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
>>>>> now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
>>>>> not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
>>>>> you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
>>>>> could have gotten it wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
>>>>> to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
>>>>> "lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
>>>>> Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
>>>>> up. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>
>>>> Dear Jay,
>>>>
>>>> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>>>>
>>>> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>>>>
>>>> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
>>>> quote, explanation, or link.
>>>>
>>>> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>>>>
>>>> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
>>>> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
>>>> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
>>>> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>>>>
>>>> You two guys are lawyers, right?
>>>>
>>> This is what I saw:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
>>>>> the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
>>>>> read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
>>>>> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
>>>> seems to be prevailing...
>>>>
>>> There was no head information. O.K.? More careful reading indicates
>>> that Tony is not the speaker. Let's quit flogging this, and the lawyer
>>> thing too. I don't hammer anyone for their day job, whatever it may be.
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>>> P.S. I don't know how to give a link. This news reader is hobbled, and
>>> I don't know how to use it anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> To find things on RBT, just go to Google Groups:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/
>>
>> Stuff a few search words into the convenient, God-fearing right-hand
>> box (not the wicked upper search box that includes all groups, not
>> just RBT).
>>
>> If you need to narrow things down, click on the "Advanced Groups
>> Search" and limit by group, author, time, heading, and so forth.
>>
>> Once you find the elusive post, click on its "show options" and then
>> click on "individual message" to get a page and link to just that
>> post, like this:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b96d6ef8e5d15c38
>>
>> (Guess who?)
>>
>> Cut-and-paste the link into your own post, and voila!
>>
>> In windows, click on address once to highlight it in blue, ctrl-c to
>> copy to the clipboard, then ctrl-v to paste the copied text to
>> wherever you want it.
>>
>> (I hear there are other computer operating systems, but that's about
>> 95% of the world.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>>
>You are such a *****, Fogel. You and a gang spend a night farting over
>what may be a misattribution of words to Raven, rather than someone
>else. It's morning, here, it's a nice day, so I'll make it all very
>clear - whoever the words came from, the snipping of context in the post
>was cowardly, much as your perpetuation of silliness here in an attempt
>to get my goat.
>
>So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
>However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.
>
>And, Fogel, addressing this to you ;
>
>
>
>That's right folks, no reason to answer emptiness.
>
>Ciao !
And still no link, quote, or explanation, just an increasingly nasty
attitude--without which Sandy never says anything.