Tip and Question

appkiller said:

But, why, Bill, why do you care? If it ain't useful, ignore it. Ye
gods, man, you can manage to ignore gdaniels, why can't you ignore
other purveyors of useless babble? There's plenty of value out there
that you could be busying yourself with.

But you seem to have a need to obsess over this. And I obsess over
your obsession. I'm worried about you. Maybe you need to take a
timeout from usenet.

And just because it's stupid doesn't mean you need to point it out.
Unless it makes you feel better. Are you a victim of low usenet
self-esteem?

Caringly (and without quoting, just for you!),

Richard, Usenet Cop Cop

I'm leaving for a ride, but I will say this. You're a dishonest,
context-removing, chicken-[censored] little leg-humper (no surprise it's always
anonymous, btw -- are you app, appkiller, or...how many others?!?).

I'm a fan of delicious irony. When someone flames someone else for, say,
being an "idiot" but then shows him or herself to REALLY be one, I like to
point it out. (I don't like bullies or hypocrits, which means you're REALLY
down there.) Sue me. Plonk me. Or have the guts to LEAVE WHAT I WROTE
INTACT before intrusively sticking your brown nose in the thread to make
your uninvited, unnecessary "observations". And you call ME a net cop. YOU
are a post nanny (and a dishonest one at that).

HAND, DL... BS

Bill opined:

Quoted message said:

You're a dishonest,context-removing, chicken-[censored] little leg-humper (no > surprise it's always anonymous, btw -- are you app, appkiller, or...how > many others?!?).

Always the same e-mail. So you will know it is me.

Dishonest? Bully? Hypocrite? Coward? You make me sound like our
current president.

Have a great ride!

App

Bill Sornson said:

AustinMN wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try using a threaded viewer.

I use one. However, your reply appeared "alone" beneath a slew of posts,
and it wasn't clear which one it addressed.

(For example, if you waited 2 or 3 days and then just wrote "Try using a
threaded viewer" without quoting me, the /average reader/ would have no clue
WTH you were talking about -- especially if there'd been a number of replies
since then.)

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

I guess I'm spoiled. 😉 My regular ISP[1] keeps posts in Text
newsgroups around for months, and it is very rare for them to miss or
drop a post. Whether it's my reader or my ISP, it is extremely rare
(though I have seen it) where a reply comes in totally disconnected
from it's thread. I know that is far from a universal condition.

For the record, the post I was replying to was posted on August 10,
2005 at 1:45 PM (CST) and my reply was posted August 11, 2005 at 12:18
PM CST, less than 23 hours later[2], so it _should_ have been threaded
properly. But you are correct that I over-snipped it.

Austin

[1] Neither the post in question nor this was posted through my regular
ISP. These posts were through Googe Groups, which _is_ less reliable.

[2] The OP was not in my time zone, but Google Groups adjusts for local
time.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Reid Priedhorsky said:

Michael K said:

If the driver sees a light ahead then, in all cases, he (the driver)
is behind the bike (which is ahead of him). Based on a knucklehead
with a white rear light or a red front light, he might make the wrong
assumption as to the *direction* the bike is traveling, but since most
cars travel faster than most bikes he is still approaching a bike.

This is true, but the closing speed will be wildly different depending on
whether the cyclist is a knucklehead or not. Assume a cyclist moving at 15
MPH and a motorist at 30 MPH.

A. Same direction of travel: motorist closes with a relative speed
of 15 MPH.
B. Different directions of travel: motorist closes with a relative
speed of 45 MPH.

Assuming A (red taillight ahead) when B is the case (knucklehead put the
red light on the front) means one third of the expected reaction time.

Or, worse:
Driver (or cyclist) sees white light ahead of him, assumes cyclist ahead
of him is facing him and can be expected to see him, and will be on the
other side of the road anyways, so no need to worry.
White light is actually on the back of knucklehead's bike, riding in the
same lane, so he's actually behind a knucklehead who probably has no idea
he's there, probably isn't paying attention to what's behind him anyways
(and even if he is, has 10-30 seconds of "last seen here moving this way"
between checks).

Driver/cyclist approaching from behind is going to be in for a nasty
surprise when knucklehead turns out to be directly in his way and not
aware there's somebody behind him, with half the reaction time (if that)
that they'd've had if knucklehead had been using his lights properly.

dave
(since knucklehead is a given, we can assume they're wearing headphones
and won't hear the horn/bell, either)

--
Dave Vandervies [email hidden]
And there was nothing insulting about it. Some people would rather
take being called a ``normal person'' as an insult.
--Nils Goesche in comp.lang.c

AustinMN said:

Bill Sornson said:

AustinMN wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try using a threaded viewer.

I use one. However, your reply appeared "alone" beneath a slew of
posts, and it wasn't clear which one it addressed.

(For example, if you waited 2 or 3 days and then just wrote "Try
using a threaded viewer" without quoting me, the /average reader/
would have no clue WTH you were talking about -- especially if
there'd been a number of replies since then.)

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

I guess I'm spoiled. 😉 My regular ISP[1] keeps posts in Text
newsgroups around for months, and it is very rare for them to miss or
drop a post. Whether it's my reader or my ISP, it is extremely rare
(though I have seen it) where a reply comes in totally disconnected
from it's thread. I know that is far from a universal condition.

JFTR, my server didn't drop any posts in this case, either (AFAIK). It's
just that there were many posts "in-between" the one you replied to (I
/still/ don't know which one it was 🙂 ) and yours. I did read back a few
but couldn't figure it out.

Quoted message said:

For the record, the post I was replying to was posted on August 10,
2005 at 1:45 PM (CST) and my reply was posted August 11, 2005 at 12:18
PM CST, less than 23 hours later[2], so it _should_ have been threaded
properly. But you are correct that I over-snipped it.

Thanks for that. (I still can't figure out which post you replied to --
Michael K's?) My intention wasn't to flame or insult you (despite app or
whatever his/her name is's chagrin), just to let you know it (your post) was
unclear (at least to me).

Quoted message said:

Austin

Bill

appkiller said:

Usenet Cop BS prevaricated:

Quoted message said:

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. {missing smiley went here}

Uh huh. Right. I bet more often than not your posts are [censored] at
someone about how they posted.

Is that why you not only removed all context from what I wrote, but the
smiley face thing, too? So you could portray my comments as "[censored]" when
they clearly weren't mean-spirited? (I missed this before; thus the late
reply.)

Only thing worse than a bully is a dishonest one.

Keep starching my cuff, "app" -- you post nanny you.

Officer Bill

Quoted message said:

AustinMN wrote:

Quoted message said:

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

I don't understand why proper quoting and snipping is so difficult for some
people.

Cheto

Cheto said:

Quoted message said:

AustinMN wrote (didn't, actually):

Quoted message said:

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why proper quoting and snipping is so difficult
for some people.

Good one!

(I hope?)

C. Fogel

Bill Sornson said:

Cheto said:

Quoted message said:

AustinMN wrote (didn't, actually):

Quoted message said:

It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why proper quoting and snipping is so difficult
for some people.

Good one!

(I hope?)

Bill,

Did you ever expect that your request for clarification (which I have still
not answered) would go so far afield?

Austin

AustinMN said:

Bill Sornson said:

Cheto said:

> AustinMN wrote (didn't, actually):

> It was only the irony of you lecturing someone else on clarity and
> comprehension that moved me to comment. <eg>

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why proper quoting and snipping is so difficult
for some people.

Good one!

(I hope?)

Bill,

Did you ever expect that your request for clarification (which I have
still not answered) would go so far afield?

Austin

With app/appkiller/whateverelseheuses around, Austin, nothing surprises me.

8-)

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Good one!

(I hope?)

C. Fogel

Dear Mr. Fogel,

Thank you.

Cheto