Re: Why Do People Fall Down?

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1193755336.672435.305180@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Oct 29, 1:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'll type slowly so you can follow along.
>>
>> First, it's customary and appropriate to quote /and attribute/ that to 
>> which
>> one replies.  Thus, my request of Mike to identify who wrote what is
>> perfectly reasonable.  (When you add in things like kill-files, it
makes 
>> it
>> even more understandable that your vaunted "tree display" doesn't
always
>> provide all relevant information.)
>
> I don't know about kill-files, but I do know that some moderated NGs
> even state that quoting is unnecessary due to thread-tree views and
> googlegroups archives.

No one but a tedious moron like you would bother with any of that
nonsense. 
After all, it is not as if anyone is saying anything worth looking up.

> In this particular case, I think it was clear enough that we are
> speaking about the utility of helmets in general, and being old
> participants in the debate, I don't see why quoting was necessary.

It is ALWAYS necessary because Usenet is not about old participants having
a 
chat with one another. What is written to Usenet is there for all the
world 
to read. It is just elementary respect to keep this fact permanently in
mind 
when posting a message. Like all the rest of the morons in this world, you

confuse Usenet with email and instant messaging.

>> Sesond, it's dishonest to delete "inconvenient" material to hide
context 
>> and
>> especially content.  In this little thread, Tom made a little crack
about
>> helmets preventing traumatic brain injury and death.  Then in a 
>> follow-up,
>> he DELETED his own remark and only commented on the /death/ aspect, 
>> leading
>> someone reading only that post to think that I or someone else had 
>> claimed
>> that lids prevent fatalities when in fact no one had done any such
thing.
>>
>> I realize that you're incapable of being honest or even analytical
enough 
>> to
>> admit or see that this is true, but there you go.
>
> Wow, you're one ornery toad!  =)

P at W is the former NYC XYZ  (or some such idiotic name) who was forever 
violating all the canons of proper decorum for Usenet. He changes his user

name every few months because he sickens everyone who comes into contact 
with him. Hells Bells, if I were a scalawag like him, I would not use my 
real name either.

> It doesn't sound so "analytical" to me as "anal" (specifically, anal-
> retentive).  Quite besides the point of the discussion...I mean, I can
> allow that someone equally anal-retentive -- okay, anal-y-tical --
> might make the assumption you fear, but such a moron really wasn't
> paying attention anyway...who walks into the middle of a conversation
> without checking the archives for a quick self-briefing, anyway?

Everyone does precisely that! Try to get a clue about how Usenet works why

don't you?

I can assure you that only an ass like you (and Tom Sherman and Jim 
McNamara) would ever be dumb enough to go back to a previous message. That

is already spilt milk. Those of us with brains like Ed Dolan the Great
would 
not be caught dead ever looking up ANYTHING on Usenet. You are probably
just 
stupid enough to look up things in Wikepedia too.

> I seriously doubt even a quarter of casual perusers of usenet would
> mistake Tom's remark for yours.  In any case, you seem to have made
> that the point of contention, like someone nit-picking typos, than the
> original topic about helmets.  It's quite a digression.

Bill is quite correct as always. Either get it right or get lost!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota