If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady [Archive]

ComandanteBanana

01-04-1970, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

"Oh how little you know! Biking is a good means to initiate sexual
activity!"

I don't advocate using a bike as an actual sex object...

"The case of a man convicted of simulating sex with his bicycle has
sparked a debate about human rights and the privacy of an individual.

He was reported by cleaners at a hostel who unlocked his door and
found him engaged in a sex act with his bike.

Stewart was put on the Sex Offenders' Register, which some posters
said was an over-reaction by the sheriff.

Stewart admitted a sexually aggravated breach of the peace by
conducting himself in a disorderly manner and simulating sex. As well
as being put on register for three years, he was put on probation for
the same length of time.

More than a million people have read the story on the BBC news website
and it has been hotly debated on forums elsewhere.

One contributor asked: "Would they have done the same to a woman with
a sex toy?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...st/7098116.stm

Just that biking could be sold better to the masses, the monkeys in my
stories, who would stop trying to imitate the lions and their SUVs.
Monkey see, monkey do...

Timothy Baldwin

01-04-1970, 09:05 AM

In message
<abe34dcf-8c98-48e6-940e-9c37f213d10a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
ComandanteBanana <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady like this
> to ride around town...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6MtWRGW3M&feature=related

She needs to raise the saddle...

ComandanteBanana

01-04-1970, 09:05 AM

On May 2, 12:08*pm, Nat <nata...@fyne.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2 May, 14:46, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady like this
> > to ride around town...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6MtWRGW3M&feature=related
>
> > No speeches about Global Warming or Road Safety would be necessary.
>
> > Actually, she could advertise my T-shirts too...
>
> >http://www.zazzle.com/bike_for_peace_ii_shirt-235363034463138037
>
> I think I could attract ladys to cycling by having a photo of me, 8
> stone in weight, sat eating a sausage butty followed by a large
> chocolate bar!

And then you'd wear a t-shirt that said, "You can eat my sausage!!!"

ComandanteBanana

01-04-1970, 09:05 AM

Sincerely, guys, I think you are riding the wrong saddles that leave
you, you know with ED (impotence).

In this other forum, look what they say to the question,

"Are you in favor of using sex to sell biking?"

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=414469

Yep, 85% of them think is good.

The good news is that if you change the seat, it should be all right.
Look for the ones with the groove. ;)

ComandanteBanana

01-04-1970, 09:06 AM

On May 2, 1:04*pm, "victor....@gmail.com" <victor....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 2, 9:46 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If I were to promote the benefits of biking, I'd put a lady like this
> > to ride around town...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6MtWRGW3M&feature=related
>
> Kinda like this?
>
> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf

I can already read the promotion: "Put something fun between your
legs"... (the bike)

http://www.sexydeanna.com/samples/deanna033_052.jpg

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 09:06 AM

=v= In response to a rather nice advert:

http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf

Don Quixote a.k.a. No Lion No Problem a.k.a. Commandante Banana
responded with Internet porn. Way to go, Commandante Dip****.
Not only are you a fearmongering idiot, but you're a pathetic
sexist porn-consumer.
<_Jym_>

[I removed rec.bicycles.rides because this thread has nothing to
do with the charter of that newsgroup. Honoring a newsgroup's
charter is the most rudimentary courtesy on Usenet, which Don
Quixote apparently lacks the necessary brainpower to grasp.]

ComandanteBanana

01-04-1970, 09:06 AM

On May 3, 2:26 am, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>
> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>
> Don Quixote a.k.a. No Lion No Problem a.k.a. Commandante Banana
> responded with Internet porn. Way to go, Commandante Dip****.
> Not only are you a fearmongering idiot, but you're a pathetic
> sexist porn-consumer.
> <_Jym_>
>
> [I removed rec.bicycles.rides because this thread has nothing to
> do with the charter of that newsgroup. Honoring a newsgroup's
> charter is the most rudimentary courtesy on Usenet, which Don
> Quixote apparently lacks the necessary brainpower to grasp.]

If you are afraid of sex or bikes, you shouldn't go to Holland. But
this is NOT porno. This is a sexy lady on a bike. Yummy!

Hey, but even in hypocritical America, Big Business uses sex to
sell...

"In the case of SUV consumers, the auto company marketers start by
implanting the subliminal message you can be tough, independent and
SEXY..."

'To sell a product (like an SUV) ad campaigns repeat a message over
and over again in seductive way that appeals to a target audience, and
like it or not people are not immune to it. Advertising like political
propaganda is the art of getting people to believe a crafted message
and advertisers know what buttons to push, kind of like how the
Taliban brain washed their followers into believing that the United
States is the enemy of Islam or how Nazi propaganda was able to put
Hitler in power. So to some degree consumers of SUVs, followers of the
Taliban and Nazi party, all have something in common and that is they
all were fooled into buying bull****!

In the case of SUV consumers, the auto company marketers start by
implanting the subliminal message you can be tough, independent and
SEXY, if ya buy and drive our brand of SUV. Notice many ads show an
SUV in a wilderness, the H2 ads show it off roading in Iceland (the
viewer is shown beautiful people conquering nature and having fun). In
some National Geographic print ads for Toyota, they show back packers
with their SUVs in the wilderness, with the slogan “oh what a
feeling.” The basic idea of an auto company ad campaign is to
associate driving their SUV with the idea of being SEXY, tough and
independent. The tough and independent image of driving an SUV is
further reinforced by the name of the vehicle (Path Finder, Trail
Blazer, Mountaineer, Escape, Explorer, Expedition, etc.). Constant
exposure to slick ads fools people into thinking they can “walk the
walk” of being independent and tough just by buying the SUV shown in
the idealized dreamland of advertisers. If you do not think SUV
propaganda effects the consumer, then ask your self is it just a
coincidence that SUVs became trendy after SUV advertising rose nearly
nine-fold from $172.5 million in 1990 to $1.5 billion in 2000.'

http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/suv_review_why_they_suck.html

And when you go to any auto show you find these stunning ladies
selling the stupid SUVs in scanty cloth. SEX SELLS, you know.

So, I don't see why not the Banana Revolution can't use sexy ladies
and bananas to sell biking. Yeah, banana... ;)

"Sexual democracy becomes central even more than religious freedom
when discussing the Dutch vision of democracy."

http://www.bidoun.com/issues/issue_10/05a_all.html

Actually, I propose a "Dutch Package," where issues normal to the
Dutch --gay rights, bike facilities, prostitution and marihuana-- are
discussed in less open societies.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:09 AM

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>
> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>
It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a foam
bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the much more
safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians) generally do
not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the racer types.

> Don Quixote a.k.a. No Lion No Problem a.k.a. Commandante Banana
> responded with Internet porn. Way to go, Commandante Dip****.
> Not only are you a fearmongering idiot, but you're a pathetic
> sexist porn-consumer.

Don Quixote aka No Lion No Problem aka Commandante Banana is likely
afraid of his own shadow while cycling, even if wearing a motorcycle helmet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jens Müller

01-04-1970, 09:10 AM

Tom Sherman schrieb:
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>>
>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>
> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a foam
> bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling.

Of course it isn't. Only MDs, helmet producers and politicians say so.

> Oh wait, the much more
> safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians) generally do
> not wear the foam hats while cycling,

Exactly. Apart from some politicians when the press is there. "Because
of the kids", you know ...

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:10 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Jym Dyer wrote:
> > =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
> > http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >
> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
> racer types.

When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.

Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

GeneralissimoApeshit

01-04-1970, 09:10 AM

On May 3, 5:54 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a foam
> bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the much more
> safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians) generally do
> not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the racer types.

With all those dangerous Dutch women running around, not to mention
those genital-crushing bicycle seats that former-Commandante Banana is
going on about, there is a clear need for crotch helmets. Kind of
like an atheletic supporter padded with microfoam.

Fear the lion. Fear females. Listen to your Generalissimo.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:10 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>
>> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
>> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
>> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
>> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
>> racer types.
>
> When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
> with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
> meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
> but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
>
> Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
>
Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on it. Are
they just ranting also? Sheesh!

When opening the link, you should get an Adobe® Clip Notes® video window
that plays a commercial for "The Spin Cycle" which is a bicycle shop in
Cary, NC. In the video, the woman cyclist featured is NOT wearing a foam
bicycle hat (but the Lycra® wearing roadie hitting on her is).

The link works in Firefox 2.0.0.14.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jens Müller

01-04-1970, 09:11 AM

Tom Sherman schrieb:
> When opening the link, you should get an Adobe® Clip Notes® video window

Yes. It complains that no Windows Media Player is installed on my
system. What a surprise ...

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:11 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Jym Dyer wrote:
> >>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
> >>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >>>
> >> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
> >> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
> >> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
> >> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
> >> racer types.
> > When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
> > with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
> > meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
> > but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
> > Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
> >
> Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on
> it. Are they just ranting also? Sheesh!

Don't know about Victor Kan (never having read his posts) but Jym Dyer,
unlike you, doesn't have an anti-helmet agenda.

> When opening the link, you should get an AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® video
> window that plays a commercial for "The Spin Cycle" which is a bicycle
> shop in Cary, NC. In the video, the woman cyclist featured is NOT
> wearing a foam bicycle hat (but the LycraÂ® wearing roadie hitting on
> her is).
>
> The link works in Firefox 2.0.0.14.

I'm running the lastest firefox available on the particular Linux
distribution I'm using, and it starts "evince" as a PDF viewer. It
didn't show anything meaningful.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 09:11 AM

=v= You know, changing the Subject: line to the most
filtered-out topic in rec.bicycles.* history and ranting
about file download formats is perhaps the best way to
end up not being read. Must be some sort of reverse
psychology going on here. :^)
<_Jym_>

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:12 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
>>>> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
>>>> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
>>>> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
>>>> racer types.
>>> When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
>>> with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
>>> meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
>>> but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
>>> Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
>>>
>> Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on
>> it. Are they just ranting also? Sheesh!
>
> Don't know about Victor Kan (never having read his posts) but Jym Dyer,
> unlike you, doesn't have an anti-helmet agenda.
>
Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
webpage, does it now?

I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape protection.

>> When opening the link, you should get an AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® video
>> window that plays a commercial for "The Spin Cycle" which is a bicycle
>> shop in Cary, NC. In the video, the woman cyclist featured is NOT
>> wearing a foam bicycle hat (but the LycraÂ® wearing roadie hitting on
>> her is).
>>
>> The link works in Firefox 2.0.0.14.
>
> I'm running the lastest firefox available on the particular Linux
> distribution I'm using, and it starts "evince" as a PDF viewer. It
> didn't show anything meaningful.
>
You are the computer expert with the best system - you tell me why the
link is not working. My guess [1] is that since it asks for Windows
Media Player, it may not be Linux compatible.

[1] n.b.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:12 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
> >>>>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
> >>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
> >>>> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
> >>>> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
> >>>> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
> >>>> racer types.
> >>> When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
> >>> with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
> >>> meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
> >>> but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
> >>> Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
> >>>
> >> Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on
> >> it. Are they just ranting also? Sheesh!
> > Don't know about Victor Kan (never having read his posts) but Jym
> > Dyer,
> > unlike you, doesn't have an anti-helmet agenda.
> >
> Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
> webpage, does it now?

It has a lot to do with you just ranting as I said (listing that as a
possibility).
>
> I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
> agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape
> protection.

Oh please.

> > I'm running the lastest firefox available on the particular Linux
> > distribution I'm using, and it starts "evince" as a PDF viewer. It
> > didn't show anything meaningful.
> >
> You are the computer expert with the best system - you tell me why the
> link is not working. My guess [1] is that since it asks for Windows
> Media Player, it may not be Linux compatible.

This may surprise you, but I have better things to do with my time than
try to figure out what went wrong with something claiming to be a
PDF file (and my PDF viewer did not ask for Windows Media Player or an
equivalent).

It is well known that Adobe has been fiddling with new version of PDF
for (I presume) business reasons and has recently purchased
Macromedia, and it wouldn't be surprising if working towards
integrating these two products is part of the reason for the frequent
revisions. Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business
thing.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>> =v= In response to a rather nice advert:
>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is nice to see that someone is sensible enough to realize that a
>>>>>> foam bicycle hat is NOT necessary for utility cycling. Oh wait, the
>>>>>> much more safety conscious northern Europeans (relative to USians)
>>>>>> generally do not wear the foam hats while cycling, except for the
>>>>>> racer types.
>>>>> When I looked at the PDF file, it showed some sort of screen snapshot
>>>>> with large black areas and some tiny yellow icons. It was completely
>>>>> meaningless. Maybe there was something my PDF viewer didn't recognize,
>>>>> but nothing I saw had anything to do with helmets.
>>>>> Is Sherman imagining things or just ranting?
>>>>>
>>>> Yo Zaumem - Victor Kan posted the link and Jym Dyer commented on
>>>> it. Are they just ranting also? Sheesh!
>>> Don't know about Victor Kan (never having read his posts) but Jym
>>> Dyer,
>>> unlike you, doesn't have an anti-helmet agenda.
>>>
>> Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
>> webpage, does it now?
>
> It has a lot to do with you just ranting as I said (listing that as a
> possibility).

Oh please yourself. WTF does my alleged agenda have to do with someone
not being able to view a video clip on a posted link? That is sub Mikey
V. logic. Sheesh!

>> I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
>> agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape
>> protection.
>
> Oh please.
>
So despite all the properly performed population studies revealing NO
benefit to h*lm*t use in reducing severe head injuries and deaths with
increased bicycle foam hat use, you still imagine that lids have magical
protective properties?

>>> I'm running the lastest firefox available on the particular Linux
>>> distribution I'm using, and it starts "evince" as a PDF viewer. It
>>> didn't show anything meaningful.
>>>
>> You are the computer expert with the best system - you tell me why the
>> link is not working. My guess [1] is that since it asks for Windows
>> Media Player, it may not be Linux compatible.
>
> This may surprise you, but I have better things to do with my time than
> try to figure out what went wrong with something claiming to be a
> PDF file (and my PDF viewer did not ask for Windows Media Player or an
> equivalent).
>
> It is well known that Adobe has been fiddling with new version of PDF
> for (I presume) business reasons and has recently purchased
> Macromedia, and it wouldn't be surprising if working towards
> integrating these two products is part of the reason for the frequent
> revisions.

Adobe® Clip Notes® as I posted above?

> Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
>
No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!

So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:

(Infantile name calling from an idiot.)

> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
> >> webpage, does it now?
> > It has a lot to do with you just ranting as I said (listing that as a
> > possibility).
>
> Oh please yourself. WTF does my alleged agenda have to do with someone
> not being able to view a video clip on a posted link? That is sub
> Mikey V. logic. Sheesh!

When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.

> >> I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
> >> agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape
> >> protection.
> > Oh please.
> >
> So despite all the properly performed population studies revealing NO
> benefit to h*lm*t use in reducing severe head injuries and deaths with
> increased bicycle foam hat use, you still imagine that lids have
> magical protective properties?

"Lids", "magical protective properties" (that I never mentioned)? Yep,
saying you have an agenda is pretty damn accurate. If you don't want
to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.

> > It is well known that Adobe has been fiddling with new version of PDF
> > for (I presume) business reasons and has recently purchased
> > Macromedia, and it wouldn't be surprising if working towards
> > integrating these two products is part of the reason for the frequent
> > revisions.
>
> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?

The file's extension ended in .pdf, so ...
>
> > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
> >
> No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
>
> So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)

Sherman, you are a complete and utter idiot - its the only term that
describes what one would assume from your posts.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> >>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf

> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?

Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:

Status: 200 OK
....
Content-Type: application/pdf
....
Content-Length: 2090466

Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
as a PDF file?

Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
>
Merely an accurate description, no?

>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Which has nothing at all to do whether a video link can be viewed on a
>>>> webpage, does it now?
>>> It has a lot to do with you just ranting as I said (listing that as a
>>> possibility).
>> Oh please yourself. WTF does my alleged agenda have to do with someone
>> not being able to view a video clip on a posted link? That is sub
>> Mikey V. logic. Sheesh!
>
> When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.
>
butbutbut, the items in questions are hats made from foam!!!

>>>> I do not have an anti-helmet agenda, I have an anti-misinformation
>>>> agenda. Bicycle foam hats can provide useful bump and scrape
>>>> protection.
>>> Oh please.
>>>
>> So despite all the properly performed population studies revealing NO
>> benefit to h*lm*t use in reducing severe head injuries and deaths with
>> increased bicycle foam hat use, you still imagine that lids have
>> magical protective properties?
>
> "Lids", "magical protective properties" (that I never mentioned)? Yep,
> saying you have an agenda is pretty damn accurate. If you don't want
> to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.
>
Well, the alleged protective qualities of bicycle foam hats must be
magical, since there is no rational explanation.

>>> It is well known that Adobe has been fiddling with new version of PDF
>>> for (I presume) business reasons and has recently purchased
>>> Macromedia, and it wouldn't be surprising if working towards
>>> integrating these two products is part of the reason for the frequent
>>> revisions.
>> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
>
> The file's extension ended in .pdf, so ...

And...

>>> Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
>>>
>> No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
>>
>> So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)
>
> Sherman, you are a complete and utter idiot - its the only term that
> describes what one would assume from your posts.
>
I see Zaumen does not react well to disagreement. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

frkrygow@gmail.com

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

On May 3, 11:06 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
>
> When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.
> ...
>
> "Lids", "magical protective properties" ... If you don't want
> to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.

Or in other words: Tom, stop thy blaspheming! Thou shalt use only
the proper, sacred language when referring to the revered headpiece!

Likewise, thou shalt not use science to examine the effects of the
revered head covering! Such is the way of the devil, you heretic!

;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
> >
> Merely an accurate description, no?

Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.

<rest of this idiot's rant snipped>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>
>> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
>
> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>
> Status: 200 OK
> ...
> Content-Type: application/pdf
> ...
> Content-Length: 2090466
>
> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
> as a PDF file?
>
> Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.
>
Yo Zaumen,

My browser also opens the link as a PDF.

When I go to the link, it says "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" right above the
black box displayed on the page.

Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe Clip
Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add comments...."

Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.

To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with the
web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool, since
everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of AdobeÂ®
Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.

So who is the fool here?

Better luck next time. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >
> >> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
> > Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
> > that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
> > Status: 200 OK
> > ...
> > Content-Type: application/pdf
> > ...
> > Content-Length: 2090466
> > Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
> > extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
> > do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
> > as a PDF file?
> > Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.
> >
> Yo Zaumen,
>
> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>
> When I go to the link, it says "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" right above the
> black box displayed on the page.

There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
when you aren't using Adobe products?

> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
> comments...."

..... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
like everyone else's.

> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.

.... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
doesn't tell you.

> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,

No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
it if you are not familiar with the concept.

Sherman, you really are an idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On May 3, 11:06 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>
>> When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.
>> ...
>>
>> "Lids", "magical protective properties" ... If you don't want
>> to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.
>
> Or in other words: Tom, stop thy blaspheming! Thou shalt use only
> the proper, sacred language when referring to the revered headpiece!
>
> Likewise, thou shalt not use science to examine the effects of the
> revered head covering! Such is the way of the devil, you heretic!
>
butbutbut, it is fun to have the Liddites foam at the mouth! :)

It is refreshing to see a US bicycle dealer promote utility cycling,
showing someone without a foam hat and a load of groceries:
<http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf> [1]. However,
the "hi... hi" dialog is beyond cheesy.

[1] Link may not work for Linux or Mac users.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:13 AM

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On May 3, 11:06 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> >
> > When you use terms like "foam hats", your agenda is pretty damn obvious.
> > ...
> >
> > "Lids", "magical protective properties" ... If you don't want
> > to give that impression, you should cut out the loaded language.
>
> Or in other words: Tom, stop thy blaspheming! Thou shalt use only
> the proper, sacred language when referring to the revered headpiece!

Krygowksi, your sleazy tactics are as transparent and infantile as
Tom Sherman's. Maybe sometime you will actually have something
sensible to say, but I've yet to see a post from you where you
haven't tried to play childish games.

<snip>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Rob Lindauer

01-04-1970, 09:14 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:

> It is refreshing to see a US bicycle dealer promote utility cycling,
> showing someone without a foam hat and a load of groceries:
> <http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf> [1]. However,
> the "hi... hi" dialog is beyond cheesy.
>
> [1] Link may not work for Linux or Mac users.
>

Nor for those of us who refuse to use the bloated, invasive,
security-challenged Adobe Reader (as opposed, say, to Foxit).

--
Rob Lindauer - Please change "att" to "sbc" for my real email address

GeneralissimoApeshit

01-04-1970, 09:14 AM

On May 4, 8:31 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you are afraid of sex or bikes, you shouldn't go to Holland

Of course I'm afraid of bikes because, just like you, I fear THE LION!
THE LION! THE LION! EEK!!!

> And when you go to any auto show you find these stunning ladies
> selling the stupid SUVs in scanty cloth. SEX SELLS, you know.

SEX KILLS, you know.

CommandanteBanana, I am shocked at your lack of vigilance. Don't you
realize that females are dangerous? Which lions are the hunters? THE
FEMALES! The safest course by far is to stay at home instead of biking
and stay tuned to Usenet for more fear warnings. That way you'll
never be hit by cars and you'll never meet females, either.

You are hereby demoted from Commandante. I, on the other hand, have
been promoted for embracing this campaign of fear to the utmost.

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 09:14 AM

Don Quixote a.k.a. Loon = Problem writes:

> If you are afraid of sex or bikes, you shouldn't go to
> Holland.

=v= You're the fearful one, remember? I don't fear sex or
bikes, and I've enjoyed visiting Holland.

> But this is NOT porno. This is a sexy lady on a bike. Yummy!

=v= The "sample photo" you linked to on the sexy[sic]deanna.com
is most definitely porn. It does nothing to promote bicycling;
its entire purpose is to promote the porn site itself.

=v= Although there is a bicycle in this particular photo, the
woman is clearly not a bicyclist (nor is she Dutch), as we can
tell just by looking at the state of her legs.
<_Jym_>

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:15 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
>>>
>> Merely an accurate description, no?
>
> Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.
>
> <rest of this idiot's rant snipped>
>
Anger management issues?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:15 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
>>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
>>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>>> Status: 200 OK
>>> ...
>>> Content-Type: application/pdf
>>> ...
>>> Content-Length: 2090466
>>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
>>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
>>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
>>> as a PDF file?
>>> Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.
>>>
>> Yo Zaumen,
>>
>> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>>
>> When I go to the link, it says "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" right above the
>> black box displayed on the page.
>
> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>
You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
nature or lack thereof.
>
>> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
>> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
>> comments...."
>
> .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.

Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).

> You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
> like everyone else's.
>
I have not examined other people systems.

How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.

>> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
>> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
>
> ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
> doesn't tell you.
>
So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
system. Duh!

Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
appearing on the screen. Duh!

>> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>
> No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
> for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
> it if you are not familiar with the concept.
>
No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying AdobeÂ®
Clip NotesÂ® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.

You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
you think it should not have happened. Duh!

> Sherman, you really are an idiot.
>
Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
assumptions? WOW!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Norman Wilson

01-04-1970, 09:15 AM

Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>when you aren't using Adobe products?

Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
Manuals.

If the full specification has also been published by the IETF
I'd be interested to know where.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:15 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Liddite Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> (Infantile name calling from an idiot.)
> >>>
> >> Merely an accurate description, no?
> > Of you - and your behavior truly is infantile.
> > <rest of this idiot's rant snipped>
> >
> Anger management issues?

No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
with infantile name calling.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:15 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
> >>>> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
> >>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
> >>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
> >>> Status: 200 OK
> >>> ...
> >>> Content-Type: application/pdf
> >>> ...
> >>> Content-Length: 2090466
> >>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
> >>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
> >>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
> >>> as a PDF file?
> >>> Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.
> >>>
> >> Yo Zaumen,
> >>
> >> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
> >>
> >> When I go to the link, it says "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" right above the
> >> black box displayed on the page.
> > There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> > modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> > the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> > when you aren't using Adobe products?
> >
> You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
> nature or lack thereof.

You made a fool of yourself by posting a reply that showed your lack
of understanding of what I said.

> >
> >> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
> >> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
> >> comments...."
> > .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
>
> Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).

.... which is an accident.
>
> > You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
> > like everyone else's.
> >
> I have not examined other people systems.
>
> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.

You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
should have seen the same thing.
>
> >> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
> >> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
> > ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
> > doesn't tell you.
> >
> So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
> system. Duh!

Are you really that clueless.

> Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
> appearing on the screen. Duh!

Whe cares what Adobe's software "says" when some of us aren't using
Adobe products?
>
> >> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> >> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
> > No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
> > for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
> > it if you are not familiar with the concept.
> >
> No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying AdobeÂ®
> Clip NotesÂ® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
> by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.

.... no, *you* made a fool of yourself by assuming that people's system
should run Adobe's viewer to handle a particular MIME type,
"application/pdf". That MIME type is not owned by Adobe.

> You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
> you think it should not have happened. Duh!
>
> > Sherman, you really are an idiot.
> >
> Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
> idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
> assumptions? WOW!

.... your assumptions and statements were idiotic in spite of your
current attempt to pretend you said something else.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

GeneralissimoApeshit

01-04-1970, 09:17 AM

> "Are you in favor of using sex to sell biking?"
>
> http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=414469
>
> Yep, 85% of them think is good.

Including this guy:

<http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/05/07/
hunt-for-bicycle-flasher-100252-20871513/>

No need to fear him. He's not a female hunter.

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:17 AM

norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson) writes:

> Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net>:
> >There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
> >modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
> >the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
> >when you aren't using Adobe products?
>
> Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
> 3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
> rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
> separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
> Manuals.

That's the one - but keep in mind the title: "The application/pdf
Media Type", and that it states

This document is intended to provide updated information on
the registration of the MIME Media Type "application/pdf",
with particular focus on the features that help mitigate
security concerns. This document refers to features
documented in the PDF References versions 1 [1], 1.3 [2], 1.4
[3] and 1.5 [4], as updated by errata [5].

where the citations are to specific documents published by Adobe.
They just didn't go to the trouble of copying the existing Adobe
documents into the RFC verbatim - a waste of effort.

You can't expect software developers to figure out what to do with
a MIME type of the specification of that type can be changed at
will without updating the specification for what that MIME type
represents.

Sherman was complaining about what my software was doing - and that
software apparently worked correctly - it found an application that
could handle the MIME type defined in RFC 3778. It's just that the
document format did not match the MIME type.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf
>>>>>> AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® as I posted above?
>>>>> Oh, just to show what a fool Tom Sherman is, I used a program I have
>>>>> that prints the HTTP response headers. Here's what you get:
>>>>> Status: 200 OK
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Type: application/pdf
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Content-Length: 2090466
>>>>> Note the Content-Type header - it claims the file is a PDF file. The
>>>>> extension ".pdf" is the extension normally used by a PDF file. So,
>>>>> do you think it is surprising that my browser would try to open it
>>>>> as a PDF file?
>>>>> Nothing about some special "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" format was given.
>>>>>
>>>> Yo Zaumen,
>>>>
>>>> My browser also opens the link as a PDF.
>>>>
>>>> When I go to the link, it says "AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ®" right above the
>>>> black box displayed on the page.
>>> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>>> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>>> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>>> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>>>
>> You are the expert, no? I made no previous comment on the surprising
>> nature or lack thereof.
>
> You made a fool of yourself by posting a reply that showed your lack
> of understanding of what I said.
>
Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.

Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?

>>>> Furthermore, the dialog box that appears says, "This PDF uses Adobe
>>>> Clip Notes technology to allow you to review a movie and to add
>>>> comments...."
>>> .... nope - no such dialog box appears - not with my PDF viewer.
>> Well it does on mine (actually in the PDF window Firefox opens).
>
> ... which is an accident.

Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.

>>> You showed your ignorance on that one - assuming your system behaves
>>> like everyone else's.
>>>
>> I have not examined other people systems.
>>
>> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
>> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.
>
> You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
> should have seen the same thing.

Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do not
project that onto everyone else.

>>>> Then player controls and a box to allow review comments appears below
>>>> the "black box" that allows one to play the video clip.
>>> ... same thing ... new adobe product that "extends" a standard but
>>> doesn't tell you.
>>>
>> So? Again for slow on the uptake, I am reporting on what happens on MY
>> system. Duh!
>
> Are you really that clueless.
>
I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can observe
myself? WOW!

>> Adobe tells us the Clip Notes is being used by the logo and dialog box
>> appearing on the screen. Duh!
>
> Whe cares what Adobe's software "says" when some of us aren't using
> Adobe products?

We were discussing what is actually on the web page in question. I am
reporting actual observations of things that Zaumen is denying the
possibility of since his secondary sources do not show it to be there.
Hardly a scientific approach, eh?

>>>> To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>>>> the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>>> No, you are are the fool. I simply don't bother with Adobe's viewer
>>> for a variety of reasons, including package management. Read up on
>>> it if you are not familiar with the concept.
>>>
>> No Zaumen, you are a fool for claiming I was a fool for saying AdobeÂ®
>> Clip NotesÂ® was involved, when the evidence of such is easily obtained
>> by anyone who system has Adobe's viewer installed.
>
> ... no, *you* made a fool of yourself by assuming that people's system
> should run Adobe's viewer to handle a particular MIME type,
> "application/pdf". That MIME type is not owned by Adobe.
>
Again, am I a fool for reporting what is actually there, rather than
what Zaumen believes should be there but has no evidence to prove it?

>> You can not make an event that actually occurred go away just because
>> you think it should not have happened. Duh!
>>
>>> Sherman, you really are an idiot.
>>>
>> Accurately reporting what appears on a computer monitor is a sign of
>> idiocy, just because it disagrees with The Great Bill Zaumen's
>> assumptions? WOW!
>
> ... your assumptions and statements were idiotic in spite of your
> current attempt to pretend you said something else.
>
Yes, real world observations are idiotic when they contradict the
assumptions of The Great Zaumen.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >> Anger management issues?
> > No, time-management issues. If you want your posts to not
> > be treated as utter garbage, I suggest you not start them
> > with infantile name calling.
> >
> In this case the term is merely descriptive, or does Mr. Zaumen deny
> he believes foam bicycle headgear to provide significant protection
> against serious head injury?

As I said, if you your posts to not be treated as utter garbage, I
suggest you not start them with infantile name calling as you did
in the posts I complained about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson) writes:
>
>> Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>> There is an RFC describing the PDF format. Adobe is going around
>>> modifying it for business reasons, and those changes are not in
>>> the standard. Is it any surprise that something doesn't work
>>> when you aren't using Adobe products?
>> Can you cite the RFC number? The nearest I can find is RFC
>> 3778, which is by no means a full description of the format;
>> rather it offers a few notes on usage and a pointer to the
>> separately-published (by Adobe, not by the IETF) PDF Reference
>> Manuals.
>
> That's the one - but keep in mind the title: "The application/pdf
> Media Type", and that it states
>
> This document is intended to provide updated information on
> the registration of the MIME Media Type "application/pdf",
> with particular focus on the features that help mitigate
> security concerns. This document refers to features
> documented in the PDF References versions 1 [1], 1.3 [2], 1.4
> [3] and 1.5 [4], as updated by errata [5].
>
> where the citations are to specific documents published by Adobe.
> They just didn't go to the trouble of copying the existing Adobe
> documents into the RFC verbatim - a waste of effort.
>
> You can't expect software developers to figure out what to do with
> a MIME type of the specification of that type can be changed at
> will without updating the specification for what that MIME type
> represents.
>
> Sherman was complaining about what my software was doing - and that
> software apparently worked correctly - it found an application that
> could handle the MIME type defined in RFC 3778. It's just that the
> document format did not match the MIME type.
>
Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
care less what it does and what is does not.

Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
an apology on this matter.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

In article <fvm44u$mqh$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> They must think you are crazy for
> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.

I think you're both crazy.

But that's okay; so am I.

I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
both sides of the never-ending argument.

I'd rather instead direct my energies toward needling
the r.a.d. dickheads.

They deserve us, more than we deserve each other.
And that's sayin' sumpthin'.

meow,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
> first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
> no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.

Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no surprise
since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
when absolutely nothing is going on.

> Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
> better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
> believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?

Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser what
to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
different file extentions.

>
> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.

So what?

>
> >> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
> >> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.
> > You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
> > should have seen the same thing.
>
> Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
> system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do
> not project that onto everyone else.

The web site reported a file type that was misleading.

> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
> observe myself? WOW!

Sherman, you are an idiot.
<rest of this moron's post snipped>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

In article <fvm4ah$mqh$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
> an apology on this matter.

I deeply regret having caused any offense, and I sincerely
assure you that no offense toward anybody was intended on
my part. I like people, and I like for people to be happy.
It is against my own lights to cause undue unhappiness, and
whenever I've done so, I've failed.

The trick to dealing with a Jewish mom who guilts you out
is to guilt /her/ out, right back, in a way that tugs at
her heartstrings. Then you can apologize yer way out of
practically anything. Except that seed of self-respect
and dignity she planted in you keeps naggin' at you, so
you really can't let yourself get away with anything.
Damn!

It's easier to beg for foregiveness than to ask permission.

You wanted an apology? Now you've got it. But don't have
too-high expectations of namuaZ lliB.

Anyways, have a good day. I hope everything goes your way.
I mean that for everybody. Despite my needling of certain
characters in rec.autos.driving, I pretty much like everybody.
After 57 years in this Vale of Tears, that's the main thing
I've learned. Boy, am I ever stoopid! After 57 years, that's
/all/ I come away with? Oh, well.

Bless y'all. Be nice to one another. Share the love.
Render apologies redundant.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
> care less what it does and what is does not.
>
> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
> an apology on this matter.

Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
(see Message ID <fvj5e5$b92$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

:: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
:: >
:: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
::
:; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)

I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
with (see Message ID <fvjaet$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

: To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
: the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
:since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
: AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.

You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
"apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
when told off because of it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <fvm44u$mqh$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> They must think you are crazy for
>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>
> I think you're both crazy.
>
> But that's okay; so am I.
>
Are you crazy enough to see a video at this link of a woman riding a
city bike with a pannier full of groceries but no helmet?
<http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf>

A common scene in Europe, but extraordinary in the US.

> I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
> issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
> both sides of the never-ending argument.
>
No one besides a few nuts are suggesting that bicycle foam hats be
banned. Many are suggesting that they be made mandatory, or at least the
cyclists be penalized in some way for not wearing a foam hat. The
distinction is important.

> I'd rather instead direct my energies toward needling
> the r.a.d. dickheads.
>
Cross-posted flame wars are always fun.

> They deserve us, more than we deserve each other.
> And that's sayin' sumpthin'.
>

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Norman Wilson

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Keats <tkeats@2005.hotmail.com>:
>I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
>issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
>both sides of the never-ending argument.

I tend to agree. I've never found a source of beeswax
I really like for the purpose, though. Where do you
get yours?

So far as I know there is no IETF RFC describing beeswax,
nor even an application/beeswax MIME type.

A mind is a terrible thing to wax,

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'.

Tom Keats

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

In article <fvm6n0$aj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <fvm44u$mqh$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> They must think you are crazy for
>>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>>
>> I think you're both crazy.
>>
>> But that's okay; so am I.
>>
> Are you crazy enough to see a video at this link of a woman riding a
> city bike with a pannier full of groceries but no helmet?
> <http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf>
>
> A common scene in Europe, but extraordinary in the US.

I've been doing that fairly regularly.

>> I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
>> issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
>> both sides of the never-ending argument.
>>
> No one besides a few nuts are suggesting that bicycle foam hats be
> banned. Many are suggesting that they be made mandatory, or at least the
> cyclists be penalized in some way for not wearing a foam hat. The
> distinction is important.

I've been letting my hair grow out (again.)
I'm inflicted with hair that grows fatter
before it gets longer. So I've got this
leonine mane. It feels pretty good to have
air flowing through my thick follicules.

But I also live in a MHL area. I have to
intuit when the cops are gonna enforce the
law, and when I can get away with it.
So sometimes I wear the damn'd thing, and
sometimes I don't. IIRC the ticket for
not wearing my egg carton hat could cost
me $185.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:19 AM

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <fvm6n0$aj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> In article <fvm44u$mqh$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> They must think you are crazy for
>>>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>>> I think you're both crazy.
>>>
>>> But that's okay; so am I.
>>>
>> Are you crazy enough to see a video at this link of a woman riding a
>> city bike with a pannier full of groceries but no helmet?
>> <http://www.thespincycle.com/files/2006LoriCommercial.pdf>
>>
>> A common scene in Europe, but extraordinary in the US.
>
> I've been doing that fairly regularly.
>
>>> I've found that the trick to dealing with the helmet
>>> issue is to mind one's own beeswax. That works for
>>> both sides of the never-ending argument.
>>>
>> No one besides a few nuts are suggesting that bicycle foam hats be
>> banned. Many are suggesting that they be made mandatory, or at least the
>> cyclists be penalized in some way for not wearing a foam hat. The
>> distinction is important.
>
> I've been letting my hair grow out (again.)
> I'm inflicted with hair that grows fatter
> before it gets longer. So I've got this
> leonine mane. It feels pretty good to have
> air flowing through my thick follicules.
>
> But I also live in a MHL area. I have to
> intuit when the cops are gonna enforce the
> law, and when I can get away with it.
> So sometimes I wear the damn'd thing, and
> sometimes I don't. IIRC the ticket for
> not wearing my egg carton hat could cost
> me $185.
>
That is a ridiculously high fine. Wait a minute, ANY fine for not
wearing a foam hat is ridiculous.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:20 AM

Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= You know, changing the Subject: line to the most
> filtered-out topic in rec.bicycles.* history and ranting
> about file download formats is perhaps the best way to
> end up not being read. Must be some sort of reverse
> psychology going on here. :^)

I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet discussions. As
for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just having a friendly
discussion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jym Dyer

01-04-1970, 09:23 AM

> I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet
> discussions.

=v= That part's fine. Fair enough.

> As for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just having
> a friendly discussion.

=v= Tedious crap. He's actually absolutely right about the
format of that advert, though. Someone should convert it to
a .flv file and put it on YouTube.
<_Jym_>

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:23 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Jym Dyer wrote:
> > =v= You know, changing the Subject: line to the most
> > filtered-out topic in rec.bicycles.* history and ranting
> > about file download formats is perhaps the best way to
> > end up not being read. Must be some sort of reverse
> > psychology going on here. :^)
>
> I believe it is only fair to warn people off from helmet
> discussions. As for my conversation with Bill Zaumen, we are just
> having a friendly discussion.

Another lie on Sherman's part (or is he simply out of touch with
reality, which would be no surprise).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
>> care less what it does and what is does not.
>>
>> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
>> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
>> an apology on this matter.
>
> Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
> what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
> fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
> (see Message ID <fvj5e5$b92$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>
> :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
> :: >
> :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
> ::
> :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)
>
Problem with understanding humor, eh?

> I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
> with (see Message ID <fvjaet$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>
> : To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> : the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
> :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
> : AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.
>
> You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
> "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
> when told off because of it.
>
What whining - do I sense some projection here?

Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with him.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
> >> care less what it does and what is does not.
> >>
> >> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
> >> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
> >> an apology on this matter.
> > Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
> > what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
> > fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
> > (see Message ID <fvj5e5$b92$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
> > :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
> > :: >
> > :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
> > ::
> > :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)
> >
> Problem with understanding humor, eh?
>
> > I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
> > with (see Message ID <fvjaet$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
> > : To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
> > : the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
> > :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
> > : AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.
> > You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
> > "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
> > when told off because of it.
> >
> What whining - do I sense some projection here?
>
> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with
> him.

Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
>> first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
>> no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>
> Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no surprise
> since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
> I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
> well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
> when absolutely nothing is going on.
>
Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
sense here.

Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said was
on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
ranting?" Duh.

>> Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
>> better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
>> believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?
>
> Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser what
> to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
> is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
> different file extentions.
>
>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>
> So what?
>
So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If I
had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?

>>>> How the hell can it be ignorant to report exactly what one sees?
>>>> Zaumen's lack of logic here is truly bizarre.
>>> You weren't just reporting what you saw - you were implying that I
>>> should have seen the same thing.
>> Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
>> system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do
>> not project that onto everyone else.
>
> The web site reported a file type that was misleading.
>
So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.

>> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
>> observe myself? WOW!
>
> Sherman, you are an idiot.
> <rest of this moron's post snipped>
>
Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
> >> first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
> >> no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
> >> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
> > Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no
> > surprise
> > since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
> > I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
> > well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
> > when absolutely nothing is going on.
> >
> Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
> sense here.

You misquoted me, *******.
>
> Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said
> was on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
> ranting?" Duh.

That was a perfectly valid question - you were either imagining the
video, but if it was there (and I specifically stated that my PDF
viewer did not show it), then you were obviously ranting -you usually
rant when the thought of a bicycle helmet enters your head.
>
> >> Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
> >> better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
> >> believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?
> > Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser
> > what
> > to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
> > is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
> > different file extentions.
> >
> >> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
> > So what?
> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If
> I had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?

There's a little word "or" that Sherman is trying to ignore, but
misquoting is typical of him.

>
> >> Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
> >> system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do
> >> not project that onto everyone else.
> > The web site reported a file type that was misleading.
> >
> So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.

Idiot - it invalidates what you *said*, which was to stupidly argue
that because someone else hadn't reported a problem, it must have
been how I had "set up [my] system". My system is set up just
fine. The problem was the web site (and maybe Adobe) showing
no concern for interoperability.

> >> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
> >> observe myself? WOW!
> > Sherman, you are an idiot.
> > <rest of this moron's post snipped>
> >
> Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.

Snipping one of your idiotic posts is a "tantrum"? Get a life.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
>>>> care less what it does and what is does not.
>>>>
>>>> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
>>>> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
>>>> an apology on this matter.
>>> Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
>>> what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
>>> fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
>>> (see Message ID <fvj5e5$b92$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>>> :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
>>> :: >
>>> :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
>>> ::
>>> :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)
>>>
>> Problem with understanding humor, eh?
>>
>>> I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
>>> with (see Message ID <fvjaet$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>>> : To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>>> : the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>>> :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
>>> : AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.
>>> You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
>>> "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
>>> when told off because of it.
>>>
>> What whining - do I sense some projection here?
>>
>> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
>> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with
>> him.
>
> Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.
>
ROTFLMAO - that is more riduculous than an Ed Dolan post.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. I am not complaining about Zaumen's software, since I could
>>>> care less what it does and what is does not.
>>>>
>>>> Zaumen when off and falsely accused me of inventing things because his
>>>> software could not view a web page but mine could. I believe I am owed
>>>> an apology on this matter.
>>> Here'es what you posted *after* I gave you a technical explanation of
>>> what was going on, finally pointing out that the Adobe was probably
>>> fiddling with things for business reasons. Note your ad-hominem reply
>>> (see Message ID <fvj5e5$b92$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>>> :: > Frankly, I'm not interested. It's merely a business thing.
>>> :: >
>>> :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound the Liddites!!!
>>> ::
>>> :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)
>>>
>> Problem with understanding humor, eh?
>>
>>> I mildly told you off after that one, and you replied
>>> with (see Message ID <fvjaet$s66$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>>> : To bad computer expert Zaumen can not get his computer to work with
>>> : the web page, so he would not look like a fool for calling me a fool,
>>> :since everyone else who opens the page can clearly see the evidence of
>>> : AdobeÂ® Clip NotesÂ® being used on the page.
>>> You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
>>> "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
>>> when told off because of it.
>>>
>> What whining - do I sense some projection here?
>>
>> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
>> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with
>> him.
>
> Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.
>
>
[Accidentally hit send before correcting a typographical error.]

ROTFLMAO - that is more ridiculous than an Ed Dolan post.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:28 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
>>>> first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and had
>>>> no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
>>>> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
>>> Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no
>>> surprise
>>> since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
>>> I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
>>> well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
>>> when absolutely nothing is going on.
>>>
>> Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
>> sense here.
>
> You misquoted me, *******.

Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!

Direct citation for the misquote please.

I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with altered
text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses, which of
course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either mistaken or lying.

>> Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said
>> was on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
>> ranting?" Duh.
>
> That was a perfectly valid question - you were either imagining the
> video, but if it was there (and I specifically stated that my PDF
> viewer did not show it), then you were obviously ranting -you usually
> rant when the thought of a bicycle helmet enters your head.

Ranting generally implies a disregard for reality, which was not
evident. The real disregard for reality is believing that foam bicycle
hats are effective in reducing serious head injuries and deaths.

>>>> Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
>>>> better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
>>>> believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?
>>> Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser
>>> what
>>> to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
>>> is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
>>> different file extentions.
>>>
>>>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>>> So what?
>> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If
>> I had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?
>
> There's a little word "or" that Sherman is trying to ignore, but
> misquoting is typical of him.
>
Dude, learn what quoting is. Can Zaumen not even get the elementary
things right.

Show me altered text in quote marks I posted attributed to Zaumen, or
admit you are wrong.

>>>> Well, no one else is reporting problems. If you want to set up your
>>>> system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do
>>>> not project that onto everyone else.
>>> The web site reported a file type that was misleading.
>>>
>> So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.
>
> Idiot - it invalidates what you *said*, which was to stupidly argue
> that because someone else hadn't reported a problem, it must have
> been how I had "set up [my] system". My system is set up just
> fine. The problem was the web site (and maybe Adobe) showing
> no concern for interoperability.
>
Gee, how come all of us ignoramuses have no problems viewing the video
clip? ;)

>>>> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
>>>> observe myself? WOW!
>>> Sherman, you are an idiot.
>>> <rest of this moron's post snipped>
>>>
>> Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.
>
> Snipping one of your idiotic posts is a "tantrum"? Get a life.
>
Has Zaumen met Ed Dolan? The two should get on famously.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:31 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > You misquoted me, *******.
>
> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
> Direct citation for the misquote please.

Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
(see below).

> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
> mistaken or lying.

You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
someone said something they didn't say.

>
> Ranting generally implies a disregard for reality, which was not
> evident. The real disregard for reality is believing that foam bicycle
> hats are effective in reducing serious head injuries and deaths.

The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
posts.

> >>>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
> >>> So what?
> >> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page?

.... see - an example of the sort of misquoting I mentioned since
I never implied that: I listed several alternatives ranging from
imagining something to ranting, and I stated that my viewer didn't
show the clip (so I had no way of telling).

"Imagining" something might include a clip that merely showed
someone incidentally wearing a helmet - given Sherman's opinions,
it wouldn't surprise me if even that would set him off.

<rest of this moron's rant snipped>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:31 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> >> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
> >> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing with
> >> him.
> > Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.
> >
> ROTFLMAO - that is more riduculous than an Ed Dolan post.

The only thing more ridiculous than an Ed Dolan post is *you*.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

01-04-1970, 09:31 AM

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> >>> :: No, its an evil plot by the anti-helmet zealots to confound
> >>> :: the Liddites!!!
> >>> ::
> >>> :; So far it has worked well on Zaumen. :)

> >>> You might look like less of a hypocrite if you don't ask for an
> >>> "apology" after starting an ad hominem attack and then whining
> >>> when told off because of it.
> >>>
> >> What whining - do I sense some projection here?
> >> Zaumen is way too uptight and over-sensitive to be posting to
> >> unmoderated Usenet. He obviously can not stand people disagreeing
> >> with him.
> > Sherman is the one projecting, and he was the one who was whining.
> [Accidentally hit send before correcting a typographical error.]
>
> ROTFLMAO - that is more ridiculous than an Ed Dolan post.

As I said the only thing more ridiculous than an Ed Dolan post
is Tom Serman (who felt it necessary to repeat his rubbish twice).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 09:32 AM

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> You misquoted me, *******.
>> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
>> Direct citation for the misquote please.
>
> Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
> getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
> when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
> (see below).
>
>> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
>> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by ellipses,
>> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
>> mistaken or lying.
>
> You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
> someone said something they didn't say.
>
Zaumen obviously does not understand what a quote is.

>> Ranting generally implies a disregard for reality, which was not
>> evident. The real disregard for reality is believing that foam bicycle
>> hats are effective in reducing serious head injuries and deaths.
>
> The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
> posts.
>
Where is the properly done study that shows foam bicycle hats to be
effective in preventing serious head injuries and deaths?

>>>>>> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
>>>>> So what?
>>>> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page?
>
> ... see - an example of the sort of misquoting I mentioned since
> I never implied that: I listed several alternatives ranging from
> imagining something to ranting, and I stated that my viewer didn't
> show the clip (so I had no way of telling).
>
Gee, I would have thought a computer expert would have found a way to
view the clip, instead of making himself look foolish.

> "Imagining" something might include a clip that merely showed
> someone incidentally wearing a helmet - given Sherman's opinions,
> it wouldn't surprise me if even that would set him off.
>
Well, helmets are not really harmful compared to bicycle lanes.

> <rest of this moron's rant snipped>
>
By Zaumen's standards the above is a lie, since I have proof from a
licensed professional that I am not a moron.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful