Re: Oddities

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:25:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

Drivel:  It's midnight and I'm busy reducing my rec.bicycles.tech
reading backlog a manageable number of articles worth reading.

>
Hmm.... "Worth reading"... ???

Articles "worth reading" are those remaining after I have eliminated
one-line replies, position statements, +1 tags, personality clashes,
massive quotes from pervious articles, unintelligible gibberish, and
such.  I especially don't like one-line replies.  I'm not very
interested in terse position statements.  What I prefer to read are
the sources, logic and data behind someone's opinion.  I can learn
something from those postings while a simple opinion statement teaches
me nothing.

I don't expect anyone (or everyone) to adjust their output to conform
to my preferences.  I'm just explaining that it's impossible for me
(or anyone) to read all the articles in rec.bicycles.tech.  Filtering
and ignoring makes it easier and faster for me.  I could hire a
secretary to read RBT for me and provide me with daily executive
summaries.  Maybe I could program and AI to do that.  In the distant
past, Andre Jute claimed to have done something similar.

And you so infatuated with Toms posts?
>
I can only assume that you are joking... Right?

Not quite right.  I find that analyzing and exposing Tom's
fabrications, lies and amazing facts to be very entertaining, amusing
and educational in that it forces me to think and research areas which
have escaped my attention.  I wouldn't call it infatuation.  If you
count the number of my replies to Tom's claims and divide by the
number of Tom's posts during the same time period, you would probably
find that I reply to a very small percentage of his posts.  If I were
genuinely infatuated with Tom's posts, one might expect me to reply to
all of Tom's posts.


--
Jeff Liebermann                 jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272      http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann      AE6KS    831-336-2558