Typography 101 for "engineers" and other blustering fools, was Re: Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension

[Andre Jute]

Andre Jute:
> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
> >> >message...

Blustering Don Pearce
> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
> >> "24 (11) feet".

Jute:
> >You don't know **** about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.

Predictable Pearce:
> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?

Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
you spout off, Donnie-boy?

This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
but you claim to know more.

Get real, man. You don't know ****, and you never will until you
change your attitude.

If you had any brains, or any curiosity, you would use the opportunity
to learn something. I guess you're too old and foolish and smug to
change your ways.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER%20Andre%20Jute.html
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER%20Andre%20GDitCA.html

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:06:13 -0700, Andre Jute >
wrote:

>Andre Jute:
>> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
>> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
>> >> >message...
>
>Blustering Don Pearce
>> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
>> >> "24 (11) feet".
>
>Jute:
>> >You don't know **** about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
>> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
>> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
>> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
>Predictable Pearce:
>> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
>> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
>> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
>
>Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
>typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
>same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
>numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
>you spout off, Donnie-boy?
>

What have 11 and exclamation marks to do with this, idiot? Your error
was between 11 and 24.

And no, Usenet is not typeset. You write your stuff, and it goes where
it goes. When you set type you can insert white metal shims to adjust
the type - that is typesetting.

>This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
>are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
>reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
>written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
>everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
>written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
>but you claim to know more.
>

You have already shown that you don't understand the content of your
books by your mistaken reference to friction as being the controlling
factor in slowing a bike. I assume the same holds true for every
subject you care to cut and paste into something thick and tedious.

>Get real, man. You don't know ****, and you never will until you
>change your attitude.
>

I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
> scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?

Speaking of mindless cross-posting, Don ....

Those of us new to this important discussion about typography have no idea
what either "24 (!!)" or "24 (11)" signifies. Don't let that stop you folks
from cluttering up a bunch of newsgroups with your arcane discussions of
obscure trivia, though.


P.S. Don't you hate Poopie B'ar?

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 9, 6:16 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:06:13 -0700, Andre Jute >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Andre Jute:
> >> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
> >> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
> >> >> >message...
>
> >Blustering Don Pearce
> >> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
> >> >> "24 (11) feet".
>
> >Jute:
> >> >You don't know **** about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
> >> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
> >> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
> >> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
> >Predictable Pearce:
> >> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
> >> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
> >> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
>
> >Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
> >typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
> >same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
> >numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
> >you spout off, Donnie-boy?
>
> What have 11 and exclamation marks to do with this, idiot? Your error
> was between 11 and 24.

See, Pearcey, in a moment of literary weakness, because I was writing
to you, a known sluggard and smug and aggressive with it, I put two
exclamations in parenthesis behind the number 24 to draw attention to
the fact that I knew it was exceptionally good. Now -- only a brief
digression which the short attention spans like you may skip --
normally I would come down with a sarcastic remark on anyone who uses
two exclamation points when one will do, but in your case I thought
I'd better permit myself the superfluity. Okay, back to the
exclamation points and the number 11. If you type two exclamation
points on your keyboard, you do it by holding down the shift key and
typing the number 1, yes? Try it now so you don't lose the step and
start making a fool of yourself again with empty abuse. Right, now put
a piece of text with two exclamations in it in your word processor,
select the text, and then go find the availble fonts you can change
that text into. Keep trying them one by one. Eventually you will find
several that put what to an typographical ignoramus like you might
appear to be garbage symbols (only the empty square is, and then only
sometimes) in the place of the exclamations, or arabic numeral 1. If
you can't work it out from there, just ask and I'll patronize you some
more.

> And no, Usenet is not typeset. You write your stuff, and it goes where
> it goes. When you set type you can insert white metal shims to adjust
> the type - that is typesetting.

You must have learned your little minimum bit of exceedingly
misleading "knowledge" when you were a very small boy, and now be very
old. Or perhaps your parents were too poor to afford an up-to-date
encyclopedia. Modern typesetting has been done on computer keyboards,
and by computer instruction, where fonts are interchangeble for the
same text, for nearly half a century.

> >This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
> >are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
> >reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
> >written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
> >everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
> >written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
> >but you claim to know more.
>
> You have already shown that you don't understand the content of your
> books by your mistaken reference to friction as being the controlling
> factor in slowing a bike.

You keep making the same arrogant mistakes, Don. First, you clearly
don't understand the difference between "controlling factor" and
"limiting factor". Where were you educated, if you were? You should
ask for your tuition back. I quoted a piece from my book that speaks
of the upper limit of retardation of any wheeled vehicle, you
immediately, quite contrary to the quoted text, presume I'm speaking
of "controlling factor", which further leads us to wonder if you have
a comprehension difficulty with the English language. Secondly, you
presume that the small piece I quoted from my book to put you down
like an impertinent puppy, is the entire entry on brakes. It isn't,
there are pages more, including a big section on weight transfer,
which may be what you're trying to accuse me of not knowing about
(that's a good example of how one puts the boot in without opening
oneself to accusions of crude brutality, hmm?).

>I assume the same holds true for every
> subject you care to cut and paste into something thick and tedious.

You don't assume, Donnie-boy, you presume upon my patience. My book on
automobiles was approved of and given to junior engineers as their
bible by a major motor manufacturer. Please explain to me why I should
believe some blustering internet-"engineer" like you knows any better
than professional engineers?

The same applies to my books on reprographics (of which typography is
a part); they are the officially sanctioned texts of people who know
their business. But Don Pearce, who postures on the net as an
"engineer", knows better! Holy ****, who do you expect to believe you,
Pearcey?

> >Get real, man. You don't know ****, and you never will until you
> >change your attitude.
>
> I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
> scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?

Come on Pearcey, it isn't my fault that you're a one-tune dullard. If
you weren't so frightened of the natural curiosity of your monkey
genes, so much more set on dignity above knowledge, you too could be
clever and widely knowledgeable. As for Hogan, you're lying again, I
didn't say I was a scriptwriter for him, I said I threw out a few one-
liners for him when we used to eat in the same caff on King's Cross,
an entirely different matter, as you would know if you knew anything
at all about show business. But I'll let you make a fool of yourself
again by claiming that's an entirely different career before I shoot
you down.

> d
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Andre Jute
Riding tall

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:08:43 -0700, Andre Jute >
wrote:

>Andre Jute
>Riding tall

Bored now. You've postured once too often.

Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please. If we
can be bothered to deal with the ensuing verbal diarrhoea, that is.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 9, 7:23 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:08:43 -0700, Andre Jute >
> wrote:
>
> >Andre Jute
> >Riding tall
>
> Bored now. You've postured once too often.

Oh, is that what you call it when someone pulls you up when you
postulate and demonstrates that he speaks with far greater authority
than you do on the the subject under discussion.

> Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please.

Exactly my point, Pearce, that you're malicious scum entirely
uninterested in sharing knowledge or glee, that you are here merely in
an attempt to make yourself look like a big man by continually
"proving" that someone else is wrong.

Here are the samples of your dumb malice from a single exchange:

On Sep 9, 5:17 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

> >> So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
> >> someone to do it for you),

and

> Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
> quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.

and

> Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
> have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.

and

> >>and had gravity explained to you,

and

> Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
> end to your ability?

and

> >> realise that you posted a heap of ****.

and

> Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
> bike that could manage 1.05g.

and

> You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
> were in boasting mode.

and

>I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
> Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about,

and

> the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
> realise your bluff was going to get called.

and

> Or are we now supposed to believe that
> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?

proudly signed:

> d

complete with commercial advertising:

> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

You're scum, Pearce.

Andre Jute