Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #57568 > unrolled thread

computer wont boot

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-26 08:54 +0930
    Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-25 23:46 +0000
      Re: computer wont boot Lucifer Morningstar <Barry@saymyname.com> - 2017-01-26 11:17 +1100
    Re: computer wont boot "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-01-26 10:45 +1000
      Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-26 14:43 +1100
    Re: computer wont boot Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-26 08:54 +0800
      Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-26 01:04 +0000
        Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-26 12:31 +1100
        Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-26 14:44 +1100
          Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-26 05:48 +0000
            Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-27 08:36 +1100
      Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-26 12:31 +1100
        Re: computer wont boot keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 10:34 +1000
          Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-27 12:02 +1100
            Re: computer wont boot keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 13:26 +1000
              Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-27 15:05 +1100
        Re: computer wont boot Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-28 09:22 +0800
    Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-26 12:02 +1100
      Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-26 14:45 +1100
      Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-26 16:52 +1100
        Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-27 08:37 +1100
          Re: computer wont boot Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-27 07:15 +0800
            Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-27 19:54 +1100
              Re: computer wont boot Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 19:01 +1000
                Re: computer wont boot jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 01:55 -0800
                  Re: computer wont boot Lucifer Morningstar <Barry@saymyname.com> - 2017-01-27 21:22 +1100
                  Re: computer wont boot Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 21:42 +1000
                    Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-27 23:03 +1100
                      Re: computer wont boot Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 23:07 +1000
                        Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-27 20:28 +0000
                          Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 10:52 +1100
                        Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 11:09 +1100
                          Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 02:26 +0000
                            Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-28 16:24 +1100
                              Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 18:03 +1100
                            Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 17:58 +1100
                              Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 07:47 +0000
                                Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 19:20 +1100
                                  Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 09:27 +0000
                                Re: computer wont boot jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 01:10 -0800
                                  Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 09:28 +0000
                                    Re: computer wont boot jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 01:52 -0800
                                      Re: computer wont boot Lucifer Morningstar <Barry@saymyname.com> - 2017-01-28 21:30 +1100
                                      Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 11:50 +0000
                                Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 11:48 +0000
                                  Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-29 00:00 +1100
                                    Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 20:02 +0000
                                      Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-29 10:01 +1100
                                        Re: computer wont boot Lindsay <ask.me.for.it@nunnya.business.com.au> - 2017-01-29 10:12 +1100
                                          Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-29 12:31 +1100
                                      Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-29 10:05 +1100
                                  Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 20:04 +0000
                        Re: computer wont boot alvey <alvey@play.com> - 2017-01-28 11:39 +1000
                          Re: computer wont boot Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-28 17:39 +1100
                      Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-27 20:27 +0000
                Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-28 08:06 +1100
                  Re: computer wont boot jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 01:15 -0800
                    Re: computer wont boot "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-28 09:28 +0000
                    Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-29 08:03 +1100
        Re: computer wont boot keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 10:37 +1000
          Re: computer wont boot felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-27 12:08 +1100
          Re: computer wont boot Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-01-27 19:45 +1100
    Re: computer wont boot "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 15:51 +1100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#57799

jonz wrote:

> On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:47:52 UTC+11, Blue Peeler  wrote:
> > Xeno wrote:
> > 
> > > > A little tip to those not previously exposed to the lying sack
> > > > of shit that sometimes calls itself "xeno" one of many "drip
> > > > dry" nyms it has.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As soon as you see the word "look" in one of xenoscum's posts,
> > > > be assured that bullshit follows and you should move on.
> > 
> > 
> > Yawn!
> > 
> > 
> > Xenoscum - no matter how many times you tell the same lie it will
> > not work.
> > 
> > 
> > I reported accurately what i saw at the time. I then found the
> > DR-DOS manual that showed both the hex error codes and the ASCII
> > sent to the console - which of course proved what I said in the
> > first place.
> > 
> > 
> > You on the other hand have desperately wailed on and fucking on
> > about an utterly irrelevant CP/M manual.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You are in full Malvern line weasel mode and for mine I would not
> > piss on you if you were on fire, you are a dishonest, loathsome
> > creature devoid of any capacity to experience shame, there is no
> > lie you will not tell.
> > 
> > 
> > In short you are a disgusting, untruthful sack of shit.
> ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
>  YES, you are, all the above, and more!....

SSH! jonz, imbeciles like you should be neither seen nor heard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57804

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 20:28:02 UTC+11, Blue Peeler  wrote:
> jonz wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:47:52 UTC+11, Blue Peeler  wrote:
> > > Xeno wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > A little tip to those not previously exposed to the lying sack
> > > > > of shit that sometimes calls itself "xeno" one of many "drip
> > > > > dry" nyms it has.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As soon as you see the word "look" in one of xenoscum's posts,
> > > > > be assured that bullshit follows and you should move on.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yawn!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Xenoscum - no matter how many times you tell the same lie it will
> > > not work.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I reported accurately what i saw at the time. I then found the
> > > DR-DOS manual that showed both the hex error codes and the ASCII
> > > sent to the console - which of course proved what I said in the
> > > first place.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You on the other hand have desperately wailed on and fucking on
> > > about an utterly irrelevant CP/M manual.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are in full Malvern line weasel mode and for mine I would not
> > > piss on you if you were on fire, you are a dishonest, loathsome
> > > creature devoid of any capacity to experience shame, there is no
> > > lie you will not tell.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In short you are a disgusting, untruthful sack of shit.
> > ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
> >  YES, you are, all the above, and more!....
> 
> SSH! jonz, imbeciles like you should be neither seen nor heard.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
 Brought to you by the mayor of repetition....Got nothing, is nothing!.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57805

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 01:52:40 -0800 (PST), jonz
<johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 January 2017 20:28:02 UTC+11, Blue Peeler  wrote:
>> jonz wrote:
>>=20
>> > On Saturday, 28 January 2017 18:47:52 UTC+11, Blue Peeler  wrote:
>> > > Xeno wrote:
>> > >=20
>> > > > > A little tip to those not previously exposed to the lying sack
>> > > > > of shit that sometimes calls itself "xeno" one of many "drip
>> > > > > dry" nyms it has.
>> > > > >=20
>> > > > >=20
>> > > > > As soon as you see the word "look" in one of xenoscum's posts,
>> > > > > be assured that bullshit follows and you should move on.
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > Yawn!
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > Xenoscum - no matter how many times you tell the same lie it will
>> > > not work.
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > I reported accurately what i saw at the time. I then found the
>> > > DR-DOS manual that showed both the hex error codes and the ASCII
>> > > sent to the console - which of course proved what I said in the
>> > > first place.
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > You on the other hand have desperately wailed on and fucking on
>> > > about an utterly irrelevant CP/M manual.
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > You are in full Malvern line weasel mode and for mine I would not
>> > > piss on you if you were on fire, you are a dishonest, loathsome
>> > > creature devoid of any capacity to experience shame, there is no
>> > > lie you will not tell.
>> > >=20
>> > >=20
>> > > In short you are a disgusting, untruthful sack of shit.
>> > =C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=
>=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC
>> >  YES, you are, all the above, and more!....
>>=20
>> SSH! jonz, imbeciles like you should be neither seen nor heard.
>=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=
>=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=
>=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC
> Brought to you by the mayor of repetition....Got nothing, is nothing!.

What is the purpose of
=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=
=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC=
=C2=AC=C2=AC=C2=AC

-- 
President Trump will make America great again

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57812

jonz wrote:

> > 
> > SSH! jonz, imbeciles like you should be neither seen nor heard.
> ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
>  Brought to you by the mayor of repetition....Got nothing, is
> nothing!.

Well jonz imbecile - if you get kicked in the head often enough, even
you might learn something.


What diid the nurse who "potty trained" you use? A cattle prod?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57811

Xeno wrote:
> 
> One piece of text, essentially information for the programmer, and
> you claim it is the message that comes up in the error messages.


It is the fucking manual of errors showing both the hex code set in the
error register and what is sent to the console.


You see, cuntoxen thing that you are, some errors are recoverable, some
other errors are irrecoverable but require user input and yet others
are not.


How does the programmer, or for that matter the user, know how to deal
with the error - Answer the fucking operating system puts it on the
fuucking screen

>  I'm
> here to tell you that the *only messages* that come up in the user
> error messages are those listed in the user manual appendices.

Actually they are not, there is also the DOSBOOK or in earlier versions
of C-DOS/DR-DOS the "help command".


Imbecile that you are, you don't know about those.


 Go
> hunt fo *general failure reading hard drive* and you will not find it.
> 


It is written large as life in the system manual i referenced cuntoxen
and nothing you say can ever change that!


Useless, obstinate, lying sack of shit that you are!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57813

On 28/01/2017 10:48 PM, Blue Peeler wrote:
 > Xeno wrote:
 >>
 >> One piece of text, essentially information for the programmer, and
 >> you claim it is the message that comes up in the error messages.
 >
 >
 > It is the fucking manual of errors showing both the hex code set in the
 > error register and what is sent to the console.
 >
 >
 > You see, cuntoxen thing that you are, some errors are recoverable, some
 > other errors are irrecoverable but require user input and yet others
 > are not.
 >
So? The error messages will be in the user guide regardless of the 
recoverability of the error situation.
 >
 > How does the programmer, or for that matter the user, know how to deal
 > with the error - Answer the fucking operating system puts it on the
 > fuucking screen
 >
Yes, and the User Guide lists every single error output to the console 
in a very handy place - the appendices.

 >>  I'm
 >> here to tell you that the *only messages* that come up in the user
 >> error messages are those listed in the user manual appendices.
 >
 > Actually they are not, there is also the DOSBOOK or in earlier versions
 > of C-DOS/DR-DOS the "help command".
 >
Do you realise what DOSBOOK actually is?????

Let me guide you a little here.

It is a *compiler*. Specifically a help compiler. Just like the one that 
compiles Windows compiled help files.

What does it compile? It compiles *helpfiles*, nothing more, nothing less.

Where are these helpfiles maintained?

*ONLINE*!!!

The helpfiles are NOT displayed on the console screen as error messages.

Just more obfuscation from you. Nice try but definitely no cookie.

Here, read the DOSBOOK manual header info

------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to DOSBook

Overview
This chapter describes the main structure of DOSBook. The structure is 
the key to its hypertext nature and is important for you to understand 
when customizing or translating DOSBook.

DOSBook is an online hypertext manual. It is built from the DR-DOS User 
Guide document files which have been produced using FrameMaker.

Information can be found easily within DOSBook by using the search 
option, table of contents, or index. You can click on highlighted words 
or phrases to go to other sections of information or to see short 
glossary notes as pop-ups.

DOSBook Physical File Structure.
The compiler that produces the DOSBook database takes a file that has 
the extension .PUB as its input. The publication (.PUB) file contains a 
list of chapter files which have the extension .CHP. The chapter files 
contain information about the text files which usually have the 
extension .DOC or .TXT. The text in DOSBook is contained in ASCII format 
text files.

There is also a file with the extension .HOH (help on help) that 
contains the text explaining how to use DOSBook. This file is not part 
of the publication file but is read as part of the input to the compiler 
by means of a switch. You access this information in DOSBook by pressing 
the hot key <F1>, or by selecting Help for DOSBook from the Help menu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The above clearly states that it does not in any way relate to error 
message that come up on the console.

The important bit;
                     DOSBook is an online hypertext manual. It is built
                     from the DR-DOS User Guide document files which
                     have been produced using FrameMaker


 >
 > Imbecile that you are, you don't know about those.
 >
You want to make a small wager on that?

No different to the helpfile compiler in windows and, yes, I did play 
around a bit with that way back in my Ed Tech days. Too limited for my 
needs however.

 >
 >  Go
 >> hunt fo *general failure reading hard drive* and you will not find it.
 >>
 >
 >
 > It is written large as life in the system manual i referenced

2 words out of 5. In one place! And not in the USER GUIDE.

 > and nothing you say can ever change that!

I don't need to change it. The salient point here is that you are 
misconstruing the intent and purpose of those words in the programmers 
guide.
 >
The text string, in its entirety, is *NOT* in the *USER GUIDE*. The 
reference to which you refer is help info for the programmer, nothing 
more, nothing less. You are the drowning man clutching a straw and that 
straw for you is that programmer help text. There is *NO MENTION* in the 
*USER GUIDE* of any error code resembling that in your bullshit story. 
If it was intended to be an *ON-SCREEN ERROR MESSAGE* for the *END 
USER*, it would be present in the *USER GUIDE*. Simply put, it isn't and 
you're done!


-- 

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57825

Xeno wrote:

Just go fuck yourself sideways you lying sack of shit. I am not
interested in anymore of your bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57837

On 29/01/2017 7:02 AM, Blue Peeler wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
> Just go fuck yourself sideways you lying sack of shit. I am not
> interested in anymore of your bullshit.
>
That'd be a wind for me then!    ;-)

-- 

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57840

On 29/01/2017 10:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
> On 29/01/2017 7:02 AM, Blue Peeler wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>
>> Just go fuck yourself sideways you lying sack of shit. I am not
>> interested in anymore of your bullshit.
>>
> That'd be a wind for me then!    ;-)

yep a massive fart in your general direction :-D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57847

On 29/01/2017 10:12 AM, Lindsay wrote:
> On 29/01/2017 10:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
>> On 29/01/2017 7:02 AM, Blue Peeler wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>> Just go fuck yourself sideways you lying sack of shit. I am not
>>> interested in anymore of your bullshit.
>>>
>> That'd be a wind for me then!    ;-)
>
> yep a massive fart in your general direction :-D
>
>
Not surprising since he's all piss and wind.

-- 

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57838

On 29/01/2017 7:02 AM, Blue Peeler wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
> Just go fuck yourself sideways you lying sack of shit. I am not
> interested in anymore of your bullshit.
>
Win for Xeno. Wind for the lawyer.  ;-)

-- 

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57826

Xeno wrote:

Go fuck yourself you stupid lying sack of shit.


Nobody is interedted in anymore of your bullshit weasel tactics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57754

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:07:30 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:

What happened to "Goodbye"?



alvey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57762

On 28/01/2017 12:39 PM, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:07:30 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
> What happened to "Goodbye"?
>
>
>
> alvey
>
What happened to his balls??

-- 

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57735

Xeno wrote:

> On 27/01/2017 10:42 PM, Grumpy Tech wrote:
> > On 27/01/2017 7:55 PM, jonz wrote:
> > > On Friday, 27 January 2017 20:01:44 UTC+11, Grumpy Tech  wrote:
> > > > On 27/01/2017 6:54 PM, j@j.net wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:15:12 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On 27/01/2017 5:37 AM, Je?us wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0)
> > > > > > > > Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Holy shit, you must be some sort of hacker?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A 1337 one at that!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, he's certainly a member of a very exclusive club.
> > > > > 
> > > > What's quite hilarious especially with someone else's bleating
> > > > is that they think it was me who posted as felix. You may
> > > > notice I'm still on Thunderbird 31.5...
> > > ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
> >>  And your still here!.Man of yer word...(NOT)
> > > 
> > Only because I love you jonz. You do things for my heart that
> > cannot be explained. I have these feelings for you that I just had
> > to share...
> > 
> > And if you believe that I have a large bridge for sale....
> > 
> > then again you believe everything someone else says... Stick to
> > driving trucks and going to the pub jonz.
> 
> Did you bring some one else's conjones along? For sure yours are wee
> tiny ones!
> 
> You will need some a good deal larger and braver than what you
> currently possess.

Go fuck yourself you useless, lying, sack of shit!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57742

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:01:43 +1000, Grumpy Tech
<grumpytech07@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 27/01/2017 6:54 PM, j@j.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:15:12 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/01/2017 5:37 AM, Je?us wrote:
>.
>>>>
>>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>>> Thunderbird/45.6.0
>>>>
>>>> Holy shit, you must be some sort of hacker?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A 1337 one at that!
>>
>> Well, he's certainly a member of a very exclusive club.
>>
>What's quite hilarious especially with someone else's bleating is that 
>they think it was me who posted as felix. You may notice I'm still on 
>Thunderbird 31.5...

First it was Fran, then you. I'll be next.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57795

On Saturday, 28 January 2017 08:06:32 UTC+11, Jeßus  wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:01:43 +1000, Grumpy Tech
> <grumpytech07@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 27/01/2017 6:54 PM, j@j.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:15:12 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 27/01/2017 5:37 AM, Je?us wrote:
> >.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
> >>>>> Thunderbird/45.6.0
> >>>>
> >>>> Holy shit, you must be some sort of hacker?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> A 1337 one at that!
> >>
> >> Well, he's certainly a member of a very exclusive club.
> >>
> >What's quite hilarious especially with someone else's bleating is that 
> >they think it was me who posted as felix. You may notice I'm still on 
> >Thunderbird 31.5...
> 
> First it was Fran, then you. I'll be next.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
 You`re safe, U would`nt know how!.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57800

jonz wrote:

> On Saturday, 28 January 2017 08:06:32 UTC+11, Jeßus  wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:01:43 +1000, Grumpy Tech
> > <grumpytech07@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 27/01/2017 6:54 PM, j@j.net wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:15:12 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 
> > >>> On 27/01/2017 5:37 AM, Je?us wrote:
> > > .
> > > > > > 
> > >>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
> > >>>>> Thunderbird/45.6.0
> > > > > > 
> > >>>> Holy shit, you must be some sort of hacker?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > >>> A 1337 one at that!
> > > > 
> > >> Well, he's certainly a member of a very exclusive club.
> > > > 
> > > What's quite hilarious especially with someone else's bleating is
> > > that they think it was me who posted as felix. You may notice I'm
> > > still on Thunderbird 31.5...
> > 
> > First it was Fran, then you. I'll be next.
> ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
>  You`re safe, U would`nt know how!.

From you jonz that is hilarious - stupid cunt that you are, startled by
sunrise every day!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57828

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 01:15:08 -0800 (PST), jonz
<johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 January 2017 08:06:32 UTC+11, Jeßus  wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:01:43 +1000, Grumpy Tech
>> <grumpytech07@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 27/01/2017 6:54 PM, j@j.net wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:15:12 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 27/01/2017 5:37 AM, Je?us wrote:
>> >.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>> >>>>> Thunderbird/45.6.0
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Holy shit, you must be some sort of hacker?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> A 1337 one at that!
>> >>
>> >> Well, he's certainly a member of a very exclusive club.
>> >>
>> >What's quite hilarious especially with someone else's bleating is that 
>> >they think it was me who posted as felix. You may notice I'm still on 
>> >Thunderbird 31.5...
>> 
>> First it was Fran, then you. I'll be next.
>¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
> You`re safe, U would`nt know how!.

You're hell-bent on pushing the boundaries of irony this week, aren't
you? Hey, at least it's not about shoving another pie down your neck.
Kudos to you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57634

On 1/26/2017 3:52 PM, felix wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 Jan 2017 12:02 PM, felix wrote:
>> On Thursday, 26 Jan 2017 10:24 AM, felix wrote:
>>> start computer and the DOS bit says it cant boot. why does it does this?
>>
>> whoa! whoop de doo! some silly person thinks they're clever by forging
>> posts
>>
>>
>
> I think it might be Franny Wanny from aus.politics. I don't see any of
> the other likely suspects having the same combination..
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/45.6.0
>
>
since that is exactly the same as your header info, it is more likely to 
just be you playing the victim.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web