Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61095 > unrolled thread
| Started by | root <NoEMail@home.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-19 17:09 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-11-20 18:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 842 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Joy of this, Joy of that root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2024-11-19 17:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2024-11-20 02:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 02:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-20 03:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-20 15:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 02:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 08:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-01-14 12:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-21 13:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2024-11-21 20:19 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 05:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 23:57 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 05:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 20:23 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 02:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-24 00:16 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 20:17 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 17:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-24 22:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 02:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:55 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 12:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 22:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 23:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-26 10:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-26 09:15 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 09:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 18:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 21:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 01:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 01:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 11:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 19:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 01:39 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 22:46 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 05:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:56 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 08:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 04:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 19:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 05:06 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-30 00:16 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 06:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 23:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 04:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 11:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-01 16:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 00:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 20:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:57 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 21:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:03 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:13 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 07:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-08 03:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 08:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-08 16:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 18:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-08 04:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 03:05 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 10:15 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 12:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 20:16 +0000
Re: The Joy Of Democracy Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 00:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:19 +0100
Re: The Joy Of Democracy Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:40 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 04:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:27 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 02:05 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 13:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-09 01:22 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 15:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 21:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-10 04:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-12 03:38 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-13 04:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-13 02:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 08:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:42 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-13 11:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:34 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-14 05:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 13:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-09 11:39 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 20:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-12 03:07 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 08:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 08:13 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-13 01:55 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 08:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-13 07:53 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:45 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 20:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:33 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 07:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 02:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-30 00:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 06:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:39 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 09:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 11:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-02 07:13 +1000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 23:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 01:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 05:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:47 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-25 19:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-26 07:09 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 19:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 09:02 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 18:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2024-12-02 23:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-03 00:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:53 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-24 22:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 08:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-21 17:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 08:10 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-20 17:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-20 23:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 23:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-21 01:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-21 02:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-22 20:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 10:45 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 23:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 20:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-22 03:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:25 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-22 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-22 13:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-22 23:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 00:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 01:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 01:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 08:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 23:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 22:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-25 11:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 01:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 19:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 23:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 19:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 21:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 15:21 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 03:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-24 19:35 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 00:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 01:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 06:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 21:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 03:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 21:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 04:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 01:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 19:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 21:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-28 19:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 21:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 23:12 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 05:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:22 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 08:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 03:18 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 01:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 11:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 18:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 04:24 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:42 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 03:21 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-29 18:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-29 22:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 07:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 21:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 13:19 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 02:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 01:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 00:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:22 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 09:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:23 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-12-08 09:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 10:18 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 12:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 04:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:16 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 01:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 20:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 02:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-02 07:23 +1000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 20:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 03:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-04 17:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 19:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 22:01 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 11:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 18:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 02:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-04 17:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 18:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 21:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-01 18:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:14 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 01:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 10:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:36 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-04 04:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:31 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 09:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 13:17 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:23 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 19:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 21:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 01:04 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:55 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 08:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 07:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 20:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 20:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 01:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 21:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:14 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 23:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-11 10:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:36 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 03:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 22:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 23:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-11 01:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-11 11:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 01:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 20:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 21:31 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 01:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:13 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 12:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-15 12:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 19:28 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-13 10:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 18:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 23:01 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 19:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 00:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 11:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 01:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 11:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:28 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:07 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2024-12-11 12:33 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2024-12-11 15:16 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-12 05:06 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 08:24 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:37 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 20:15 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 21:33 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 12:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 11:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 02:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 00:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 12:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:42 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 17:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 22:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:44 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 00:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 08:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 21:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 00:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-09 03:02 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:32 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 10:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:30 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:13 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-04 00:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 07:58 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-06 04:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 05:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 20:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 05:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:43 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 05:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:55 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:42 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:40 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 08:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2024-12-06 03:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 05:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 19:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 21:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 21:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 09:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2024-12-06 17:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 04:11 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 18:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:10 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:54 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 12:35 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 11:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 02:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:11 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 10:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 01:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 09:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 22:59 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 04:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-26 05:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 08:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-26 05:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 15:43 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:33 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 19:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 23:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 02:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 08:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-21 19:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 23:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 12:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-22 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-22 20:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 09:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 10:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 12:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 20:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 08:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-26 08:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-26 17:55 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 01:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 12:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 16:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 17:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 18:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 08:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-28 14:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 18:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 10:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 18:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 10:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 18:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 04:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-26 22:38 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 09:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 23:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 00:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-25 04:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 06:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-25 18:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 09:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 01:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 14:09 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 23:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-21 01:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-21 04:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 18:53 +0000
Page 29 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 43 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-08 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lrml1gFaa38U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61956 |
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:10:55 +0100, D wrote: > I'm no expert, but I'd say the sitting version sounds more "original". > As for Watts, I'm always skeptical of those kind of new ages guys, but > very often people seem to be huge fans. The story has several variations but the general theme is Gautama spent 6 years trying the various New Age techniques with no success until he decided to plant himself under the Bodhi tree until he figured it out. Then came the systemizers and the immense body of Abhidharma literature, followed by the different schools arguing over interpretation. I always had problems with some of those texts. Those people would have loved LibreOffice since everything is enumerated lists. I can't reliably remember the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination let alone the subgroupings like the Five Skahndas. That's probably why I like Nietzsche; sprawling, self-contradictory, spur of the moment aphorisms with no attempt to build a system. That's better than Schopenhauer's 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' which he claims is the key to understanding The World as Will.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-09 10:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <12bd40ae-a14e-7772-cb7a-5bf427664dec@example.net> |
| In reply to | #61985 |
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:10:55 +0100, D wrote: > >> I'm no expert, but I'd say the sitting version sounds more "original". >> As for Watts, I'm always skeptical of those kind of new ages guys, but >> very often people seem to be huge fans. > > The story has several variations but the general theme is Gautama spent 6 > years trying the various New Age techniques with no success until he > decided to plant himself under the Bodhi tree until he figured it out. Are you a buddhist or do you subscribe to some form of personal spirituality? Or is it just an intellectual interest? You seem very knowledgeable! > Then came the systemizers and the immense body of Abhidharma literature, > followed by the different schools arguing over interpretation. > > I always had problems with some of those texts. Those people would have > loved LibreOffice since everything is enumerated lists. I can't reliably > remember the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Twelve > Links of Dependent Origination let alone the subgroupings like the Five > Skahndas. Yes... it's fascinating when you think about the enormous page count the buddhists have racked up over the milennia! ;) I cannot but get the feeling that this is completely antithetical compared with buddhas original intenetions. ;) > That's probably why I like Nietzsche; sprawling, self-contradictory, spur > of the moment aphorisms with no attempt to build a system. That's better > than Schopenhauer's 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient > Reason' which he claims is the key to understanding The World as Will. I agree completely! I do like Schopenhauers short philosophical texts about everyday life (Parerga und paralipomena). Some of them make perfect sense and are quite approachable. But his magnum opus I don't agree with at all. Nietzsche on the other hand, is much better at writing, and although I do not think that it is just a bunch of random aphorisms, I do believe there is a theme, they are quite a puzzle to fit together. Add to that, that his views changed. My favourite is the middle period Nietzsche who does see the promise in science and rationality. But another thing I like about Nietzsche, at least for me, is that his short aphorisms serve as a spring board for me for my own reflections and philosophy. I find it very inspirational. The anti-christ I also like with its critique of institutionalized christianity and how damaging it has been to society.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-09 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lrpc0kFnkplU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62003 |
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:43:00 +0100, D wrote: > Are you a buddhist or do you subscribe to some form of personal > spirituality? Or is it just an intellectual interest? You seem very > knowledgeable! I have had a lifelong interest in Buddhism, as my bookshelf reflects. I'll admit it stemmed from being a 10 year old beatnik wannabe. I could also blame Kipling's 'Kim' for an interest in eastern religion. I would say it's mostly an intellectual interest though I find much of Buddhist though parallels my understanding of the world. However I have the same problem as I have with Christianity. If you don't think the world is 'dukkha', which I find similar to the concept of original sin, salvation isn't a goal. It is the same as Schopenhauer contra Nietzsche. > I agree completely! I do like Schopenhauers short philosophical texts > about everyday life (Parerga und paralipomena). Some of them make > perfect sense and are quite approachable. I've got Hollingdale's 'Essays and Aphorisms' that is a selection. I don't know how complete it is. I have read that during his service in WWI Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's writings in his knapsack. I assume it was Parerga and not the two volumes of The World. > But his magnum opus I don't agree with at all. For me that's back to his pessimism. I think the real person of the 'obit anus, abit onus' quote would have been more interesting than the intellectual. He probably had a few good rants on Hegel too. > Nietzsche on the other hand, is much better at writing, and although I > do not think that it is just a bunch of random aphorisms, I do believe > there is a theme, they are quite a puzzle to fit together. > > Add to that, that his views changed. My favourite is the middle period > Nietzsche who does see the promise in science and rationality. That is more interesting than Schopenhauer. He may have done a little polishing but he was a one trick pony, unlike Nietzsche. I'm currently re- reading the unfinished 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' that's quite linear. Prior to that I'd reread the late works, Twilight, Antichrist, and Ecce Homo. Next I'll redo the middle. It's been some time since I've read 'Untimely Meditations', the others I've hit more recently. TBH Zarathustra is my least favorite of the while corpus. > But another thing I like about Nietzsche, at least for me, is that his > short aphorisms serve as a spring board for me for my own reflections > and philosophy. I find it very inspirational. The anti-christ I also > like with its critique of institutionalized christianity and how > damaging it has been to society. 'The Will to Power' is one my bathroom book pile. I read random selections like some people do with the bible. I don't trust the llama as an editor but I'm glad she undertook the project. Antichrist reminds me of the Jefferson Bible and some of the newer projects. Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. I think by then Nietzsche felt bad about sniping at poor old Strauss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 10:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1a9e8e48-13eb-8276-cd59-1a31218d1dfb@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62070 |
On Tue, 9 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:43:00 +0100, D wrote: > > >> Are you a buddhist or do you subscribe to some form of personal >> spirituality? Or is it just an intellectual interest? You seem very >> knowledgeable! > > I have had a lifelong interest in Buddhism, as my bookshelf reflects. I'll > admit it stemmed from being a 10 year old beatnik wannabe. I could also > blame Kipling's 'Kim' for an interest in eastern religion. I would say > it's mostly an intellectual interest though I find much of Buddhist though > parallels my understanding of the world. Ah, Kim is an excellent book! I'm a big fan of Kipling. Sometimes, when I'm in the mood, I direct woke people to "The white mans burden". ;) As for asian isms and philosophy I was reading a lot of it in my teenage years. Then followed the years of work and earning money, and after a while I delved into christians mysticism, and that's when the enormous amounts of simlarities hit me. Now it goes in cycles. Busy at work, little reading, little work, plenty of reading. > However I have the same problem as I have with Christianity. If you don't > think the world is 'dukkha', which I find similar to the concept of > original sin, salvation isn't a goal. It is the same as Schopenhauer > contra Nietzsche. This is a problem. I am an optimist (long term) by nature, so sin, suffering etc. never really corresponded with me. Naturally I'm more into life affirming things. >> I agree completely! I do like Schopenhauers short philosophical texts >> about everyday life (Parerga und paralipomena). Some of them make >> perfect sense and are quite approachable. > > I've got Hollingdale's 'Essays and Aphorisms' that is a selection. I don't > know how complete it is. I have read that during his service in WWI Hitler > carried a copy of Schopenhauer's writings in his knapsack. I assume it was > Parerga and not the two volumes of The World. Hmm, didn't they print some Nietzsche too and send out to the soldiers in WW1? Hmm, maybe not. >> But his magnum opus I don't agree with at all. > > For me that's back to his pessimism. I think the real person of the 'obit > anus, abit onus' quote would have been more interesting than the > intellectual. He probably had a few good rants on Hegel too. Could he be the original Troll? No, surely that must be Socrates. As a man with trollish inclinations, I'm happy that I'm not dealt with like the greek dealt with their proto-troll. ;) I also do not like philosophers with verbal diarrhea. I like philosopher who can communicate their thoughts with a minimum of writing. Even though I find him quite complicated, in terms of writing style, I also like Wittgenstein. >> Nietzsche on the other hand, is much better at writing, and although I >> do not think that it is just a bunch of random aphorisms, I do believe >> there is a theme, they are quite a puzzle to fit together. >> >> Add to that, that his views changed. My favourite is the middle period >> Nietzsche who does see the promise in science and rationality. > > That is more interesting than Schopenhauer. He may have done a little > polishing but he was a one trick pony, unlike Nietzsche. I'm currently re- > reading the unfinished 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks' that's > quite linear. Prior to that I'd reread the late works, Twilight, > Antichrist, and Ecce Homo. Next I'll redo the middle. It's been some time > since I've read 'Untimely Meditations', the others I've hit more recently. > TBH Zarathustra is my least favorite of the while corpus. I haven't really looked much into early Nietzsche, but if anything, I'll probably try one of his later works. > >> But another thing I like about Nietzsche, at least for me, is that his >> short aphorisms serve as a spring board for me for my own reflections >> and philosophy. I find it very inspirational. The anti-christ I also >> like with its critique of institutionalized christianity and how >> damaging it has been to society. > > 'The Will to Power' is one my bathroom book pile. I read random selections > like some people do with the bible. I don't trust the llama as an editor > but I'm glad she undertook the project. How much of it is Nietzsche and how much did his sister change? > Antichrist reminds me of the Jefferson Bible and some of the newer > projects. Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. I think by > then Nietzsche felt bad about sniping at poor old Strauss. Haha, yes, the trollish tendencies again? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lrrj9aF4og5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62103 |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:20:41 +0100, D wrote: > Hmm, didn't they print some Nietzsche too and send out to the soldiers > in WW1? Hmm, maybe not. Wikipedia claims about 150,000 copies of Zarathustra were given out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#cite_note-300 The Kaufmann citation is from 'Nietzsche Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' and says "Feelings ran high both in Germany, where Zarathustra was pushed to a new sales record as a "must" for the soldier's knapsack, and in England and the United States, where Nietzsche began to be considered as the apostle of German ruthlessness and barbarism." In his notes on his translation of Zarathustra Kaufmann says there are a few gems in the mire, a lot of very poor writing, and difficulties translating the puns and so forth. He also trashes Thomas Common's 1909 translation, saying at one point he wasn't sure if Common spoke either English or German very well. I wouldn't call Kaufmann a hostile translator but he wasn't a real fan. Being a Jew who fled Germany in 1939 he really hated Foerster-Nietzsche. He became the Nietzsche expert for a generation but he needs to be taken with a grain of salt. > How much of it is Nietzsche and how much did his sister change? He had left a few notes for a future work but never followed through. Foerster-Nietzsche used the rough outline sort the section headings and collected notes and jottings that seemed to fit. She may have edited some of those but the real argument is she promoted the collection as Nietzsche's final magnum opus, rather than Ecce Homo. I have Common's translation of Zarathustra which has a foreword by her. She throws in a few snippets from 'Ecce Homo' but tried to downplay it since some of it doesn't support her agenda. fwiw, while Kaudmann might have been full of himself when criticizing Common, Common's translation reads like the King James bible with all the archaic thee's and thou's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ceccead2-2c2f-1db7-4d71-e12576e6010b@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62144 |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:20:41 +0100, D wrote: > > >> Hmm, didn't they print some Nietzsche too and send out to the soldiers >> in WW1? Hmm, maybe not. > > Wikipedia claims about 150,000 copies of Zarathustra were given out. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#cite_note-300 Ahh, so I wasn't wrong. I checked an "AI" and it said I was wrong. Damn him! ;) > The Kaufmann citation is from 'Nietzsche Philosopher, Psychologist, > Antichrist' and says > > "Feelings ran high both in Germany, where Zarathustra was pushed to a new > sales record as a "must" for the soldier's knapsack, and in England and > the United States, where Nietzsche began to be considered as the apostle > of German ruthlessness and barbarism." > > In his notes on his translation of Zarathustra Kaufmann says there are a > few gems in the mire, a lot of very poor writing, and difficulties > translating the puns and so forth. He also trashes Thomas Common's 1909 > translation, saying at one point he wasn't sure if Common spoke either > English or German very well. > > I wouldn't call Kaufmann a hostile translator but he wasn't a real fan. > Being a Jew who fled Germany in 1939 he really hated Foerster-Nietzsche. > He became the Nietzsche expert for a generation but he needs to be taken > with a grain of salt. > >> How much of it is Nietzsche and how much did his sister change? > > He had left a few notes for a future work but never followed through. > Foerster-Nietzsche used the rough outline sort the section headings and > collected notes and jottings that seemed to fit. She may have edited some > of those but the real argument is she promoted the collection as > Nietzsche's final magnum opus, rather than Ecce Homo. I have Common's > translation of Zarathustra which has a foreword by her. She throws in a > few snippets from 'Ecce Homo' but tried to downplay it since some of it > doesn't support her agenda. > > fwiw, while Kaudmann might have been full of himself when criticizing > Common, Common's translation reads like the King James bible with all the > archaic thee's and thou's. Interesting. When the times is right, I think I'll have to see for myself!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-11 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lrs93jF7n0tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62159 |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:03:06 +0100, D wrote: >> archaic thee's and thou's. > > Interesting. When the times is right, I think I'll have to see for > myself! https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm That's the Commmon translation with Foedster-Nietzsche's introduction. Amazon has Hollingdale's translation for the staggering sum of $0.29 on Kindle. There are quite a few other translations of Zarathustra as well as other works that are very inexpensive on Kindle. A good way to start a fight in a barroom full of Nietzsche scholars is to ask which is the best English translation. Kaufmann is the usual answer but he disagreed with much of Nietzsche's thought, hated Common, who was conveniently dead when Kaufmann did his translation, and didn't think much of Zarathustra. Others like Common, followed by Hollingdale. The question is if anything more complicated than Schwedenkrimi can really be translated. In one of Heidegger's more accessible essays he questions if we can adequately translate Greek with the nuances and associations the words had in the original.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-11 11:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <698b7064-5f49-d7b5-39e7-c18a513154ef@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62172 |
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:03:06 +0100, D wrote: > >>> archaic thee's and thou's. >> >> Interesting. When the times is right, I think I'll have to see for >> myself! > > https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm > > That's the Commmon translation with Foedster-Nietzsche's introduction. > > Amazon has Hollingdale's translation for the staggering sum of $0.29 on > Kindle. There are quite a few other translations of Zarathustra as well as > other works that are very inexpensive on Kindle. > > A good way to start a fight in a barroom full of Nietzsche scholars is to > ask which is the best English translation. Kaufmann is the usual answer > but he disagreed with much of Nietzsche's thought, hated Common, who was > conveniently dead when Kaufmann did his translation, and didn't think much > of Zarathustra. Others like Common, followed by Hollingdale. Haha. Yes, Kaufmann is the name I've seen pop up the most when I checked Nietzsche translations. On the other hand, I am fairly fluent in german when it comes to reading, so maybe I should aim higher and actually read the original? =) > The question is if anything more complicated than Schwedenkrimi can really > be translated. In one of Heidegger's more accessible essays he questions > if we can adequately translate Greek with the nuances and associations the > words had in the original. This is very commonly thought and communicated in russian and chinese culture. The conclusion is of course, the russiand and/or chinese culture is so sublime it can never be translated or understood by western barbarians. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-12 01:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lrurh7Fknh0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62190 |
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:03:28 +0100, D wrote: > Haha. Yes, Kaufmann is the name I've seen pop up the most when I checked > Nietzsche translations. On the other hand, I am fairly fluent in german > when it comes to reading, so maybe I should aim higher and actually read > the original? =) https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7205/pg7205-images.html Du grosses Gestirn! Was wäre dein Glück, wenn du nicht Die hättest, welchen du leuchtest! Common has "Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!" Kaufmann has "You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine?" One criticism of Kaufmann is he rearranges Nietzsche's idiosyncratic punctuation. The newer translations mostly follow Kaufmann, some with slightly different sentence structure or wording. After all when you're doing the 15th translation you need to do something differently. The real question is what effect was Nietzsche striving for? His father was a Lutheran minister so he had plenty of exposure to Luther's bible translation. Was he trying to adopt the tone or parody it? While the archaic language can put people off Common does capture the feel of du/sie and behind that the attempt by bible translators to capture the original singular/plural pronoun distinctions. Personally, I'll go for the readable versions. I'd never read the New Testament due to the traditional two column layout and the somewhat stilted language. Oddly one of the things issued in boot camp was "Good News for Modern Man", and I finally got around to reading it. Bible people will argue about the dynamic translation but at least I read it. Of course there wasn't much else to read besides the green book with its wisdom about which side of a Claymore gets pointed to whoever you're trying to kill. > >> The question is if anything more complicated than Schwedenkrimi can >> really be translated. In one of Heidegger's more accessible essays he >> questions if we can adequately translate Greek with the nuances and >> associations the words had in the original. > > This is very commonly thought and communicated in russian and chinese > culture. The conclusion is of course, the russiand and/or chinese > culture is so sublime it can never be translated or understood by > western barbarians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-12 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <73f2019d-9a05-68eb-c3f6-e88a32fd334f@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62219 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:03:28 +0100, D wrote: > > >> Haha. Yes, Kaufmann is the name I've seen pop up the most when I checked >> Nietzsche translations. On the other hand, I am fairly fluent in german >> when it comes to reading, so maybe I should aim higher and actually read >> the original? =) > > https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7205/pg7205-images.html > > Du grosses Gestirn! Was wäre dein Glück, wenn du nicht Die hättest, > welchen du leuchtest! > > Common has > > "Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for > whom thou shinest!" > > Kaufmann has > > "You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom > you shine?" Interesting comparison! It highlight my lack of german skills. My initial translation, would be "You great star, what would your happiness be, if you did not have those who you shine on". My feeling here is that "for whom you shine" implies that the sun exists for the people, but my initial translation would be that the people exist for the sun. Now I'm very curious to read some original and compare it with my Gutenberg downloads. > One criticism of Kaufmann is he rearranges Nietzsche's idiosyncratic > punctuation. The newer translations mostly follow Kaufmann, some with > slightly different sentence structure or wording. After all when you're > doing the 15th translation you need to do something differently. > > The real question is what effect was Nietzsche striving for? His father > was a Lutheran minister so he had plenty of exposure to Luther's bible > translation. Was he trying to adopt the tone or parody it? In some caes perhaps parody, but I think in others, he might have borrowed for dramatic effect? One thing is clear, I find him to be one of the best writers of many philosophers. Compare it with some modern analytic philosophy and it's not even the same universe. Modern philosophy texts can be bone dry. > While the archaic language can put people off Common does capture the feel > of du/sie and behind that the attempt by bible translators to capture the > original singular/plural pronoun distinctions. For me that fades into the background eventually. Same with reading the Iliad or Odyssey, at first it's a bit annoying, but after a while it flows. > Personally, I'll go for the readable versions. I'd never read the New > Testament due to the traditional two column layout and the somewhat > stilted language. Oddly one of the things issued in boot camp was "Good > News for Modern Man", and I finally got around to reading it. Bible people > will argue about the dynamic translation but at least I read it. Of course > there wasn't much else to read besides the green book with its wisdom > about which side of a Claymore gets pointed to whoever you're trying to > kill. Ah, so you were a military man? Somehow I get the image of a Rambo who retired to the wildernes! Or maybe we're in Airwolf territory? Or perhaps A-team? ;) > > >> >>> The question is if anything more complicated than Schwedenkrimi can >>> really be translated. In one of Heidegger's more accessible essays he >>> questions if we can adequately translate Greek with the nuances and >>> associations the words had in the original. >> >> This is very commonly thought and communicated in russian and chinese >> culture. The conclusion is of course, the russiand and/or chinese >> culture is so sublime it can never be translated or understood by >> western barbarians. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-12 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls0u6gFembU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62242 |
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:21:18 +0100, D wrote: > In some caes perhaps parody, but I think in others, he might have > borrowed for dramatic effect? One thing is clear, I find him to be one > of the best writers of many philosophers. Compare it with some modern > analytic philosophy and it's not even the same universe. Modern > philosophy texts can be bone dry. While he ultimately disagreed with him, Nietzsche learned a lot from Schopenhauer. They both are readable. Kant's answer to Hume isn't and Hegel, well... It's been a long time since I've read Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, etc. I chewed on Principia in high school and tried to read some of the others later in life. Part of the problem is I realized my brain doesn't work that way. I've made a living employing logic all my life but it just 'happens'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-12 21:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <367885be-9825-94b4-cd4e-c3a2684bc29c@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62261 |
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:21:18 +0100, D wrote: > >> In some caes perhaps parody, but I think in others, he might have >> borrowed for dramatic effect? One thing is clear, I find him to be one >> of the best writers of many philosophers. Compare it with some modern >> analytic philosophy and it's not even the same universe. Modern >> philosophy texts can be bone dry. > > While he ultimately disagreed with him, Nietzsche learned a lot from > Schopenhauer. They both are readable. Kant's answer to Hume isn't and > Hegel, well... I find Schopenhauer opaque and too negative, and way too wordy. Kant and Hume I never read in the original but only filtered through Coplestones history of philosophy and did not feel like I needed the originals. > It's been a long time since I've read Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, etc. I > chewed on Principia in high school and tried to read some of the others > later in life. Russell is not too bad. He has some nice essays. But his technical work is not my cup of tea. > Part of the problem is I realized my brain doesn't work that way. I've > made a living employing logic all my life but it just 'happens'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-13 01:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls1h0hF3c94U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62267 |
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:31:39 +0100, D wrote: > I find Schopenhauer opaque and too negative, and way too wordy. Kant and > Hume I never read in the original but only filtered through Coplestones > history of philosophy and did not feel like I needed the originals. Schopenhauer is the original Debbie Downer. In Hollingdale's introduction to the 'Essays and Aphorisms' selection he theorizes the philosophy reflects the personality which was molded by events. The family business went bankrupt and it was a struggle for him to get his money. However he was stubborn and persistent, making out better than the other creditors. Then there was his fling at teaching when he scheduled his class in the same time slot as Hegel's. Nobody came. He could have rescheduled but chose to resign. 'Will' didn't fly off the shelves. His mother was an author in her own right. He said that his works would be around long after hers were gone. She replied with something like, 'Yeah the entire first edition will still be unsold.' They didn't get along well. It's been years but iirc Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' was quite readable. His first attempt 'Treatise of Human Nature' was stillborn so he tried again. Hume triggered Kant's rebuttal and Schopenhauer thought highly of him. I think he gets mentioned once by Nietzsche lumped with the 'English physiologists'. I don't think I made it through Copleston's entire History but I definitely remember the cheap paperback volumes. I did make it as far a Zeno, that's for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-13 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <45f5b478-6183-3b6d-3f8d-29f8452a8aff@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62283 |
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:31:39 +0100, D wrote: > >> I find Schopenhauer opaque and too negative, and way too wordy. Kant and >> Hume I never read in the original but only filtered through Coplestones >> history of philosophy and did not feel like I needed the originals. > > Schopenhauer is the original Debbie Downer. In Hollingdale's introduction > to the 'Essays and Aphorisms' selection he theorizes the philosophy > reflects the personality which was molded by events. The family business > went bankrupt and it was a struggle for him to get his money. However he > was stubborn and persistent, making out better than the other creditors. > > Then there was his fling at teaching when he scheduled his class in the > same time slot as Hegel's. Nobody came. He could have rescheduled but > chose to resign. > > 'Will' didn't fly off the shelves. His mother was an author in her own > right. He said that his works would be around long after hers were gone. > She replied with something like, 'Yeah the entire first edition will still > be unsold.' They didn't get along well. > > It's been years but iirc Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human > Understanding' was quite readable. His first attempt 'Treatise of Human > Nature' was stillborn so he tried again. > > Hume triggered Kant's rebuttal and Schopenhauer thought highly of him. I > think he gets mentioned once by Nietzsche lumped with the 'English > physiologists'. > > I don't think I made it through Copleston's entire History but I > definitely remember the cheap paperback volumes. I did make it as far a > Zeno, that's for sure. > Very interesting! And wasn't there, as was so often the case among philosophers, the fact that Schopenhauer wasn't the most popular man with the ladies as well? Nietzsche certainly seemed to derive a lot of energy from a broken heart. Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first book out of 12! ;) My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, very uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-13 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ls3jmnFd6vkU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #62307 |
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:13:50 +0100, D wrote: > Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first book out > of 12! My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and > the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, very > uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until > the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again. I'd have to look at the ordering but I think that's where my interest petered out. I liked the Nominalists. Confirmation bias, I guess. My natural setting regards Platonic realism as a major wrong turn in thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 11:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <13cd6f90-9859-60f4-3f93-f0ec64874f49@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62337 |
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:13:50 +0100, D wrote: > >> Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first book out >> of 12! My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and >> the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, very >> uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until >> the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again. > > I'd have to look at the ordering but I think that's where my interest > petered out. I liked the Nominalists. Confirmation bias, I guess. My > natural setting regards Platonic realism as a major wrong turn in thought. > Amen! The nominalists were (are) the Donald Trump of metaphysicists!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 13:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjjvna$nd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62371 |
On 14/12/2024 10:57, D wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:13:50 +0100, D wrote: >> >>> Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first book out >>> of 12! My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and >>> the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, very >>> uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until >>> the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again. >> >> I'd have to look at the ordering but I think that's where my interest >> petered out. I liked the Nominalists. Confirmation bias, I guess. My >> natural setting regards Platonic realism as a major wrong turn in >> thought. >> > > Amen! The nominalists were (are) the Donald Trump of metaphysicists! Nominalism is a crude form of transcendental idealism in that it clearly separates the term, from the reality it describes. Which as you say, is not Platonic realism. The problem with Plato is that his realism was really idealism, in that he regarded the ideas as more fundamental than things. As I said, Kant really drew everything together to produce the hybrid model in which the world - whether you think of it as material or not - was to be distinguished absolutely from our *conception *of it.... The middle ages were restrictive in terms of Christianity, but Jewish mysticism and philosophy flourished, as did the philosophy and science of the Persians. Before that became subsumed by Islam and vanished. The study of what people *thought* was real, through the ages, is a fascinating history that isn't really covered by any discipline. Myths and Magics, religions and gods, forces and demiurges. And then to Materialism and Laws of Nature. "Maps of consciousness" as Ralph Metzner put it. -- “Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of a car with the cramped public exposure of an airplane.” Dennis Miller
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9bfe71f2-15ce-bf03-beae-d4da72b25301@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62385 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 14/12/2024 10:57, D wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:13:50 +0100, D wrote: >>> >>>> Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first book out >>>> of 12! My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and >>>> the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, very >>>> uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until >>>> the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again. >>> >>> I'd have to look at the ordering but I think that's where my interest >>> petered out. I liked the Nominalists. Confirmation bias, I guess. My >>> natural setting regards Platonic realism as a major wrong turn in thought. >>> >> >> Amen! The nominalists were (are) the Donald Trump of metaphysicists! > > Nominalism is a crude form of transcendental idealism in that it clearly > separates the term, from the reality it describes. > > Which as you say, is not Platonic realism. > > The problem with Plato is that his realism was really idealism, in that he > regarded the ideas as more fundamental than things. > > As I said, Kant really drew everything together to produce the hybrid model > in which the world - whether you think of it as material or not - was to be > distinguished absolutely from our *conception *of it.... What is your opinion on the transcendental error? The Transcendental Error: One significant flaw in Kant’s thinking is what has been termed the “transcendental error.” This refers to Kant’s tendency to conflate the limits of human cognition with the nature of reality itself. According to critics like Peter Strawson, while Kant correctly seeks to explore what we can understand about our experiences, he mistakenly concludes that these limits are imposed by our cognitive faculties on a reality that could be structured differently. This leads to an incoherent position where one cannot meaningfully consider a reality devoid of these structures because such a consideration relies on the very cognitive faculties that Kant claims impose those structures. Thus, this misunderstanding undermines the objective status of knowledge and reality. In The Bounds of Sense, P. F. Strawson suggests a reading of Kant's first Critique that, once accepted, forces rejection of most of the original arguments, including transcendental idealism. Strawson contends that, had Kant followed out the implications of all that he said, he would have seen that there were many self-contradictions implicit in the whole.[12]: 403 Strawson views the analytic argument of the transcendental deduction as the most valuable idea in the text, and regards transcendental idealism as an unavoidable error in Kant's greatly productive system. In Strawson's traditional reading (also favored in the work of Paul Guyer and Rae Langton), the Kantian term phenomena (literally, things that can be seen—from Greek: phainomenon, "observable") refers to the world of appearances, or the world of "things" sensed.[13]: 99–101 They are tagged as "phenomena" to remind the reader that humans confuse these derivative appearances with whatever may be the forever unavailable "things in themselves" behind our perceptions. The necessary preconditions of experience, the components that humans bring to their apprehending of the world, the forms of perception such as space and time, are what make a priori judgments possible, but all of this process of comprehending what lies fundamental to human experience fails to bring anyone beyond the inherent limits of human sensibility. Kant's system requires the existence of noumena to prevent a rejection of external reality altogether, and it is this concept (senseless objects of which we can have no real understanding) to which Strawson objects in his book. > The middle ages were restrictive in terms of Christianity, but Jewish > mysticism and philosophy flourished, as did the philosophy and science of the > Persians. Before that became subsumed by Islam and vanished. > > The study of what people *thought* was real, through the ages, is a > fascinating history that isn't really covered by any discipline. Myths and > Magics, religions and gods, forces and demiurges. And then to Materialism and > Laws of Nature. A cross section of the history of ideas and philosophy of science maybe? It is very interesting! > "Maps of consciousness" as Ralph Metzner put it. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjknvr$4tan$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62405 |
On 14/12/2024 18:40, D wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 14/12/2024 10:57, D wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:13:50 +0100, D wrote: >>>> >>>>> Zeno? Well, it does sound you made quite an attack on the first >>>>> book out >>>>> of 12! My least favourite part of that series is the middle ages and >>>>> the christian philosophers and theologians. For some reason, very, >>>>> very >>>>> uninteresting to me. But greek, yes, rome, yes, then nothing, up until >>>>> the enlightenment, when things start to become interesting again. >>>> >>>> I'd have to look at the ordering but I think that's where my interest >>>> petered out. I liked the Nominalists. Confirmation bias, I guess. My >>>> natural setting regards Platonic realism as a major wrong turn in >>>> thought. >>>> >>> >>> Amen! The nominalists were (are) the Donald Trump of metaphysicists! >> >> Nominalism is a crude form of transcendental idealism in that it >> clearly separates the term, from the reality it describes. >> >> Which as you say, is not Platonic realism. >> >> The problem with Plato is that his realism was really idealism, in >> that he regarded the ideas as more fundamental than things. >> >> As I said, Kant really drew everything together to produce the hybrid >> model in which the world - whether you think of it as material or not >> - was to be distinguished absolutely from our *conception *of it.... > > What is your opinion on the transcendental error? > > The Transcendental Error: One significant flaw in Kant’s thinking is > what has been termed the “transcendental error.” This refers to Kant’s > tendency to conflate the limits of human cognition with the nature of > reality itself. I never thought that at all. He was in fact completely distinct in his thinking between 'the world in itself' and 'the world of our perceptions., as being utterly different - though related. Many materialist simply cannot understand it - to them the world is what they think it is and see it as, and therefore Kant is simply nonsense. >According to critics like Peter Strawson, while Kant > correctly seeks to explore what we can understand about our experiences, > he mistakenly concludes that these limits are imposed by our cognitive > faculties on a reality that could be structured differently. That is exactly right, and to my certain knowledge it can be: Because Strawson cant do it doesn't mean it cant be done. > This leads > to an incoherent position where one cannot meaningfully consider a > reality devoid of these structures because such a consideration relies > on the very cognitive faculties that Kant claims impose those > structures. Thus, this misunderstanding undermines the objective status > of knowledge and reality. Of course., That is the whole point. The knowledge and reality we have is entirely relative to or world view - the end results of the *reification* of 'whatever the fuck the external world really is' by the mind into a world view that encompasses the very nature of way we consider to be real. Strawson seems to be a Beleiver. He wants there to be a simple objective reality that we can grasp. Kant says 'its there, but we cannot grasp it: It has to go through our processes of categorisation before it is intelligible to us'. > > In The Bounds of Sense, P. F. Strawson suggests a reading of Kant's > first Critique that, once accepted, forces rejection of most of the > original arguments, including transcendental idealism. Strawson contends > that, had Kant followed out the implications of all that he said, he > would have seen that there were many self-contradictions implicit in the > whole.[12]: 403 Well strawspn seems to be a bit of a dick. We remember Kant and Schopenhaer, not Strawson. Schopenhauer corrected Kant a bit, which was good. Chiefly he saw the implication of 'the world in itself' more clearly and pointed out that 'things in themselves' was in fact wrong, because the idea of plurality and division was again something that happened in the mind, not necessarily in the world. > > Strawson views the analytic argument of the transcendental deduction as > the most valuable idea in the text, and regards transcendental idealism > as an unavoidable error in Kant's greatly productive system. Not sure what transcendental deduction was. Oh. The argument that says transcendental idealism is in fact what we really do. I get the feeling Strawson isn't the brightest bulb in the box. To me one follows inevitably from the other. They are aspects of the same view. > In > Strawson's traditional reading (also favored in the work of Paul Guyer > and Rae Langton), the Kantian term phenomena (literally, things that can > be seen—from Greek: phainomenon, "observable") refers to the world of > appearances, or the world of "things" sensed.[13]: 99–101 They are > tagged as "phenomena" to remind the reader that humans confuse these > derivative appearances with whatever may be the forever unavailable > "things in themselves" behind our perceptions. Exactly so, Or, post Schopenhauer, the 'thing in itself' - experience of something utterly beyond comprehension that we chunk into things and events in space time linked by causality. And out of that process pops the world of phenomena - the 'material world' as I use the term, as an emergent property of the process itself. That is, the real data is elsewhere - we create structures that point to it and call that the real world. > The necessary > preconditions of experience, the components that humans bring to their > apprehending of the world, the forms of perception such as space and > time, are what make a priori judgments possible, but all of this process > of comprehending what lies fundamental to human experience fails to > bring anyone beyond the inherent limits of human sensibility. Sounds right to me. To go further you need special techniques, to glimpse the world and indeed consciousness from a special place. Then it becomes clear. If you cant conceive of or arrive at that space or place, then it's all nonsense. I suspect Strawson simply can't. > Kant's > system requires the existence of noumena to prevent a rejection of > external reality altogether, and it is this concept (senseless objects > of which we can have no real understanding) to which Strawson objects in > his book. > Well there ya go. If you are creating a real metaphysical system you end up with awkward bits that many people don't like. Strawson presumably didn't like quantum physics either :-) I shuffled this all around in my head and came to various conclusions and people said 'you sound like Schopenhauer' and a friend who is a philosophy professor threw Kant at me and he was right. I had arrived in the same ballpark as Kant. And more so Schopenhauer, at least in the context of the best model of what 'external reality' was. But I disagreed with both of them on the moral and life choice conclusions they drew, as far as I can remember. The 'problem' of transcendental idealism is it must needs introduce an element that is anathema to materialist and realist alike , and that is the necessary postulating of an independent entity that takes 'whatever is the case' - the 'world-in-itself' - the 'noumenal world' and turns it into [maps it, performs a 'transform' on it] the 'phenomenal world' that everybody casually takes as 'real'. And that entity is the person's mind, consciousness, or soul etc etc. In fact the material world ,as we commonly understand it, moves around in the TI model to become the emergent cross-product of the world-in-itself *as interpreted by*' the 'consciousness'* .. which has to be independent or you get recursive paradoxes. You can't have the mind creating a material reality which has the mind as an emergent property of that material reality, It's unstable! Worse, it is dangerously insane and people who cant break out of that can go insane. Cognitive dissonance protects us from having that thought. Dyed in the wool materialists don't want consciousness and choice to be independent. They have already decided to make them emergent properties of *matter*, and so they think Kant is a cunt, trying possibly to reintroduce the supernatural by the back door. My own thought is that right or wrong, the answers that that model gives, solve a huge amount of subjectivity in the human experience. >> The middle ages were restrictive in terms of Christianity, but Jewish >> mysticism and philosophy flourished, as did the philosophy and science >> of the Persians. Before that became subsumed by Islam and vanished. >> >> The study of what people *thought* was real, through the ages, is a >> fascinating history that isn't really covered by any discipline. Myths >> and Magics, religions and gods, forces and demiurges. And then to >> Materialism and Laws of Nature. > > A cross section of the history of ideas and philosophy of science maybe? > It is very interesting! > I spent many years looking at religions, magical systems, cults and so on. And the paranormal and unexplained 'weird shit'. It is even more peppered with total bullshit than philosophy, but it does give a clue as to how weird some peoples minds are. And now and again I glimpsed something that might have made sense, if it hadn't been reported by complete idiots who couldn't think clearly. Some one said once I should invent a new religion. I did a test. I invented the Church of the Yo-yo. Believe in the Yo-yo and be saved. I had a great little electric yo-yo . Mesmerising. Some twit from the 'children of God' even believed me. I stopped there. I don't lust for power over peoples minds, and their purses. Funnily enough, I was very familiar with UFO cults and the like and the 'men in black meme' and when the film came out I was super amused when one of my employees insisted in explaining what 'men in black' were. I didn't think admitting I probably knew ten times more than they did was consistent with running an orderly business. -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-15 12:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <73e53272-49cf-15f8-7ec4-198e29fd1afa@example.net> |
| In reply to | #62413 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> What is your opinion on the transcendental error? >> >> The Transcendental Error: One significant flaw in Kant’s thinking is what >> has been termed the “transcendental error.” This refers to Kant’s tendency >> to conflate the limits of human cognition with the nature of reality >> itself. > > I never thought that at all. He was in fact completely distinct in his > thinking between 'the world in itself' and 'the world of our perceptions., as > being utterly different - though related. > > Many materialist simply cannot understand it - to them the world is what they > think it is and see it as, and therefore Kant is simply nonsense. Yes, I think we've established that this is why we keep talking past each other on this subject. Were you at one point in the materialist camp, and then you reached enlightenment, or did you always feel that the materialist camp was unsatisfactory, and after Kant everything sort of clicked into place for you? >> According to critics like Peter Strawson, while Kant correctly seeks to >> explore what we can understand about our experiences, he mistakenly >> concludes that these limits are imposed by our cognitive faculties on a >> reality that could be structured differently. > > That is exactly right, and to my certain knowledge it can be: Because > Strawson cant do it doesn't mean it cant be done. This is true. I was curious about what you would say about Strawsons argument. > Strawson seems to be a Beleiver. He wants there to be a simple objective > reality that we can grasp. Kant says 'its there, but we cannot grasp it: It > has to go through our processes of categorisation before it is intelligible > to us'. I think the point is that, if we can never grasp it, we can never say it is or anything about it, and I think that is why he argues it collapses into idealism, or potentially, solipsism. >> Kant's system requires the existence of noumena to prevent a rejection of >> external reality altogether, and it is this concept (senseless objects of >> which we can have no real understanding) to which Strawson objects in his >> book. >> > Well there ya go. If you are creating a real metaphysical system you end up > with awkward bits that many people don't like. > > Strawson presumably didn't like quantum physics either :-) This is another very interesting topic. Which interpretation is true, is anyone of them true? Or should we adopt the stance and "shut up and calculate"? > I shuffled this all around in my head and came to various conclusions and > people said 'you sound like Schopenhauer' and a friend who is a philosophy > professor threw Kant at me and he was right. I had arrived in the same > ballpark as Kant. And more so Schopenhauer, at least in the context of the > best model of what 'external reality' was. > > But I disagreed with both of them on the moral and life choice conclusions > they drew, as far as I can remember. > > The 'problem' of transcendental idealism is it must needs introduce an > element that is anathema to materialist and realist alike , and that is the > necessary postulating of an independent entity that takes 'whatever is the > case' - the 'world-in-itself' - the 'noumenal world' and turns it into [maps > it, performs a 'transform' on it] the 'phenomenal world' that everybody > casually takes as 'real'. I think this is the fundamental disagreement and what Strawson feels is the fundamental error that collapses it into idealism. > Dyed in the wool materialists don't want consciousness and choice to be > independent. They have already decided to make them emergent properties of > *matter*, and so they think Kant is a cunt, trying possibly to reintroduce > the supernatural by the back door. This makes a lot of sense to me. > My own thought is that right or wrong, the answers that that model gives, > solve a huge amount of subjectivity in the human experience. Each answer has its own pros and cons. Since it's philosophy, there is always the risk that the conversation will still be going on in a 1000 years. ;) Thank you for your comments and explanation. I think I understand you better now, and where the key-disagreement is. >> A cross section of the history of ideas and philosophy of science maybe? It >> is very interesting! >> > I spent many years looking at religions, magical systems, cults and so on. > And the paranormal and unexplained 'weird shit'. It is even more peppered > with total bullshit than philosophy, but it does give a clue as to how weird > some peoples minds are. This is the truth! It seems to me that "magic" has collapsed into pop-psychology in our current day and age. I am very interested in the subject, from that angle. I think magic dovetails nicely with the philosophy of Feyerabend and perhaps you can add a pinch of pragmatism as well. At least that seems to be the justification I get when talking to "occultists" and wiccans. > And now and again I glimpsed something that might have made sense, if it > hadn't been reported by complete idiots who couldn't think clearly. > > Some one said once I should invent a new religion. I did a test. I invented > the Church of the Yo-yo. Believe in the Yo-yo and be saved. I had a great > little electric yo-yo . Mesmerising. Some twit from the 'children of God' > even believed me. > > I stopped there. I don't lust for power over peoples minds, and their purses. > > Funnily enough, I was very familiar with UFO cults and the like and the 'men > in black meme' and when the film came out I was super amused when one of my > employees insisted in explaining what 'men in black' were. > > I didn't think admitting I probably knew ten times more than they did was > consistent with running an orderly business. Maybe you stopped too soon? If not, you would have had a nice old age, with many young women to support you! ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web