Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #652664
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Date | 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700 |
| Organization | To protect and to server |
| Message-ID | <660D076B.6C68@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <l71kmnFje11U1@mid.individual.net> <AwNHa33OTto93tgHGw_X4ucJZ-Y@jntp> <660C3EF7.3876@ix.netcom.com> <uuhitu$3c4p4$1@dont-email.me> <pV6diSgMn424_BVfaTlYcGfQbuQ@jntp> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TH > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > >>>>>>> *** > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > >>>>>> fault. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > >>>>>> punished by death. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > >>>>>>> there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > >>>>>>> respect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > >>>>> youtube videos. > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > >>>> > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > >>>> > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > >>> > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > >>> Thanks very much. > >>>> > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > >>> > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > >>>> > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > >>> > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > >>> is good. > >>>> > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > >>>> worked quite well. > >>> > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > >>> > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > >>> Courage! > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Arindam Banerjee > >>> > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > >>> (All rights reserved) > >>> > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > >>> > >>> *** > >>> > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > >>> > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > >>> > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > >>> > >>> ***** > >>> > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > >>> > >>> Section 1 > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > >>> > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 2 > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 3 > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 4 > >>> The Nature of Explosion > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 5 > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > >>> > >>> ******* > >>> > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > >>> > >>> **** > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > >>> > >>> The cause of gravity > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > >>> > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > >>> > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > >>> > >>> ***** > >>> > >>>> > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TH > >> > >> > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > scientists! > >> > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > >> thinking.. > >> > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > pretend it is bone broth. > Honesty above all. > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > >> up with one? ? > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > film "Independence Day". > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > technology will follow. > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > me. > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > form in the process. > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > do it for us. > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > >> > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > >> > >> > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > and Einstein's cohorts. > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > point. > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > opportunism, at least for me. > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > >> > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > >> teleportation, which > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.html > turn to top truth after that. > We can go to the stars, by travelling faster than light with internal > force. As I showed in my book "To the Stars!" published online in 2000. > > My videos, above, make that clear. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-21 13:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-23 08:18 +0100
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-23 10:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 07:19 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thean Nogushi Hatoyama <nllah@eeele.jp> - 2024-03-26 12:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:53 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-27 09:18 +0100
Re: ? ? ? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-03-27 12:43 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 13:00 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 13:01 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jed László Barabás <sx@sajd.hu> - 2024-03-27 11:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 12:47 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thaddeus Horiatis Demetrious <sit@ssdiet.gr> - 2024-03-27 14:56 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 23:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Yasmani Hasekura <asna@unnsmahua.jp> - 2024-03-28 02:38 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 03:14 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Leland Behtenev Basov <ene@thdnt.ru> - 2024-03-28 04:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 04:35 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 21:49 -0700
Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:49 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-28 07:14 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 07:09 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-30 08:54 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 10:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-02 07:56 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:07 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-03 08:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Yusney Turaev Momotov <tnoyn@ou.ru> - 2024-04-03 06:53 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 02:18 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:54 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-06 09:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-06 13:54 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 12:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-06 12:51 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 15:03 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:25 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-07 21:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 01:36 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 07:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 10:23 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 11:31 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 00:16 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 01:02 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 22:58 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-08 20:08 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-08 21:19 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Yatzyk Trampotova <ezyey@kynyrt.ru> - 2024-03-23 17:39 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-25 08:06 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Evasio Alexandropoulos <ouep@seood.gr> - 2024-03-25 17:48 +0000
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-26 22:30 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 16:31 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 17:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-29 17:05 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 12:27 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 14:46 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 10:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 21:36 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 09:52 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 10:16 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 12:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 12:48 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 23:03 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 05:57 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 09:00 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 10:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Colin Mcdonald <mna@aincmic.uk> - 2024-04-04 22:59 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 16:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 00:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 01:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-05 06:24 -0700
csiph-web