Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151227 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-10 12:59 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 15:17 +1000 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 65 participants
Thread has 1285 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1285 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-10 12:59 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 10:21 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-10 10:54 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 11:43 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-10 14:07 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-10 14:00 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 14:05 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-10 15:58 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-11 19:04 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-11 23:29 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-10 12:47 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 19:03 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "hqhy" <hqhy@nospam.com> - 2015-09-11 10:21 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 21:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-11 12:48 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:05 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 04:27 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-12 14:12 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-13 06:51 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-12 21:47 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-12 22:53 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-13 17:46 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-14 10:17 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-15 04:48 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-13 21:13 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-14 18:06 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-13 14:20 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-13 10:28 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 10:54 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-13 21:15 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-13 23:01 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-14 04:18 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-12 19:38 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 12:20 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:45 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-13 13:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 10:30 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-13 17:14 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-14 07:00 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:13 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-15 13:07 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 04:31 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-14 16:35 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 07:58 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 08:14 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 13:16 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-15 10:12 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:51 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 16:03 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-15 16:01 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:29 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 20:13 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 20:12 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:39 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-16 11:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-15 13:07 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-15 06:14 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-15 14:55 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-15 16:05 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-16 12:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:27 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 14:49 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:12 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 11:21 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-16 15:02 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 08:08 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 11:04 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 10:45 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 18:02 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 12:50 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 07:33 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-16 10:11 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 13:53 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-16 18:08 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 21:34 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 21:15 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 19:17 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:30 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 15:36 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 19:51 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 16:27 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:25 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-17 07:11 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:58 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:35 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-18 13:19 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-18 09:58 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-18 10:25 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-19 16:29 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-18 19:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:36 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-19 03:24 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-19 10:06 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:14 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-16 13:40 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 10:52 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-18 11:46 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:54 +0000
Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-15 14:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-15 19:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 08:00 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-16 11:06 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-16 18:38 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Scion <a.b@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-25 13:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-17 09:45 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-17 08:34 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-18 12:35 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:54 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-18 21:23 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-19 03:24 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-19 11:09 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-19 16:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-19 22:09 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 07:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 10:50 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-20 15:04 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 11:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-21 12:36 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:43 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 20:03 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-21 07:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:19 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 10:15 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-21 21:33 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-22 11:51 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 07:03 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 16:29 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:39 -0500
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 10:35 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 13:45 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 15:00 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-22 14:01 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 10:29 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-22 15:47 +0100
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 16:27 +0100
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-22 14:28 -0400
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 11:58 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 04:37 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 15:09 -0500
Re: power supplies Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-22 18:11 -0700
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-22 22:16 -0400
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 07:37 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 11:06 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-23 16:33 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:26 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 04:37 +0000
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-23 08:32 +0000
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:44 +0000
Re: power supplies "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:17 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 23:35 -0400
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 07:19 +0000
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 23:41 -0400
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-28 09:34 +0000
Re: power supplies Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:29 +0000
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-28 06:28 -0500
Re: power supplies Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:05 +0000
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:07 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 16:09 -0400
Re: power supplies Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-29 07:04 +0000
Re: power supplies Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-28 16:28 +0000
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-28 19:28 +0200
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 16:00 -0400
Re: power supplies rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-29 06:09 +0000
Re: power supplies Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 08:58 +0000
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:45 +0000
Re: power supplies "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:20 -0500
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-23 08:18 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 11:09 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-23 16:31 +0000
Re: power supplies Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-23 11:20 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:45 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:38 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:44 +0000
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-24 13:35 +0000
Re: power supplies sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-30 18:35 -0400
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-01 13:17 +0000
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-01 08:27 -0500
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-02 13:11 +0000
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-02 14:42 +0000
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-02 19:17 +0100
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-02 15:14 -0400
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 14:20 -0500
Re: power supplies Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-02 20:15 -0500
Re: power supplies Michele <havana9@bigmailbox.net> - 2015-10-04 23:41 +0200
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-01 13:27 +0000
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-04 14:22 +0000
Re: power supplies "Hanny Z" <hz@nospam.com> - 2015-10-05 03:46 +1100
Re: power supplies Michele <havana9@bigmailbox.net> - 2015-10-04 23:51 +0200
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 12:47 +0000
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:29 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 07:16 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-05 15:37 +0100
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:35 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-23 09:53 +0100
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-23 13:50 +0100
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 20:16 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:46 -0500
Re: power supplies Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-23 12:42 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 14:50 -0400
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:51 -0700
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 10:31 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-24 14:18 -0500
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 21:36 +0200
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-24 15:05 -0500
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 22:21 +0200
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 13:49 -0700
steam coold, too, was: power supplies danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-09-25 02:22 +0000
Re: steam coold, too, was: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-25 07:17 -0700
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 13:44 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 10:36 -0500
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-25 10:51 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 14:10 -0500
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-25 12:33 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 15:07 -0500
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-25 20:21 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-26 16:04 -0500
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-27 07:01 -0400
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 16:42 +0000
Re: power supplies sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-30 18:42 -0400
Re: power supplies Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:14 +0200
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 15:43 +0100
Re: power supplies Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2015-09-23 07:47 -0600
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 15:41 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-22 23:58 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 15:48 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2015-09-24 12:13 +0800
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:30 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 21:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 18:10 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 20:27 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 01:55 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:36 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-21 22:11 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 16:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 10:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-23 06:57 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 08:57 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-22 10:51 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 02:29 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 19:23 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 14:58 -0500
accurate watches, was: Decimal point character and billions danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-09-23 20:51 +0000
Re: accurate watches, was: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:49 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:01 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:47 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 12:14 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-25 09:07 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-23 14:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:13 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-24 00:46 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 07:19 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-24 17:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 02:30 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-22 22:12 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-23 06:58 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-22 19:22 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 10:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-24 07:43 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-23 12:46 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 18:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-24 04:05 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 22:31 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 15:49 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 11:05 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 16:30 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 16:02 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:28 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:17 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2015-09-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-23 17:12 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-23 10:45 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-21 22:09 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:25 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-22 07:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-20 18:26 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 19:34 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 22:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-21 09:16 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:33 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-20 15:39 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:31 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-20 16:26 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-20 21:28 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-21 09:23 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-20 10:22 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 16:48 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:01 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 22:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions mausg@mail.com - 2015-09-21 10:28 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 16:29 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions mausg@mail.com - 2015-09-21 20:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 21:49 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 17:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-21 18:03 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-22 00:45 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-20 12:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 01:20 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-21 18:07 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:20 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-20 19:23 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 10:08 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 14:11 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:50 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 05:43 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:08 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:03 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 10:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 12:36 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-28 09:54 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 13:20 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 19:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 15:12 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 17:01 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 17:15 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 20:49 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 07:32 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 18:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 03:07 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-29 10:38 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 12:53 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:15 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-29 12:14 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 20:26 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 12:16 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-01 10:32 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-29 17:32 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-29 07:47 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 07:36 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-29 13:35 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 17:15 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:54 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 09:02 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-30 21:59 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 14:49 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-09-30 20:09 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-01 05:47 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-01 15:13 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 05:40 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 14:34 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 13:45 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 11:59 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 14:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 16:08 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 17:12 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-29 13:55 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 21:22 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-29 07:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-02 16:41 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 18:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:10 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-05 16:20 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-06 17:17 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 08:27 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-07 15:22 -0500
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-07 21:42 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-07 18:01 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-08 12:02 +0100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:19 +0200
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-08 11:41 -0500
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-09 11:25 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-08 07:49 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-09 13:02 +0100
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:32 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 18:46 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:07 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-09 19:16 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-09 23:59 -0300
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-10 12:03 -0700
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-08 11:17 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:28 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:29 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-08 13:21 -0700
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-14 11:41 -0700
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 22:02 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-15 03:21 -0300
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-15 08:53 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 13:53 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 11:32 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:36 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 18:46 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:15 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-09 22:50 +0200
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:06 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 13:49 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:02 -0700
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 14:23 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:20 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:24 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 09:16 -0400
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-10 15:00 -0300
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-10 20:11 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:19 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 22:21 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-10 18:32 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-10 21:47 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-12 15:54 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-12 21:39 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 19:43 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-12 21:29 -0700
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 16:33 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 15:25 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 19:06 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 05:39 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 11:23 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 12:46 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 09:17 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 09:24 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 13:01 -0400
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 19:04 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 16:20 -0400
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 16:24 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:34 -0700
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-12 17:59 -0500
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-13 02:05 -0300
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:23 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 17:05 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 03:15 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:45 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 15:13 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 20:52 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 03:29 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 03:45 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 08:20 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:56 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 18:21 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 16:16 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 16:50 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 21:59 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:05 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 06:43 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 10:58 -0500
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-15 16:41 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-15 17:51 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 18:40 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-15 07:12 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 10:48 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 12:27 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-15 13:40 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 14:21 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:37 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 15:26 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-13 16:16 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 17:57 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 03:15 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-28 13:17 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 14:48 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 12:34 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 07:32 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-28 17:06 -0500
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 01:12 -0300
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 04:47 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 11:11 -0700
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 16:32 -0300
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:31 -0500
Re: rationality Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:48 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:35 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 21:51 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:30 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-30 11:40 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-30 23:17 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-31 01:16 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-31 12:07 -0700
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:16 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-31 21:27 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-01 15:04 +1100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 10:07 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-01 16:20 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:26 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-02 05:30 -0600
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-02 06:16 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:55 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 17:34 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-06 12:20 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 14:43 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 20:26 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 10:44 -0800
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:28 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 15:55 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:31 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:50 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 07:58 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 11:02 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-06 12:01 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 15:29 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 07:05 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 14:36 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 20:49 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 06:28 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 08:26 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-07 13:53 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 14:18 +0100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:44 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-11 19:12 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 13:31 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-11 17:05 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-12 00:44 +0100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-12 00:53 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 23:20 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:38 +0100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 06:27 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:03 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 14:00 +0000
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-05 14:41 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 12:46 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:52 -0600
Re: rationality Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-11-06 02:32 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:15 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:12 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 10:49 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 12:53 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 14:03 -0500
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 20:11 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:33 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-05 22:33 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:30 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 10:43 -0800
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 07:05 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 08:04 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:55 +1100
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 09:13 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2015-11-02 16:28 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 10:42 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:12 -0500
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:07 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 14:14 +0100
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 10:17 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 10:24 -0600
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:07 -0800
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-09 12:47 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 15:28 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 17:43 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 18:48 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 20:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 20:32 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 20:54 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:25 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-12 13:59 -0800
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-13 08:02 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 06:54 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-13 08:28 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-13 10:32 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 15:27 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-16 11:46 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-13 09:21 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 14:44 +1100
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-13 14:09 +0000
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-13 09:32 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 14:47 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-14 01:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-14 09:42 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 20:49 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-14 10:15 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-15 04:49 +1100
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:50 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-14 16:58 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:03 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-16 12:45 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-16 18:23 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 18:23 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-16 20:42 -0500
Re: rationality maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:42 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 08:01 -0500
Re: historicla archives hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 08:02 -0800
Re: historicla archives Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:49 -0500
Re: historicla archives hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 12:05 -0800
Re: historicla archives JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:44 -0600
Re: historicla archives Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 15:30 -0500
Re: historicla archives Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 22:55 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:48 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 11:21 -0800
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:37 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-17 16:27 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:49 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:41 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 11:53 -0800
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-17 12:17 -0800
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 22:59 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 17:18 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:35 +0000
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-19 14:26 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-19 10:00 -0800
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-20 08:04 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-20 10:16 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:41 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:46 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 12:30 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 09:40 -0600
Re: rationality Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-15 18:09 +0100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 19:06 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-15 19:35 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 20:34 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-15 16:31 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-15 19:09 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-16 11:38 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:34 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 08:22 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-16 11:36 +1100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 08:21 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-15 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-13 14:19 +0000
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 14:20 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 18:03 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:09 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 19:54 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 21:27 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 23:34 -0600
Re: rationality - Y2K Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 10:03 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 14:13 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 08:38 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 02:55 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 10:09 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:11 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 12:57 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 12:38 -0600
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-10 03:03 -0600
Re: rationality "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:31 +1100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 13:15 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 17:24 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 18:25 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 19:26 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-10 10:30 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 11:48 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:25 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 11:05 +1100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:31 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 14:34 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-07 13:42 +1100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 23:34 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 00:32 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-07 11:47 +0000
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:03 -0800
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:55 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 15:39 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:42 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-11 11:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:48 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-11 17:24 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 09:38 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:54 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-11 13:53 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 14:13 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 21:31 +0100
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-07 13:45 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 11:50 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-07 19:11 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 20:37 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:40 +0000
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-08 11:37 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-07 18:46 -0800
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:44 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:36 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 12:18 +0100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-02 18:47 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 -0800
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 02:46 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 16:34 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 00:45 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 20:33 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 13:22 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 12:21 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 13:25 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 11:25 +1100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 10:51 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 17:56 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 18:07 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 13:18 +1100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 07:29 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 13:13 +1100
Re: rationality Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-11-02 21:16 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 07:29 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 16:04 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 16:19 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 16:56 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:22 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:12 +0100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:06 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 14:17 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 12:29 -0800
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:13 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:13 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-08 16:56 +1100
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-08 03:23 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 11:04 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-08 15:33 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 16:45 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-08 14:18 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 22:02 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 09:53 +1100
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 08:03 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 00:10 -0600
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 04:22 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 05:47 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 12:31 -0500
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-09 17:43 +0000
Re: rationality tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 10:13 -0800
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-09 17:13 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:45 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 15:08 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 11:09 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 01:19 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-10 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-15 15:48 +0100
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-15 16:28 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-16 14:23 -0600
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-16 12:37 -0800
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-16 15:49 -0600
Re: rationality cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-11-16 21:59 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-16 18:36 -0600
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-17 07:55 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-16 21:07 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-09 12:55 -0800
Re: rationality "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-09 22:55 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 19:04 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 13:15 -0600
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 16:23 -0400
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 16:26 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 09:44 +1100
Re: rationality Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-11-09 23:19 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:50 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-10 00:50 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 20:14 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 14:19 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-12 13:56 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-12 16:53 -0600
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-13 00:41 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-13 19:11 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-13 09:39 -0800
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-13 18:17 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 20:46 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-14 20:35 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-15 10:29 +1100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-13 17:50 +1100
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-09 14:41 +0000
Re: rationality "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-09 15:14 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-09 16:33 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 13:27 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 09:22 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 14:59 -0500
Re: rationality Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-09 13:42 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:11 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-09 11:17 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 11:58 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 08:13 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 06:44 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 13:37 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 16:52 +0100
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:46 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 10:59 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 16:42 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 13:31 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 23:52 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 14:41 +1100
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:06 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:53 +1100
Overthrow Chinese Governmen (Was: Re: rationality) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 04:59 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 10:52 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:10 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:26 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-04 13:55 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 16:18 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 18:18 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 01:13 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 22:22 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-05 17:56 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-06 09:56 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 06:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 12:54 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:52 +1100
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-06 10:06 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:09 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:37 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 16:52 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 06:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:40 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 18:04 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 19:35 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 10:54 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 07:44 -0600
Re: rationality - bridge to somewhere Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 09:36 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 12:07 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 15:29 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-06 12:24 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:52 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 13:06 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 13:34 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 02:18 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 09:00 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-10 17:33 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-11 12:20 +1100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:41 -0500
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-10 22:49 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-11 07:46 -0800
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:01 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:46 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 12:27 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:42 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:48 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:07 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 10:44 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 10:42 +0100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 10:32 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:04 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 10:46 -0800
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:54 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-03 10:00 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 19:43 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 13:08 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-03 15:24 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 22:38 +0100
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 17:04 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 10:33 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:09 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 14:19 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:45 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:51 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 09:56 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 08:44 -0600
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:00 -0600
Re: rationality cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-11-04 16:13 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-03 19:32 +0000
Re: rationality "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:18 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-01 13:59 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 11:32 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:57 -0600
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:38 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:56 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 +1100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:48 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 11:07 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 07:58 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 13:18 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:15 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-29 13:45 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 20:01 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 23:46 -0300
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-30 04:56 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:39 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 20:43 +0000
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-29 21:02 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:27 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-30 09:42 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 10:41 -0500
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-04 19:56 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 11:13 +0000
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-05 11:33 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 14:04 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-05 16:13 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-14 15:52 -0400
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-13 12:21 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 12:00 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 18:21 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 13:54 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-15 17:51 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 17:02 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 10:38 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 18:37 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 14:15 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:10 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-14 21:00 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-16 10:20 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-19 13:28 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 15:18 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-20 11:27 -0700
Re: rationality Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-08 10:23 -0400
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:55 +0200
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:07 -0500
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-09 12:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 20:37 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:24 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:15 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 22:57 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 08:32 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-03 11:11 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 15:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:11 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-04 14:50 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 12:47 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:44 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:13 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-06 17:52 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Hanny Z" <hz@nospam.com> - 2015-10-06 09:26 +1100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 20:40 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 16:12 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:14 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 12:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-29 10:07 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:05 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 10:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-29 12:35 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 13:03 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 16:48 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:17 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 17:25 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:37 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:06 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-29 19:25 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-30 02:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-09-30 03:35 -0300
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 16:58 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 06:25 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-28 13:26 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:17 +1000
Page 48 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 46 47 [48] 49 50 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 12:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvm1j5$84u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152778 |
On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: > stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote: >>> A friend claims that there's no such thing as pure altruism: >>> people who do apparently altruistic things are doing it for their >>> own benefit, either because of the warm glow it gives them, or >>> because at some level they will indirectly benefit from their >>> act. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting idea. >> >> As uncomfortable as that theory may be, it seems to be the >> prevailing one, and so far I can't find any logical flaws or >> counter-examples. > > The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the > prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so much > on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you define > altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others where there is > no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from the act", it > becomes trivially true, and therefore uninteresting. Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a certain conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though I can't find a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; "begging the question" and "assuming the conclusion" come close but don't quite fit. Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such an impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't recall whether this definition matched the one I already had in my head--if I had a specific one at all. > ISTM rather less clear if you define altruism as "self-sacrifice for > the benefit of others being the highest moral duty, without which > there is no justification for existence", which is pretty much what > its original definition was, I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he coined the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that looks like a formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that one had a moral obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that he believed one was not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) from doing so. > and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing against; > it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that scenario, as > there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow from the act of > self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the warm glow was the > whole point: the more altrustic you are, the more self-righteous you > can -- should? -- feel). If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to others is secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism. If the two are reversed, it probably is. Such a distinction probably isn't useful, though, since an observer can't reliably determine their relation. > It's interesting that Altruists International (I wonder where they > got their mandate to speak for all altruists?) have three definitions > of altruism, none of which precludes getting a warm glow. > > http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/ #1 seems unhelpfully vague; #2 is the most exact, but #3 is probably the most useful to laymen and this discussion in particular. It's interesting the number of ways that one can appear to say the same thing yet, after applying the same logic, produce entirely different results. >> Hitchens made an IMHO rather strong case as devil's advocate >> against Mother Theresa's canonization. His arguments and evidence >> were quite specific to her, as required by the context, but >> considering she is the canonical example of pure altruism... > > A strong case indeed. Watching Hitchens's 1994 film, I was rather > struck by a statement from Mother Teresa herself: > > Right from the very beginning, I wanted to serve the poor purely for > the love of God. > > I find myself speculating about which definition of altruism that > view fits in with... I'm not sure it does, actually. To do something for the "love of God" does not necessarily imply that one loves all His (alleged) creations, but if so, that would seem to fit #1. However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 18:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvm6fu01lbh@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152914 |
On 2015-10-14, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a certain
> conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though I can't find
> a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; "begging the question"
> and "assuming the conclusion" come close but don't quite fit.
There needn't be any logical fallacy. Perfectly logical processes can
yield wildly different results depending on your initial postulates.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
-- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 13:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvm894$462$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152920 |
On 14-Oct-15 13:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2015-10-14, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a >> certain conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though >> I can't find a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; >> "begging the question" and "assuming the conclusion" come close but >> don't quite fit. > > There needn't be any logical fallacy. Perfectly logical processes > can yield wildly different results depending on your initial > postulates. There may be no logical fallacy per se, but if your postulates are deliberately chosen so that a particular result can be achieved, that doesn't seem like an honest argument. > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful > tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more > nor less." > -- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass I do love that quote, but an apparent recounting of an acid trip is perhaps not the best citation to support rational/logical argument ;) S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvop2s31sm8@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152925 |
On 2015-10-14, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 14-Oct-15 13:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2015-10-14, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> >>> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a >>> certain conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though >>> I can't find a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; >>> "begging the question" and "assuming the conclusion" come close but >>> don't quite fit. >> >> There needn't be any logical fallacy. Perfectly logical processes >> can yield wildly different results depending on your initial >> postulates. > > There may be no logical fallacy per se, but if your postulates are > deliberately chosen so that a particular result can be achieved, that > doesn't seem like an honest argument. It might not be honest, but at least it's logical in its dishonesty. >> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful >> tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more >> nor less." >> -- Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass > > I do love that quote, but an apparent recounting of an acid trip is > perhaps not the best citation to support rational/logical argument ;) Hey! How did you know that's when I read that book? -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 17:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <2089934747.466548998.828912.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #152914 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote: >>>> A friend claims that there's no such thing as pure altruism: >>>> people who do apparently altruistic things are doing it for their >>>> own benefit, either because of the warm glow it gives them, or >>>> because at some level they will indirectly benefit from their >>>> act. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting idea. >>> >>> As uncomfortable as that theory may be, it seems to be the >>> prevailing one, and so far I can't find any logical flaws or >>> counter-examples. >> >> The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the >> prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so much >> on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you define >> altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others where there is >> no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from the act", it >> becomes trivially true, and therefore uninteresting. > > Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a certain > conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though I can't find > a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; "begging the question" > and "assuming the conclusion" come close but don't quite fit. > > Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such an > impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't recall > whether this definition matched the one I already had in my head--if I > had a specific one at all. > >> ISTM rather less clear if you define altruism as "self-sacrifice for >> the benefit of others being the highest moral duty, without which >> there is no justification for existence", which is pretty much what >> its original definition was, > > I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he coined > the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that looks like a > formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that one had a moral > obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that he believed one was > not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) from doing so. > >> and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing against; >> it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that scenario, as >> there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow from the act of >> self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the warm glow was the >> whole point: the more altrustic you are, the more self-righteous you >> can -- should? -- feel). > > If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to others is > secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism. If the two are > reversed, it probably is. Such a distinction probably isn't useful, > though, since an observer can't reliably determine their relation. > >> It's interesting that Altruists International (I wonder where they >> got their mandate to speak for all altruists?) have three definitions >> of altruism, none of which precludes getting a warm glow. >> >> http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/ > > #1 seems unhelpfully vague; #2 is the most exact, but #3 is probably the > most useful to laymen and this discussion in particular. > > It's interesting the number of ways that one can appear to say the same > thing yet, after applying the same logic, produce entirely different > results. > >>> Hitchens made an IMHO rather strong case as devil's advocate >>> against Mother Theresa's canonization. His arguments and evidence >>> were quite specific to her, as required by the context, but >>> considering she is the canonical example of pure altruism... >> >> A strong case indeed. Watching Hitchens's 1994 film, I was rather >> struck by a statement from Mother Teresa herself: >> >> Right from the very beginning, I wanted to serve the poor purely for >> the love of God. >> >> I find myself speculating about which definition of altruism that >> view fits in with... > > I'm not sure it does, actually. To do something for the "love of God" > does not necessarily imply that one loves all His (alleged) creations, > but if so, that would seem to fit #1. > > However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about > her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which > seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far. > Altruism is not a requirement for sainthood. There are lots of saints I would consider b@stards. Mother Theresa is no where near that. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 11:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1v5cu.314.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152936 |
On 2015-10-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >>> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote: >> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about >> her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which >> seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far. >> > > Altruism is not a requirement for sainthood. There are lots of saints I > would consider b@stards. Mother Theresa is no where near that. > A lot of `saints` are transformed pagan gods. A lot of modern ones are people who did adminstrative work in the church, and, like many on the UK honours list, have not been found out yet. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 10:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <1020872255.466612570.337664.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #152952 |
Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote: > On 2015-10-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >>>> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote: >>> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about >>> her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which >>> seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far. >>> >> >> Altruism is not a requirement for sainthood. There are lots of saints I >> would consider b@stards. Mother Theresa is no where near that. >> > > > A lot of `saints` are transformed pagan gods. A lot of modern ones > are people who did adminstrative work in the church, and, like many on > the UK honours list, have not been found out yet. > I was thinking of the old intolerant guys like the Breton saints or the guy who lived on top of a pillar in the desert. Many of the early saints in Egypt and Syria were pretty obnoxious people. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 18:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1vvqk.35f.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152958 |
On 2015-10-15, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote:
>>>>> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
>>>>>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote:
>>>> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about
>>>> her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which
>>>> seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Altruism is not a requirement for sainthood. There are lots of saints I
>>> would consider b@stards. Mother Theresa is no where near that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of `saints` are transformed pagan gods. A lot of modern ones
>> are people who did adminstrative work in the church, and, like many on
>> the UK honours list, have not been found out yet.
>>
>
> I was thinking of the old intolerant guys like the Breton saints or the guy
> who lived on top of a pillar in the desert.
I often wondered what the ground around the bottom of the pillar was covered
with!. AFAIK, the pillar is still there but worn away with pilgrims taking
bits of it.
Our local saint, St. Kevin, left his `woman' and went to live in a cave over a
mountain lake, when she followed and asked him to come home, he threw her in
the laake and she drowned. Is that saintlike behaviour.
> Many of the early saints in
> Egypt and Syria were pretty obnoxious people.
The same mindset ("women are bad and obstruct the way to heaven") was present
in Irish monasticism as well (see above), the believers were called `ceile De'
("People of God").. how the same ideas moved from Islam to Christianity and
back. The Byzantine "Icon smashers", etc.
>
--
greymaus
.
.
...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 14:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvots6$4mv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152973 |
On 15-Oct-15 13:37, Greymaus wrote:
> Our local saint, St. Kevin, left his `woman' and went to live in a
> cave over a mountain lake, when she followed and asked him to come
> home, he threw her in the laake and she drowned. Is that saintlike
> behaviour.
I'm not sure; he probably should have stoned her to death.
> The same mindset ("women are bad and obstruct the way to heaven") was
> present in Irish monasticism as well (see above), the believers were
> called `ceile De' ("People of God").. how the same ideas moved from
> Islam to Christianity and back. The Byzantine "Icon smashers", etc.
Such ideas didn't move between Islam and Christianity; that women are
inherently sinful and tempt men away from God is a core part of the
scriptures that both inherited from Judaism, starting in Genesis and
relentlessly reinforced in later books.
The idea of inherently chaste women who are corrupted by inherently
wanton men is an invention of American suffragists; it didn't achieve
their goals, but it _did_ fundamentally change American culture.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 11:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvoj2f$n55$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152936 |
On 14-Oct-15 16:02, Peter Flass wrote: >>> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: Please trim quotes to what you're actually replying to. >>>> Hitchens made an IMHO rather strong case as devil's advocate >>>> against Mother Theresa's canonization. His arguments and >>>> evidence were quite specific to her, as required by the >>>> context, but considering she is the canonical example of pure >>>> altruism... > > Altruism is not a requirement for sainthood. There are lots of > saints I would consider b@stards. Mother Theresa is no where near > that. I never said it was a requirement. I said she's the canonical example of altruism, and that happens to be why _she_ was canonized, but the devil's advocate made a strong case that she wasn't altruistic at all. That she isn't as horrible as some other saints were is not, in itself, an argument for canonization; if that were the standard, Jeffrey Dahmer and Osama bin Laden should be canonized. In fact, pretty much every human that ever lived, except perhaps Hitler and Stalin, should be. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 21:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mvn18o$jsd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152914 |
On 10/14/2015 12:00 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote: >>>> A friend claims that there's no such thing as pure altruism: >>>> people who do apparently altruistic things are doing it for their >>>> own benefit, either because of the warm glow it gives them, or >>>> because at some level they will indirectly benefit from their >>>> act. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting idea. >>> >>> As uncomfortable as that theory may be, it seems to be the >>> prevailing one, and so far I can't find any logical flaws or >>> counter-examples. >> >> The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the >> prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so much >> on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you define >> altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others where there is >> no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from the act", it >> becomes trivially true, and therefore uninteresting. > > Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a certain > conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though I can't find > a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; "begging the question" > and "assuming the conclusion" come close but don't quite fit. > > Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such an > impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't recall > whether this definition matched the one I already had in my head--if I > had a specific one at all. > >> ISTM rather less clear if you define altruism as "self-sacrifice for >> the benefit of others being the highest moral duty, without which >> there is no justification for existence", which is pretty much what >> its original definition was, > > I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he coined > the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that looks like a > formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that one had a moral > obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that he believed one was > not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) from doing so. > >> and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing against; >> it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that scenario, as >> there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow from the act of >> self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the warm glow was the >> whole point: the more altrustic you are, the more self-righteous you >> can -- should? -- feel). > > If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to others is > secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism. If the two are > reversed, it probably is. Such a distinction probably isn't useful, > though, since an observer can't reliably determine their relation. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night" He was talking about negative things (a character who was an undercover agent who very convincingly pretended to support the Nazis), but it's true for positive things as well. As long as you generate the behavior, an external observer cannot determine the difference, and anything else is just mind games.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 10:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <20151016.0920.972638snz@twoplaces.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #152914 |
On Wednesday, in article <mvm1j5$84u$1@dont-email.me>
stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote:
>> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
>>> On 08-Oct-15 06:02, Simon Turner wrote:
>>>> A friend claims that there's no such thing as pure altruism:
>>>> people who do apparently altruistic things are doing it for their
>>>> own benefit, either because of the warm glow it gives them, or
>>>> because at some level they will indirectly benefit from their
>>>> act. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting idea.
>>>
>>> As uncomfortable as that theory may be, it seems to be the
>>> prevailing one, and so far I can't find any logical flaws or
>>> counter-examples.
>>
>> The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the
>> prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so much
>> on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you define
>> altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others where there is
>> no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from the act", it
>> becomes trivially true, and therefore uninteresting.
>
> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a certain
> conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though I can't find
> a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; "begging the question"
> and "assuming the conclusion" come close but don't quite fit.
It's so long since I studied logic that I can't offer anything better.
Does intellectual dishonesty necessarily require a logical fallacy? (It
may well do, but I'd need to think about it more than I have time for at
the moment.)
> Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such an
> impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't recall
> whether this definition matched the one I already had in my head--if I
> had a specific one at all.
The first time I heard it was only a few years ago, and it certainly
didn't match my internal definition of altruism. This discussion has
made me think a lot more about the whole area, which can only be a Good
Thing.
>> ISTM rather less clear if you define altruism as "self-sacrifice for
>> the benefit of others being the highest moral duty, without which
>> there is no justification for existence", which is pretty much what
>> its original definition was,
>
> I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he coined
> the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that looks like a
> formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that one had a moral
> obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that he believed one was
> not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) from doing so.
Indeed; like you, I couldn't find a formal statement by him of precisely
what he believed, but I haven't been able to find anything suggesting
that benefits to the altruist were not permitted. Hence my observation
that it's unclear whether the claim "it's not pure altruism if you get a
warm glow" is correct for (my understanding of) Comte's original
version.
>> and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing against;
>> it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that scenario, as
>> there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow from the act of
>> self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the warm glow was the
>> whole point: the more altrustic you are, the more self-righteous you
>> can -- should? -- feel).
>
> If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to others is
> secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism.
I'd agree. It's a similar concept to the conspicuous donors, who get
their kicks from making sure everyone sees just how generous they are
being. (I used to know someone in this category; other people would
raise money for some charitable cause, then he would come along and make
some absurd donation that put everyone else's genuine contributions into
the shade, which combined "look for generous I am" with "look how
wealthy I am". My usual word to describe him rhymes with banker.)
> If the two are reversed, it probably is. Such a distinction probably
> isn't useful, though, since an observer can't reliably determine their
> relation.
Agreed, which is where the "warm glow first, good deed second" altruist
departs from the conspicuous donors, who stand out a mile.
>> It's interesting that Altruists International (I wonder where they
>> got their mandate to speak for all altruists?) have three definitions
>> of altruism, none of which precludes getting a warm glow.
>>
>> http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/
>
> #1 seems unhelpfully vague; #2 is the most exact, but #3 is probably the
> most useful to laymen and this discussion in particular.
Yup. It fits how I tend to think of altruism. One might argue that #2
fits in well with the "species altruism" that we seem to be hard-wired
for.
(For the benefit of anyone else who may still be reading, the three
definitions offered are: 1. Loving others as oneself. 2. Behaviour that
promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own.
3. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.)
> It's interesting the number of ways that one can appear to say the same
> thing yet, after applying the same logic, produce entirely different
> results.
The power of language is a wonderful thing...
>> Watching Hitchens's 1994 film, I was rather
>> struck by a statement from Mother Teresa herself:
>>
>> Right from the very beginning, I wanted to serve the poor purely for
>> the love of God.
>>
>> I find myself speculating about which definition of altruism that
>> view fits in with...
>
> I'm not sure it does, actually. To do something for the "love of God"
> does not necessarily imply that one loves all His (alleged) creations,
> but if so, that would seem to fit #1.
It would.
There's a lovely ambiguity to doing something "for the love of God": is
it something done as an expression of the speaker's love of God, or
something done in the hope of attracting God's love as a reward?
> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more about
> her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, which
> seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found so far.
Absolutely. I was particularly struck by the curable 15-year-old who
was being left to die because taking him to hospital wasn't how they did
things.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n03cki$d7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152989 |
On 16-Oct-15 04:20, Simon Turner wrote: > stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >>> The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the >>> prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so >>> much on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you >>> define altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others >>> where there is no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from >>> the act", it becomes trivially true, and therefore >>> uninteresting. >> >> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a >> certain conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though >> I can't find a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; >> "begging the question" and "assuming the conclusion" come close but >> don't quite fit. > > It's so long since I studied logic that I can't offer anything > better. Does intellectual dishonesty necessarily require a logical > fallacy? (It may well do, but I'd need to think about it more than I > have time for at the moment.) I don't think it does; if anything, a logical fallacy seems more likely to be an indicator of sloppiness than dishonesty, though one could certainly imagine cases where it's deliberate. >> Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such >> an impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't >> recall whether this definition matched the one I already had in my >> head--if I had a specific one at all. > > The first time I heard it was only a few years ago, and it certainly > didn't match my internal definition of altruism. I don't think mine was sufficiently detailed to say either way since I hadn't thought much about altruism in general at that point, so this definition replaced whatever internal one I had before then. That probably wasn't a good thing. > This discussion has made me think a lot more about the whole area, > which can only be a Good Thing. Indeed. >> I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he >> coined the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that >> looks like a formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that >> one had a moral obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that >> he believed one was not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) >> from doing so. > > Indeed; like you, I couldn't find a formal statement by him of > precisely what he believed, but I haven't been able to find anything > suggesting that benefits to the altruist were not permitted. Hence > my observation that it's unclear whether the claim "it's not pure > altruism if you get a warm glow" is correct for (my understanding of) > Comte's original version. I think I wrote "pure" altruism to distinguish the case where benefit to self was not allowed, but you've raised enough questions that I'm not sure of even my own position at this point. Good job :) >>> and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing >>> against; it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that >>> scenario, as there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow >>> from the act of self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the >>> warm glow was the whole point: the more altrustic you are, the >>> more self-righteous you can -- should? -- feel). >> >> If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to >> others is secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism. > > I'd agree. It's a similar concept to the conspicuous donors, who > get their kicks from making sure everyone sees just how generous they > are being. Agreed. When I was younger, I wondered why so many donors chose to be anonymous, but over time I noticed the same (well-known locally) names kept coming up and realized it was a way for them to show off how rich they were, and then I got it. Anonymous donors deserve more respect because they _aren't_ bragging, yet due to that very anonymity, we can't give it to them. Irony? There is a similar problem with the saying that "character is what you do when nobody's looking". >> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more >> about her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, >> which seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found >> so far. > > Absolutely. I was particularly struck by the curable 15-year-old > who was being left to die because taking him to hospital wasn't how > they did things. Similarly, that group recently announced they're no longer going to provide _any_ adoption services because the kids _might_ end up with single or LGBT parents. Does that really justify denying adoption to straight, married parents as well? WWJD? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 15:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <664891487.466974795.058163.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153081 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 16-Oct-15 04:20, Simon Turner wrote: >> stephen@sprunk.org "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> On 13-Oct-15 06:21, Simon Turner wrote: >>>> The more I think about it, neither can I; but while it may be the >>>> prevailing view, it seems to me to be unhelpful, and depends so >>>> much on the definition you choose to adopt for "altruism": if you >>>> define altruism as "doing something for the benefit of others >>>> where there is no possibility of deriving any satisfaction from >>>> the act", it becomes trivially true, and therefore >>>> uninteresting. >>> >>> Indeed. Defining a word in a way that allows you to reach a >>> certain conclusion about it seems intellectually dishonest, though >>> I can't find a specific logical fallacy that it falls under; >>> "begging the question" and "assuming the conclusion" come close but >>> don't quite fit. >> >> It's so long since I studied logic that I can't offer anything >> better. Does intellectual dishonesty necessarily require a logical >> fallacy? (It may well do, but I'd need to think about it more than I >> have time for at the moment.) > > I don't think it does; if anything, a logical fallacy seems more likely > to be an indicator of sloppiness than dishonesty, though one could > certainly imagine cases where it's deliberate. > >>> Unfortunately, I read this theory long enough ago, and it had such >>> an impact on my thinking because it was so shocking, that I can't >>> recall whether this definition matched the one I already had in my >>> head--if I had a specific one at all. >> >> The first time I heard it was only a few years ago, and it certainly >> didn't match my internal definition of altruism. > > I don't think mine was sufficiently detailed to say either way since I > hadn't thought much about altruism in general at that point, so this > definition replaced whatever internal one I had before then. That > probably wasn't a good thing. > >> This discussion has made me think a lot more about the whole area, >> which can only be a Good Thing. > > Indeed. > >>> I'm not sure of that. Weight should be given to Comte since he >>> coined the word, but I can't find a specific quote from him that >>> looks like a formal definition. Overall, it seems he believed that >>> one had a moral obligation to serve others, but it's unclear that >>> he believed one was not allowed to benefit (directly or indirectly) >>> from doing so. >> >> Indeed; like you, I couldn't find a formal statement by him of >> precisely what he believed, but I haven't been able to find anything >> suggesting that benefits to the altruist were not permitted. Hence >> my observation that it's unclear whether the claim "it's not pure >> altruism if you get a warm glow" is correct for (my understanding of) >> Comte's original version. > > I think I wrote "pure" altruism to distinguish the case where benefit to > self was not allowed, but you've raised enough questions that I'm not > sure of even my own position at this point. Good job :) > >>>> and seems to have been the version that Ayn Rand was arguing >>>> against; it would be perfectly possible to be altruistic in that >>>> scenario, as there is no prohibition against getting a warm glow >>>> from the act of self-sacrifice (indeed, one could argue that the >>>> warm glow was the whole point: the more altrustic you are, the >>>> more self-righteous you can -- should? -- feel). >>> >>> If one's primary motivation is the "warm glow" and benefit to >>> others is secondary, then I'd argue it is not actually altruism. >> >> I'd agree. It's a similar concept to the conspicuous donors, who >> get their kicks from making sure everyone sees just how generous they >> are being. > > Agreed. When I was younger, I wondered why so many donors chose to be > anonymous, but over time I noticed the same (well-known locally) names > kept coming up and realized it was a way for them to show off how rich > they were, and then I got it. > > Anonymous donors deserve more respect because they _aren't_ bragging, > yet due to that very anonymity, we can't give it to them. Irony? It seems Steve Jobs got a lot of criticism for not donating to charities, but now it's coming out that he donated a lot, anonymously. > > There is a similar problem with the saying that "character is what you > do when nobody's looking". > >>> However, Hitchens showed quite convincingly that she cared more >>> about her service to God (and herself) than about serving the poor, >>> which seems to go against _every_ definition of altruism I've found >>> so far. >> >> Absolutely. I was particularly struck by the curable 15-year-old >> who was being left to die because taking him to hospital wasn't how >> they did things. Hospice is the same way. God forbid you change your mind! -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <d675d332-8690-4b3a-b885-ec6d2e5ba261@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153087 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 3:18:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > It seems Steve Jobs got a lot of criticism for not donating to charities, > but now it's coming out that he donated a lot, anonymously. The late actress Joan Rivers had a reputation for being a bitch, but after her passing it was revealed she was a nice person, very supportive of many charities, emerging performers, etc. She and her family quietly worked in a soup kitchen every Thanksgiving cooking and serving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 10:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mv5u98$d3d$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #152417 |
On 07/10/2015 4:42 PM, David Hume wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > >>> Is laziness irrational? >> >> IMHO, no. Laziness (and selfishness) is completely rational. >> > > I think I saw in a wildlife programme that for sloths, laziness was > an adaptation. They move slowly to conserve energy and that allows > them to live on leaves. > > Historically though humans would have shared work and resources for > mutual benefit. So you could argue either way on that. > > And just so I am not completely off topic, free software is a modern > example. > of ... Finish the sentence. Free software and open software is evolving in strange ways. Few of the users in open software actually participate in its development. Both free and open source software are becoming proprietary. "What is yours is ours, what is mine is mine" w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 23:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <5vggec-6uk.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152416 |
In article <mv3uq3$eso$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 07-Oct-15 10:27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> If people were aware that what they're doing is irrational, would >>> they do it in the first place? I suspect most of them _think_ >>> their reason is rational and thus the behavior is rational. >> >> Is laziness irrational? > >IMHO, no. Laziness (and selfishness) is completely rational. > >Henry George said that "men always seek to gratify their desires with >the least exertion." If someone appears to violate that law, it's most >likely because you misunderstand the desire(s) being gratified--or the >actor misunderstands the exertion required. ...snip... >OTOH, the cost (time, gas, etc.) required to go to a "real" store may be >more than the cost of higher prices at the convenience store, which >makes that rational, at least in the short term. > >I agree that if you are going to the "real" store anyway, it makes sense >to stock up on everything to hold you over until the next trip, but that >doesn't always work: you may not have enough money at that moment or may >incorrectly estimate your rate of consumption. > >And then there are bizarre cases, such as my convenience store having >consistently lower prices on soda than any of the grocery or other big >box stores in the area, plus they rarely run out while the larger ones >do so frequently, which makes no sense given the relative prices. We have a bizarre case right here. Due to the non-membership of EU for Norway, and the fully compliant one for Sweden makes food prices as much as 5:2 over the border. (Norway has a very protective agricultural policy). This border is only an hour away from here, and we have generally business there at least once a month. Which leads to long term planning in food shopping. We very rarely buy meat or cheese locally. The situation with the multifiber agreement (where Norway let the agreement lapse, while the EU didn't) opens up for a similar situation in reverse for clothing and shoes from third world countries we have a free trade agreement with, and that covers almost all of the large clothing exporters. But so far that hasn't materialised. >> When it comes to safety risk, people often 'feel' safer in >> circumstances that are actually more dangerous, because of certain >> conditions. For instance, driving is much more dangerous than >> flying, yet people feel safer driving their car since they perceive >> themselves as in control. A train trip can be faster than driving in >> heavy traffic, yet some people think their car offers 'freedom'. > >Indeed, but it may be rational for people to value how they feel over >the actual facts. > >Romantic relationships appear irrational because it's difficult to >identify what participants' actual desires are, much less evaluate >various strategies chosen to gratify them. Virtually anything could be >rational or irrational depending on the particular people involved and >how they feel about each other at any particular time. And people work in at least three different layers of desire. At the bottom is the reptilian brain, then the normal impulse-response one and the intellectual one on top. But if the reptilian one craves nutrition NOW it usually wins a snack. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mv4u3h530md@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152422 |
On 2015-10-07, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <mv3uq3$eso$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> Henry George said that "men always seek to gratify their desires with >> the least exertion." If someone appears to violate that law, it's most >> likely because you misunderstand the desire(s) being gratified--or the >> actor misunderstands the exertion required. Either that or the _observer_ misunderstands the exertion required. A bit of finesse can tip the balance the other way. "Work smarter, not harder." <snip> >> And then there are bizarre cases, such as my convenience store having >> consistently lower prices on soda than any of the grocery or other big >> box stores in the area, plus they rarely run out while the larger ones >> do so frequently, which makes no sense given the relative prices. > > We have a bizarre case right here. Due to the non-membership of EU > for Norway, and the fully compliant one for Sweden makes food prices > as much as 5:2 over the border. (Norway has a very protective agricultural > policy). > > This border is only an hour away from here, and we have generally > business there at least once a month. Which leads to long term planning > in food shopping. We very rarely buy meat or cheese locally. Our own bizarre cases here in Canada involve the egg and dairy marketing boards, which lead to a lot of heated arguments during the free trade talks that our government claims to otherwise support (plus billions of dollars' worth of promises in our current election campaign). Like you, we also live an hour or less from a border (in this case the U.S.), and we plan our visits to friends down there to include cheese purchases. >> Romantic relationships appear irrational because it's difficult to >> identify what participants' actual desires are, much less evaluate >> various strategies chosen to gratify them. Virtually anything could be >> rational or irrational depending on the particular people involved and >> how they feel about each other at any particular time. > > And people work in at least three different layers of desire. > At the bottom is the reptilian brain, then the normal impulse-response > one and the intellectual one on top. But if the reptilian one craves > nutrition NOW it usually wins a snack. It's the goal of marketing to bypass the other levels of the brain and get right down to that reptilian level. From their point of view, it's the intellectual level that makes too many bad decisions. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <mv6lr1$1sg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152444 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:mv4u3h530md@news4.newsguy.com... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > It's the goal of marketing to bypass the other levels of the brain and > get right down to that reptilian level. From their point of view, it's > the intellectual level that makes too many bad decisions. > ISTM that the "intellectual level" is the *only* level that makes any decision at all!!! The "reptilian level" of the brain works mostly on knee-jerk instinct. Like marketeers, the last thing that the government wants is someone who can think for themselves. The book _1984_ would be the government's ideal environment. Then no one could keep a diary, because what was written might conflict with the governments "official" reasons of how things happened. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 12:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <20151009120207.7e964fde8782655e98b92545@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #152515 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:07:38 -0500 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > The book _1984_ would be the > government's ideal environment. Then no one could keep a diary, because > what was written might conflict with the governments "official" reasons > of how things happened. AFAICS modern governments have achieved close to the same level of control as that in 1984, but with somewhat greater subtlety. Enemies turn into friends and vice-versa frequently, but nobody has to forget the past or pretend to, everyone just accepts the change and perhaps pretends never to have agreed with the previous state of affairs. They were always friends/enemies it was just misunderstanding/strategy that made it seem otherwise. Nobody is forced to have a televisor, but most choose to carry a GPS enabled snitch and choose to pay handsomly for the privilege, many choose to record much of their personal interactions in databases belonging to private companies (some larger than many nations). Last time I read 1984 it did not come over as a dire warning, it came over as a little naive. That was a *frightening* discovery. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 48 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 46 47 [48] 49 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web