Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfnb7rF4ehtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156582 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052937B48D4987@aca43c5b.ipt.aol.com... > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer >>>> facilites, >>>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>>> >>>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >>>> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >>>> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >>>> >>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >>> >>>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>>1860s? >> >> This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark >> that >> any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in finance and >> state bureaucracy. >> >> A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey >> stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few >> mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock >> Exchange >> Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This is all >> informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But the >> proper tailors know. >> >> So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low >> on the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. >> >> The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic >> "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the >> history. >> >> I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented >> anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring >> confirmation that this is still in place. > > I wonder if the pinstripe differences were due to cost of > manufacturing them. Unlikely with all but the thinnest pinstripes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8737u0g7ex.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > > The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where > the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher > you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601141139020.20384@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156626 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Mike Spencer wrote: > > Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. > > I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte > who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I > have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in > the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit > (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. > Does the green suit have question marks all over it? I always thought The Riddler on the Batman tv series in the sixties was the snappiest dressed of the villains. He had the jacket, and bowler, when occasion demanded, but then he could always reduce to the tights that were the usual comic book clothing. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r14lmc-4hl.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156642 |
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601141139020.20384@darkstar.example.org>, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Mike Spencer wrote: > >> >> Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >> >> I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte >> who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I >> have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in >> the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit >> (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. >> >Does the green suit have question marks all over it? > >I always thought The Riddler on the Batman tv series in the sixties was >the snappiest dressed of the villains. He had the jacket, and bowler, >when occasion demanded, but then he could always reduce to the tights that >were the usual comic book clothing. The herringbone is not really for city use, it is for people that venture outside. Like real estate brokers, landed gentry, industrialists. Or for weekend use for the financials folks. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87si1zifzc.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156645 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601141139020.20384@darkstar.example.org>, > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Mike Spencer wrote: >> >>> >>> Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> >>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >>> >>> I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte >>> who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I >>> have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in >>> the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit >>> (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. [snip] > The herringbone is not really for city use, it is for people that > venture outside. Like real estate brokers, landed gentry, industrialists. > Or for weekend use for the financials folks. Thanks. I wouldn't have been able to guess at that. The only "financials folks" I've known was the CFO of a small college and Wall Street dress code never crossed his mind. My usual dress when I suspect that a tie will be expected or regarded favorably is a red & white pinstriped dress shirt, red tie and spotless, new, black, custom-made, heavy canvas work vest with four exterior pockets and two interior ones. Heavy black woolen trousers or black jeans, bloused workboots or low-heel Fry boots. The notion is that cognitive dissonance engendered will frustrate negative impressions and induce ambiguity. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <sfki9b5t74rbpfhu6lsla13pvasf2jp3jh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156670 |
On 15 Jan 2016 01:11:51 -0400, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
[snip]
>My usual dress when I suspect that a tie will be expected or regarded
>favorably is a red & white pinstriped dress shirt, red tie and
>spotless, new, black, custom-made, heavy canvas work vest with four
>exterior pockets and two interior ones. Heavy black woolen trousers
>or black jeans, bloused workboots or low-heel Fry boots. The notion
>is that cognitive dissonance engendered will frustrate negative
>impressions and induce ambiguity.
Ooh! I want to see a picture of you in that!
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5OOdnXaAb9VXlADLnZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156670 |
On 1/14/2016 22:11, Mike Spencer wrote: > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601141139020.20384@darkstar.example.org>, >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Mike Spencer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>>>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>>>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >>>> >>>> I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte >>>> who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I >>>> have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in >>>> the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit >>>> (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. > > [snip] > >> The herringbone is not really for city use, it is for people that >> venture outside. Like real estate brokers, landed gentry, industrialists. >> Or for weekend use for the financials folks. > > Thanks. I wouldn't have been able to guess at that. The only > "financials folks" I've known was the CFO of a small college and Wall > Street dress code never crossed his mind. > > My usual dress when I suspect that a tie will be expected or regarded > favorably is a red & white pinstriped dress shirt, red tie and > spotless, new, black, custom-made, heavy canvas work vest with four > exterior pockets and two interior ones. Heavy black woolen trousers > or black jeans, bloused workboots or low-heel Fry boots. The notion > is that cognitive dissonance engendered will frustrate negative > impressions and induce ambiguity. By the 80's, some companies got hip to this. Clean shaven bright eyed spit-shined visiting vendor engineers just didn't get the same respect even on Wall Street as a dude with a big bushy beard and what was obviously a "suit" pieced together from Goodwill rejects. RCA Computer may have started the trend with a series of advertisements in the later 60's contrasting their FEs in splashy shirts, "battery model" ties, against IBM's stick up the rear look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iq2q9bhn85frc7nd56hts8v9ec94d3i7eq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156905 |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:50:34 -0700, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >By the 80's, some companies got hip to this. Clean shaven bright eyed >spit-shined visiting vendor engineers just didn't get the same respect >even on Wall Street as a dude with a big bushy beard and what was >obviously a "suit" pieced together from Goodwill rejects. > >RCA Computer may have started the trend with a series of advertisements >in the later 60's contrasting their FEs in splashy shirts, "battery >model" ties, against IBM's stick up the rear look. I worked on computer maintenance for 10 years including about 5 years on a site with different vendors. The engineers turned out in casual clothes apart from IBM who came in suits. That was until one difficult evening when the IBM system lost its contact with the outside world including the machine I was working on. It took me a while to convince the shiny IBM man that his equipment had a fault. He rang for another "shiny" but a man arrived on a motorbike wearing leather. He fixed the fault in a few minutes. I realised that evening that some IBM people were very knowledgeable without being shiny. Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jl510jub@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156908 |
On 2016-01-18, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:50:34 -0700, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> > wrote: > >> By the 80's, some companies got hip to this. Clean shaven bright eyed >> spit-shined visiting vendor engineers just didn't get the same respect >> even on Wall Street as a dude with a big bushy beard and what was >> obviously a "suit" pieced together from Goodwill rejects. >> >> RCA Computer may have started the trend with a series of advertisements >> in the later 60's contrasting their FEs in splashy shirts, "battery >> model" ties, against IBM's stick up the rear look. > > I worked on computer maintenance for 10 years including about 5 years > on a site with different vendors. The engineers turned out in casual > clothes apart from IBM who came in suits. That was until one difficult > evening when the IBM system lost its contact with the outside world > including the machine I was working on. It took me a while to convince > the shiny IBM man that his equipment had a fault. He rang for another > "shiny" but a man arrived on a motorbike wearing leather. He fixed the > fault in a few minutes. I realised that evening that some IBM people > were very knowledgeable without being shiny. This is starting to sound like one of the stories Robert L. Glass wrote in the '70s under the pseudonym Miles Benson. Fun reading, but with sobering truths hidden underneath. -- /~\ 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 | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87egdesr0w.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156905 |
Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> writes: > By the 80's, some companies got hip to this. Clean shaven bright eyed > spit-shined visiting vendor engineers just didn't get the same respect > even on Wall Street as a dude with a big bushy beard and what was > obviously a "suit" pieced together from Goodwill rejects. > > RCA Computer may have started the trend with a series of > advertisements in the later 60's contrasting their FEs in splashy > shirts, "battery model" ties, against IBM's stick up the rear look. this mentions that Future System primary motivation was to lock out clone controllers. http://www.ecole.org/en/seances/CM07">http://www.ecole.org/en/seances/CM07 during the future system period, they were killing off 370 efforts ... whcih is credited with given clone processors market foothold ... past future system posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys I had joined the science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech and during the Future System period, continued to work on 360/370 stuff ... and would even periodically ridicule what they were doing in FS. I had also been talked into getting a couple 3piece suites for visiting customers ... especially large financial institutions in the NY/Conn area. One financial institution had one of the largest "big blue" datacenters in Conn ... and I could drop by just about anytime and sit around and shoot the breeze with the datacenter manager (and branch office technical people). At one point the branch office manager did something that enormously offended the customer. At the time, Amdahl was primarily selling to univ. ... but hadn't broken into any "true blue" commercial accounts. The customer decided to teach the branch office manager a lesson and order an Amdahl machine (in would be a single lonely Amdahl system in a vast sea of "blue" systems). I got asked to go on-site at the customer for extended period ... effectively to divert attention that ordering the Amdahl system was a technical issue. I refused since I felt it was a waste of time, since I knew the customer really well and knew they were going to order the Amdahl system regardless of what IBM did. I was then told that would be the end of my career in IBM ... i would never get a promotion ... the first true blue commercial account (and one of IBM's largest customers) to order an Amdahl machine would ruin the branch office manager's reputation ... who happened to be a good sailing buddy of the IBM CEO (I would still visit the customer, but there was no point in living there for 6-12 months). After that, I decided there was no longer any point in wearing 3piece suites or being clean shaven. This happened to be 1976. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87a8o2spvo.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156918 |
other trivia ... after than incident, the following year I transfer to san jose research. in the early 80s, a co-worker had left IBM and was doing a lot of consulting for chip design tool & chip shops in silicon valley. One chip shop had large vm370 operation (senior VP of engineering had started with cp67 in the 60s) ... and former co-worker was doing lots of unix & c porting to vm370 ... C compiler ... lots of C compiler performance optimization, UCB chip design tools ported to vm370/cms, etc. At one point he was doing support for ethernet connected SGI workstations and the IBM salesman happened to drop by and asked him what he was doing. The salesman then told him that IBM mainframe service might not be so timely unless he was to support token-ring. I then got a several hr phone call liberly sprinkled with lots of 4letter words. The next morning the senior VP of engineering has a press conference and announce the company was moving all its IBM mainframe work toh sun servers. This reverberates through IBM and there are lots of meetings to discuss how to reverse the move off mainframes to servers. The opening briefings of all the meetings never mention the true motivation about what precipitated the action. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kg7g9bpi7ga2gpon501djjlu874mqblglf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156626 |
On 13 Jan 2016 23:35:18 -0400, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
[snip]
>I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte
>who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I
>have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in
>the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit
>(wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course.
How much of that moss is from since you last wore it? <G>
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87oacniftp.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156660 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: > On 13 Jan 2016 23:35:18 -0400, Mike Spencer > <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > > [snip] > >> I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte >> who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I >> have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in >> the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit >> (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. > > How much of that moss is from since you last wore it? <G> Nah, original colour, y'know. But the last time might have been in the late 80s so if I ever find it, the mice will likely have made portions into nesting material. Actual moss, although ubiquitous in the Nova Scotia woods, should not be a problem. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <871t9kg7en.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > > The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where > the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher > you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. I always liked herringbone fabrics/suits. As something of a troglodyte who hasn't worn a suit for so long that I've forgotten where mine is, I have to ask, where does (tasteful, conservative) herringbone fit in the current fashion, power-suit or similar hierarchy? My suit (wherever it is) is 3-piece, sort of dark moss green, wool of course. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1890315918.474203481.028383.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural > differences... > > --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) > whenever they went out, and of course at work. > > --The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. > > --Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. > > --Many TV sets were only b&w. > > --Goofy fast food place. > > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. This amazes me in stuff from the time. It's a bit jarring today. Everyone in _The Man in the High Castle_ seems to smoke all the time, too, and this is in an alternate-reality late 40s-early 50s. > > --In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present > and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. > > --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common > back then. > > There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't > comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. > > Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? So recent, yet now so long ago. > > > As to computers in 1976, they were certainly commonplace, but not > as widespread as today. A small business would do its work by hand > or send it out to a service bureau. I think by 1976 mini-computers > were reasonably common in medium sized businesses. > > I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my > car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my > household, yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a > physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, > but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information > gets overlooked. > Partly that's because each doctor and hospital is an independent business. A lot of it is because of "privacy concerns", though this is disingenuous since hackers can always seem to get the info while legitimate groups can"t. I agree it's insane. I thought one of the few good things Obamacare was going to do was to facilitate sharing records. Everyone is now recording the data electronically, but sharing not so much. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30fd622e407504e8989de6@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156365 |
In article <1890315918.474203481.028383.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural > > differences... > > > > --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) > > whenever they went out, and of course at work. > > > > --The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. > > > > --Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. > > > > --Many TV sets were only b&w. > > > > --Goofy fast food place. > > > > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. > > This amazes me in stuff from the time. It's a bit jarring today. Everyone > in _The Man in the High Castle_ seems to smoke all the time, too, and this > is in an alternate-reality late 40s-early 50s. > > > > > --In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present > > and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. > > > > --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common > > back then. > > > > There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't > > comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) > > If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few > years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In > my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years > later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were mostly a hobbyist thing. > > Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? > > So recent, yet now so long ago. > > > > > > > As to computers in 1976, they were certainly commonplace, but not > > as widespread as today. A small business would do its work by hand > > or send it out to a service bureau. I think by 1976 mini-computers > > were reasonably common in medium sized businesses. > > > > I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my > > car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my > > household, yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a > > physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, > > but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information > > gets overlooked. > > > > Partly that's because each doctor and hospital is an independent business. > A lot of it is because of "privacy concerns", though this is disingenuous > since hackers can always seem to get the info while legitimate groups > can"t. I agree it's insane. I thought one of the few good things Obamacare > was going to do was to facilitate sharing records. Everyone is now > recording the data electronically, but sharing not so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156368 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > Lockheed mini That ought to be a small flying car. -- 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]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30fe069749151aa6989de8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156371 |
In article <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lockheed mini > > That ought to be a small flying car. It really should, but Lockheed was in the computer business for a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160112061709.f62502b2cc2804b2af605fee@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156452 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:36:40 -0500 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net>, > steveo@eircom.net says... > > > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Lockheed mini > > > > That ought to be a small flying car. > > It really should, but Lockheed was in the computer business for a while. Sometimes it seems that nearly every large company was in the computer business for a while. -- 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]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4ab7f35-736d-44fd-8b27-686da1245f42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156472 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Sometimes it seems that nearly every large company was in the > computer business for a while. Or wanted to be. Some companies evolved from another field into computers. They built a computer department for their own use, ran it well, perhaps took on some businesses as a courtesy, and found themselves with a new business line. Perhaps the old business was discarded, or the computer unit was sold off as a separate company.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web