Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155149 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 708 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-15 05:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 07:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-15 17:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-15 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:02 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-15 18:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 16:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 23:34 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:48 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:08 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:02 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:04 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:36 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 08:04 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 16:51 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 07:37 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-17 16:17 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:03 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-18 13:46 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:20 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:43 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:12 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 13:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 11:28 -0600
Re: Viet Nam was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 12:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:09 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 19:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:58 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-17 23:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 12:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 12:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 13:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:29 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 13:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 23:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-20 10:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-19 13:35 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-19 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-19 14:44 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:40 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 14:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 20:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:05 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-12-19 15:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 17:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 16:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-19 14:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 18:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 09:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 20:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-23 07:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 18:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:01 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-23 08:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2015-12-23 11:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-18 17:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-18 21:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-19 04:24 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 10:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-19 09:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-19 16:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 14:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 17:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 13:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:36 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-21 21:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:44 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 23:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 00:13 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 17:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 10:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 11:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-29 11:39 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 12:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 00:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 17:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 08:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-03 15:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 05:19 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 13:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 20:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-01 11:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:00 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 18:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 12:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 10:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 17:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 23:09 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:04 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:16 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-31 09:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 20:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-01 14:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:52 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-02 16:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:07 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:49 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 12:40 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:18 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-01 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 21:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 12:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 08:50 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 09:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:02 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-30 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 00:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 07:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 20:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 07:17 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 23:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:06 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 04:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:07 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:52 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:09 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:43 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 10:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:08 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 22:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 15:42 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-01 14:36 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-02 22:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:29 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 22:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-20 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 17:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-21 07:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-21 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 16:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-21 18:12 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 08:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 12:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:07 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-22 18:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 15:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-23 06:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:40 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 03:57 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-23 21:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 05:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-24 08:13 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 09:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 12:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:30 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 23:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 19:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 01:21 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 19:12 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 09:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:11 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 04:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:20 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 04:54 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:48 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 18:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 12:01 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 06:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:08 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 01:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 22:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:17 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 14:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-29 21:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:59 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 17:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:24 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 11:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 17:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 15:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 00:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-24 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-25 06:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-27 07:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 16:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-27 19:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 19:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 06:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 10:57 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 11:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 22:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 16:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-29 19:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 05:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 14:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:53 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 10:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-04 07:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:13 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 17:58 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 19:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:31 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:46 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:53 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-01 10:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 06:25 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 11:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 17:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 06:50 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:45 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:28 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-02 08:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 15:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:39 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-03 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 20:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:52 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:57 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-03 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 12:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:20 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-05 15:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:43 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:15 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:25 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-04 04:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 01:22 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hda <agent700@ay.invalid> - 2016-02-04 14:17 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:21 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 12:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:09 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:36 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 16:04 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:11 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:37 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:35 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 11:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 18:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 08:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:33 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 14:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:55 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-05 17:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 20:39 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:16 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-03 09:59 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:11 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 13:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 13:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 15:24 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 15:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 20:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 21:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-02 17:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:56 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-30 10:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:25 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:20 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:10 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:46 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:27 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:26 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 16:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-29 04:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-29 17:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:51 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 09:44 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-23 20:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 19:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 20:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:34 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:36 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 14:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-26 08:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 18:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:45 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:39 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-10 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 15:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 12:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 19:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 03:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-04 10:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 05:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 09:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-08 18:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 17:58 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 09:55 +0000
Re: Hitler hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:08 -0800
Re: Hitler mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 16:23 +0000
Re: Hitler Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 10:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 16:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 10:53 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-24 13:08 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:37 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:20 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-23 14:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 12:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-21 13:26 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 10:09 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) bbreynolds <bbreynolds@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 18:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 14:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 12:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 16:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:10 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-21 17:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:14 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:06 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-23 03:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-23 11:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 21:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 19:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-25 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:38 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 16:25 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 14:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-21 07:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:56 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100
Page 13 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 36 Next page →
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 01:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <qo2dnfLwCquRtBrLnZ2dnUU78LEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155747 |
On 01/01/2016 22:07, Lon wrote: > On 1/1/2016 10:31, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 01/01/2016 13:15, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On 12/31/2015 11:09, mausg@mail.com wrote: >>>>> On 2015-12-31, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-12-30, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:21:33 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roosevelt gave away a large chunk of Europe to the Russians fir >>>>>>>> 50 years in >>>>>>>> exchange for them doing something they would have done anyway. >>>>>>>> I'm now >>>>>>>> reading _Endgame 1945_ about the final days of the war, and we >>>>>>>> should never >>>>>>>> have stuck to the agreements, it was basically a crime. >>>>>>>> Churchill was more >>>>>>>> realistic about the Russians, but was the junior partner in the >>>>>>>> alliance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>>>>>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>>>>>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly >>>>>>> exhausted, >>>>>>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps FDR could've wrung a few more concessions from Stalin, but >>>>>>> he was substantially limited. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The final defeat of Germany required hand-to-hand combat in the >>>>>>> streets. Eisenhower wisely let the Soviets do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To have saved eastern Europe, Allied troops would have had to invade >>>>>>> all of Germany, then proceed eastward at enormous cost in lives, >>>>>>> materiel, and time, all of which they did not have, but Stalin did >>>>>>> have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, Stalin sought more, but was pushed back, such as forced >>>>>>> out of Iran, Greece, and Turkey. Later, he was forced to back >>>>>>> off from taking Berlin. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Small piece of history I read somewhere. There was a lot of bargining >>>>>> before the actual fighting in WWII, including about that small piece >>>>>> of Turkey around the ruins of Antioch, which the French had occupied >>>>>> in their invasion of Syria after WWI. There was a dispute between >>>>>> France and Turkey over this strip of land, and France conceded it to >>>>>> Turkey as part of some agreement not to join Germany in WWII. (For >>>>>> some reason, the Armenians in that area had somewhat escaped the >>>>>> genocide in 1915, and are still there.) This where the Russian bomber >>>>>> was downed recently. >>>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we could move the thread to a more appropiate group. I >>>>> started to post myself because messages were scarce around Christmas. >>>>> >>>>> PS, a thought, what would have been the outcome if the British attack >>>>> on Quebec had failed, and French Canada had remained as a constraint >>>>> on the Westward move of the Colonists?.. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting concept, but it presumes all else would have remained the >>>> same. I'd suspect that remaining a British colony would actually have >>>> been advantageous for the USofA as it has been for Canada, Australia, >>>> etc. etc. etc. >>>> >>> >>> Advantageous for a lot of us, although the British probably would have >>> tried to defend the rights of the indian tribes against the colonists. >>> I've suggested before that if Britain had only provided for election of >>> colonists to parliament things could have been different. Based on >>> population this would have been a small number of MPs, and probably from >>> the wealthy conservative class that later became Loyalists, but it would >>> have pre-empted the "no taxation without representation" argument, and >>> served as a forum for discussing the most egregious complaints. >>> >>> This could have been a model for an Anglo-Saxon empire including all of >>> North America plus Australia and New Zealand. >>> >> >> The other thing that needed investigating was the states wanted control >> of their governors. One of the main revolutionary talking points was >> that the governors be paid (i.e. work for) the states rather than by >> London. >> >> I also suspect that the southern states were worried about slavery. The >> War of Independence started shortly after the courts in both England and >> Scotland had banned slavery. > > > I don't recall the initial independence movements coming from the > southerners at all. More up around new england, as a result of a > highly unjust tax on alcoholic products--not tea. And oddly enough > began with a tax CUT on molasses/sugar products. From there it > progressed to the revolution, the confederacy, the union, and now > taxation WITH representation at levels that would have made the British > gov't envious. > > > Look at the number of Founding Fathers that owned slaves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 09:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <207707c0-cef0-42e9-bf32-529d02394487@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155722 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:15:57 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote: > Advantageous for a lot of us, although the British probably would have > tried to defend the rights of the indian tribes against the colonists. And they would have abolished slavery earlier. Those are _good_ things. However, the bad behavior of George III towards the colonists prevented that from being a reasonable possibility; there were legitimate reasons for the American Revolution. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 15:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <xoydndBBcpGtZBvLnZ2dnUVZ5h0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155729 |
On 1/1/2016 10:52, Quadibloc wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:15:57 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Advantageous for a lot of us, although the British probably would have >> tried to defend the rights of the indian tribes against the colonists. > > And they would have abolished slavery earlier. > > Those are _good_ things. However, the bad behavior of George III towards the > colonists prevented that from being a reasonable possibility; there were > legitimate reasons for the American Revolution. Actions very similar to those of the modern IRS against folks that participate in the traditional practice of screwing their government out of taxes. It started as all about taxes and heavy handed attempts to stop the smuggling of products in and out to avoid those taxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 05:43 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <denvmiF4nvmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155722 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:569099402.473346400.524315.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 12/31/2015 11:09, mausg@mail.com wrote: >>> On 2015-12-31, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2015-12-30, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:21:33 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Roosevelt gave away a large chunk of Europe to the Russians fir 50 >>>>>> years in >>>>>> exchange for them doing something they would have done anyway. I'm >>>>>> now >>>>>> reading _Endgame 1945_ about the final days of the war, and we should >>>>>> never >>>>>> have stuck to the agreements, it was basically a crime. Churchill >>>>>> was more >>>>>> realistic about the Russians, but was the junior partner in the >>>>>> alliance. >>>>> >>>>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>>>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>>>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >>>>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps FDR could've wrung a few more concessions from Stalin, but >>>>> he was substantially limited. >>>>> >>>>> The final defeat of Germany required hand-to-hand combat in the >>>>> streets. Eisenhower wisely let the Soviets do that. >>>>> >>>>> To have saved eastern Europe, Allied troops would have had to invade >>>>> all of Germany, then proceed eastward at enormous cost in lives, >>>>> materiel, and time, all of which they did not have, but Stalin did >>>>> have. >>>>> >>>>> Also, Stalin sought more, but was pushed back, such as forced >>>>> out of Iran, Greece, and Turkey. Later, he was forced to back >>>>> off from taking Berlin. >>>> >>>> >>>> Small piece of history I read somewhere. There was a lot of bargining >>>> before the actual fighting in WWII, including about that small piece >>>> of Turkey around the ruins of Antioch, which the French had occupied >>>> in their invasion of Syria after WWI. There was a dispute between >>>> France and Turkey over this strip of land, and France conceded it to >>>> Turkey as part of some agreement not to join Germany in WWII. (For >>>> some reason, the Armenians in that area had somewhat escaped the >>>> genocide in 1915, and are still there.) This where the Russian bomber >>>> was downed recently. >>>> >>> Perhaps we could move the thread to a more appropiate group. I >>> started to post myself because messages were scarce around Christmas. >>> >>> PS, a thought, what would have been the outcome if the British attack >>> on Quebec had failed, and French Canada had remained as a constraint >>> on the Westward move of the Colonists?.. >>> >> >> Interesting concept, but it presumes all else would have remained the >> same. I'd suspect that remaining a British colony would actually have >> been advantageous for the USofA as it has been for Canada, Australia, >> etc. etc. etc. >> > > Advantageous for a lot of us, although the British probably would have > tried to defend the rights of the indian tribes against the colonists. > I've suggested before that if Britain had only provided for election of > colonists to parliament things could have been different. Based on > population this would have been a small number of MPs, and probably from > the wealthy conservative class that later became Loyalists, but it would > have pre-empted the "no taxation without representation" argument, and > served as a forum for discussing the most egregious complaints. The french tried that approach rather later than that in their empire and it really didn’t work very well, most obviously with Algeria etc which had their own revolution etc anyway. > This could have been a model for an Anglo-Saxon empire including all of > North America plus Australia and New Zealand. Cleary India etc chose to leave anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dcaflc-vn1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #155663 |
In article <d5146c4a-5958-4c8d-9f4f-fe837fa4e8e1@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:21:33 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Roosevelt gave away a large chunk of Europe to the Russians fir 50 years in >> exchange for them doing something they would have done anyway. I'm now >> reading _Endgame 1945_ about the final days of the war, and we should never >> have stuck to the agreements, it was basically a crime. Churchill was more >> realistic about the Russians, but was the junior partner in the alliance. > >Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. > >Perhaps FDR could've wrung a few more concessions from Stalin, but >he was substantially limited. He DID wring several. Like all of Norway, Greece, and laid a groundwork for Austria and Finland to have a free society, even if militarily subjugated. >The final defeat of Germany required hand-to-hand combat in the >streets. Eisenhower wisely let the Soviets do that. > >To have saved eastern Europe, Allied troops would have had to invade >all of Germany, then proceed eastward at enormous cost in lives, >materiel, and time, all of which they did not have, but Stalin did >have. > >Also, Stalin sought more, but was pushed back, such as forced >out of Iran, Greece, and Turkey. Later, he was forced to back >off from taking Berlin. And the success he had in Czechoslovakia more or less directly resulted in NATO. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 06:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <b887ec6d-b0eb-444f-abd2-e3332bf89d99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155663 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in > place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war > to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, > and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. What the U.S. should have been doing was to have a full nuclear deterrent in place as swiftly after World War II as possible - so they could bomb Russia off the face of the Earth if it attempted to build an atom bomb of its own. That would also have permitted Truman to ensure there was no hanky-panky in Eastern Europe. Sadly, the countries of Eastern Europe weren't able to obtain reparations from Russia for their decades of agony after the Soviet Union fell. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 09:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <LaedndwUssdlzxjLnZ2dnUVZ5oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155679 |
On 12/31/2015 7:54, Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. > > What the U.S. should have been doing was to have a full nuclear deterrent in > place as swiftly after World War II as possible - so they could bomb Russia off > the face of the Earth if it attempted to build an atom bomb of its own. That > would also have permitted Truman to ensure there was no hanky-panky in Eastern > Europe. > > Sadly, the countries of Eastern Europe weren't able to obtain reparations from > Russia for their decades of agony after the Soviet Union fell. > > John Savard > You grossly overvalue the advantages of uranium bombs as effective weapons. Even the far more massive hydrogen boosted bombs that came much later aren't really that effective as other than deterrents. Once deployed, they lose that value and worse, can do considerable harm to everyone including the countries that deployed them. Smaller, highly accurately targeted explosive devices [conventional or nuke] are much more effective, but all nukes have the unfortunate side effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever has won a war--put boots on the ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 17:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <20151231172130.02e142821951a870d938c023@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155682 |
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:08:24 -0700 Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever > has won a war--put boots on the ground. It is far from clear to me that there is any real meaning to the concept of winning a war these days, losing yes, winning not so much. -- 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 | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <1239609671.473345417.615547.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155692 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:08:24 -0700 > Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > >> effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever >> has won a war--put boots on the ground. > > It is far from clear to me that there is any real meaning to the > concept of winning a war these days, losing yes, winning not so much. > Winning would be to make it stop. If it requires killing everyone who is trying to kill you, then that would be winning. Solitudinem facet, pacem apellat. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 14:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <20160101140403.cd2fc907a1aa206251e777a0@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155719 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:15:54 -0500 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:08:24 -0700 > > Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever > >> has won a war--put boots on the ground. > > > > It is far from clear to me that there is any real meaning to the > > concept of winning a war these days, losing yes, winning not so much. > > > > Winning would be to make it stop. That's easy, nuke your own country or just surrender. Stopping a war is very very easy - it takes at least two sides to fight a war. Howver neither of these counts as winning (although it may very well minimise your casualties and damage - which might be seen as a win through appropriately coloured glasses). Fun thought - had Britain (such as it was) been able to prevent the Roman invasion and subsequent rule would that have been a win for Britain ? -- 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 | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 05:46 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <denvt4F4ph5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155725 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160101140403.cd2fc907a1aa206251e777a0@eircom.net... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:15:54 -0500 > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:08:24 -0700 >> > Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever >> >> has won a war--put boots on the ground. >> > >> > It is far from clear to me that there is any real meaning to the >> > concept of winning a war these days, losing yes, winning not so much. >> > >> >> Winning would be to make it stop. > > That's easy, nuke your own country or just surrender. Stopping a > war is very very easy - it takes at least two sides to fight a war. Howver > neither of these counts as winning (although it may very well minimise > your > casualties and damage - which might be seen as a win through appropriately > coloured glasses). > > Fun thought - had Britain (such as it was) been able to prevent the > Roman invasion and subsequent rule would that have been a win for Britain > ? The Scots did, and so did the German tribes. Whether that was a win for them is harder to say, I expect they consider it was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 19:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8b029.2pi.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155682 |
On 2015-12-31, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > On 12/31/2015 7:54, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >> >> What the U.S. should have been doing was to have a full nuclear deterrent in >> place as swiftly after World War II as possible - so they could bomb Russia off >> the face of the Earth if it attempted to build an atom bomb of its own. That >> would also have permitted Truman to ensure there was no hanky-panky in Eastern >> Europe. >> >> Sadly, the countries of Eastern Europe weren't able to obtain reparations from >> Russia for their decades of agony after the Soviet Union fell. >> >> John Savard >> > > You grossly overvalue the advantages of uranium bombs as effective > weapons. Even the far more massive hydrogen boosted bombs that came > much later aren't really that effective as other than deterrents. > Once deployed, they lose that value and worse, can do considerable harm > to everyone including the countries that deployed them. > > Smaller, highly accurately targeted explosive devices [conventional or > nuke] are much more effective, but all nukes have the unfortunate side > effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever > has won a war--put boots on the ground. > > Things dont change. Britain made Iraq a controlled colony after WWI, many groups rebelled, and the RAF there used poison Gas to force them into subjucation. Ireland was getting out of control at the time, and there was a proposal that bombing with conventional explosives, but it was pointed out that it was impossible to do that without civilian casulties. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 22:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n64v8a$2mh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155699 |
On 12/31/2015 1:21 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2015-12-31, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >> On 12/31/2015 7:54, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> >>>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >>>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >>> >>> What the U.S. should have been doing was to have a full nuclear deterrent in >>> place as swiftly after World War II as possible - so they could bomb Russia off >>> the face of the Earth if it attempted to build an atom bomb of its own. That >>> would also have permitted Truman to ensure there was no hanky-panky in Eastern >>> Europe. >>> >>> Sadly, the countries of Eastern Europe weren't able to obtain reparations from >>> Russia for their decades of agony after the Soviet Union fell. >>> >>> John Savard >>> >> >> You grossly overvalue the advantages of uranium bombs as effective >> weapons. Even the far more massive hydrogen boosted bombs that came >> much later aren't really that effective as other than deterrents. >> Once deployed, they lose that value and worse, can do considerable harm >> to everyone including the countries that deployed them. >> >> Smaller, highly accurately targeted explosive devices [conventional or >> nuke] are much more effective, but all nukes have the unfortunate side >> effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever >> has won a war--put boots on the ground. >> >> > > Things dont change. Britain made Iraq a controlled colony after WWI, many > groups rebelled, and the RAF there used poison Gas to force them into > subjucation. Ireland was getting out of control at the time, and there > was a proposal that bombing with conventional explosives, but it was pointed > out that it was impossible to do that without civilian casulties. The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you define all the casualties as "militants", everything is hunky-dory. Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For every one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before become your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem over the long term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 15:42 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <demedlFn6h0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155711 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n64v8a$2mh$1@dont-email.me... > On 12/31/2015 1:21 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote: >> On 2015-12-31, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On 12/31/2015 7:54, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM UTC-7, >>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>>>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>>>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly exhausted, >>>>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >>>> >>>> What the U.S. should have been doing was to have a full nuclear >>>> deterrent in >>>> place as swiftly after World War II as possible - so they could bomb >>>> Russia off >>>> the face of the Earth if it attempted to build an atom bomb of its own. >>>> That >>>> would also have permitted Truman to ensure there was no hanky-panky in >>>> Eastern >>>> Europe. >>>> >>>> Sadly, the countries of Eastern Europe weren't able to obtain >>>> reparations from >>>> Russia for their decades of agony after the Soviet Union fell. >>>> >>>> John Savard >>>> >>> >>> You grossly overvalue the advantages of uranium bombs as effective >>> weapons. Even the far more massive hydrogen boosted bombs that came >>> much later aren't really that effective as other than deterrents. >>> Once deployed, they lose that value and worse, can do considerable harm >>> to everyone including the countries that deployed them. >>> >>> Smaller, highly accurately targeted explosive devices [conventional or >>> nuke] are much more effective, but all nukes have the unfortunate side >>> effect of making it extremely hazardous to do the only thing that ever >>> has won a war--put boots on the ground. >>> >>> >> >> Things dont change. Britain made Iraq a controlled colony after WWI, many >> groups rebelled, and the RAF there used poison Gas to force them into >> subjucation. Ireland was getting out of control at the time, and there >> was a proposal that bombing with conventional explosives, but it was >> pointed >> out that it was impossible to do that without civilian casulties. > > The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you define all the > casualties as "militants", everything is hunky-dory. Not even possible with the little kids, and the Brits didn’t give a damn about all the women and kids they killed in the firestorm bombing. > Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. Doesn’t even work there, see Me Lai. > For every one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before > become your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem over the > long term. It didn’t with Germany and the firestorm bombing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 14:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n66nsa$h56$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155711 |
On 31-Dec-15 22:30, Dave Garland wrote: > On 12/31/2015 1:21 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote: >> Things dont change. Britain made Iraq a controlled colony after >> WWI, many groups rebelled, and the RAF there used poison Gas to >> force them into subjucation. Ireland was getting out of control at >> the time, and there was a proposal that bombing with conventional >> explosives, but it was pointed out that it was impossible to do >> that without civilian casulties. > > The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you define > all the casualties as "militants", everything is hunky-dory. AIUI, that is only unknown males age 18-45 in the presence of one or more known militants, not everyone. > Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For every > one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before become > your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem over the long > term. If males age 18-45 are subject to summary execution regardless of their actual guilt, then what is their disincentive to _becoming_ militants? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 17:22 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n671iv$lme$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155739 |
On 1/1/2016 2:36 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 31-Dec-15 22:30, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 12/31/2015 1:21 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote: >>> Things dont change. Britain made Iraq a controlled colony after >>> WWI, many groups rebelled, and the RAF there used poison Gas to >>> force them into subjucation. Ireland was getting out of control at >>> the time, and there was a proposal that bombing with conventional >>> explosives, but it was pointed out that it was impossible to do >>> that without civilian casulties. >> >> The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you define >> all the casualties as "militants", everything is hunky-dory. > > AIUI, that is only unknown males age 18-45 in the presence of one or > more known militants, not everyone. For an air or drone strike without ground followup, that's likely to be "everyone". Even with a ground followup, there's precious little incentive to report that they killed civilians. What incentive does the US command have to count otherwise? They wouldn't want to issue a press release saying that they killed 3 militants and 15 civilians, even if they knew. Better not to know. >> Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For every >> one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before become >> your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem over the long >> term. > > If males age 18-45 are subject to summary execution regardless of their > actual guilt, then what is their disincentive to _becoming_ militants? Absolutely none. We're seeing more women being involved, too. Not in hand to hand combat, but the suicide bomber is the poor man's cruise missile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 19:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n69tm2$lsk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155751 |
On 01-Jan-16 17:22, Dave Garland wrote: > On 1/1/2016 2:36 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 31-Dec-15 22:30, Dave Garland wrote: >>> The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you >>> define all the casualties as "militants", everything is >>> hunky-dory. >> >> AIUI, that is only unknown males age 18-45 in the presence of one >> or more known militants, not everyone. > > For an air or drone strike without ground followup, that's likely to > be "everyone". It doesn't include women, children or the elderly, and it doesn't include any gathering (even of males aged 18-45) where there are no _known_ militants. That is far from "everyone". > Even with a ground followup, there's precious little incentive to > report that they killed civilians. What incentive does the US > command have to count otherwise? They wouldn't want to issue a > press release saying that they killed 3 militants and 15 civilians, > even if they knew. Better not to know. They _do_ count and they _do_ report such numbers; that is _why_ they made the above policy change: the number of "civilians" reported killed by drone strikes before that was deemed "too high". >>> Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For >>> every one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before >>> become your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem >>> over the long term. >> >> If males age 18-45 are subject to summary execution regardless of >> their actual guilt, then what is their disincentive to _becoming_ >> militants? > > Absolutely none. > > We're seeing more women being involved, too. Not in hand to hand > combat, but the suicide bomber is the poor man's cruise missile. Protecting women/girls is critical for a society to maintain/grow its population; that is why most prohibit or at least discourage them in combat or other dangerous professions. In contrast, men are considered expendable, especially in polygynous societies. Boys have an odd status, being protected like women/girls while being trained to grow into expendable men. One exception is children unlikely to survive to adulthood or produce viable/desirable offspring, e.g. due to birth/genetic defects; their parents may be convinced by religious fanatics that martyrdom will result in their child being cured in the afterlife. 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 | 2016-01-02 22:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n6a7on$elc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155790 |
On 1/2/2016 7:34 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 01-Jan-16 17:22, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 1/1/2016 2:36 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 31-Dec-15 22:30, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you >>>> define all the casualties as "militants", everything is >>>> hunky-dory. >>> >>> AIUI, that is only unknown males age 18-45 in the presence of one >>> or more known militants, not everyone. >> >> For an air or drone strike without ground followup, that's likely to >> be "everyone". > > It doesn't include women, children or the elderly, and it doesn't > include any gathering (even of males aged 18-45) where there are no > _known_ militants. That is far from "everyone". > >> Even with a ground followup, there's precious little incentive to >> report that they killed civilians. What incentive does the US >> command have to count otherwise? They wouldn't want to issue a >> press release saying that they killed 3 militants and 15 civilians, >> even if they knew. Better not to know. > > They _do_ count and they _do_ report such numbers; that is _why_ they > made the above policy change: the number of "civilians" reported killed > by drone strikes before that was deemed "too high". Got a cite for numbers? I found a FOIA cite where the DoD says they do _not_ track civilian casualties from drone strikes. And that's not even counting the strikes carried out by the CIA. I googled and couldn't find any USG data. But again, if the numbers are bad, they are _not_ going to release the data. My google search didn't turn up a single .gov or .mil site in the first 10 pages. > >>>> Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For >>>> every one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before >>>> become your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem >>>> over the long term. >>> >>> If males age 18-45 are subject to summary execution regardless of >>> their actual guilt, then what is their disincentive to _becoming_ >>> militants? >> >> Absolutely none. >> >> We're seeing more women being involved, too. Not in hand to hand >> combat, but the suicide bomber is the poor man's cruise missile. > > Protecting women/girls is critical for a society to maintain/grow its > population; that is why most prohibit or at least discourage them in > combat or other dangerous professions. In contrast, men are considered > expendable, especially in polygynous societies. Boys have an odd > status, being protected like women/girls while being trained to grow > into expendable men. I don't see that this differs a lot from "traditional" western values. > One exception is children unlikely to survive to adulthood or produce > viable/desirable offspring, e.g. due to birth/genetic defects; their > parents may be convinced by religious fanatics that martyrdom will > result in their child being cured in the afterlife. I rather suspect that the "afterlife" isn't a big part of the matter of suicide bombers (and have seen no evidence that they're any more genetically undesirable than their peers), any more than it is when a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies, or undertakes a mission that will almost certainly end with his death. Desperation, or wanting to be a hero, or overwhelming belief in the cause, a sense of duty or revenge, maybe. When Hitler Youth fought to the death, when kamikaze pilots took off, it wasn't the afterlife. And it wouldn't have been for US F-102 pilots flying west to meet Russian bombers (their orders were, shoot them down while you have missiles, then ram one, you won't have enough fuel to get home anyway, I've heard that from several ex-mil sources including a docent at a mil air museum and confirmed by one of the pilots).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:29 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dertdsF48i4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155790 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n69tm2$lsk$1@dont-email.me... > On 01-Jan-16 17:22, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 1/1/2016 2:36 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 31-Dec-15 22:30, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> The Brits hadn't figured out that (like the US does) if you >>>> define all the casualties as "militants", everything is >>>> hunky-dory. >>> >>> AIUI, that is only unknown males age 18-45 in the presence of one >>> or more known militants, not everyone. >> >> For an air or drone strike without ground followup, that's likely to >> be "everyone". > > It doesn't include women, children or the elderly, and it doesn't > include any gathering (even of males aged 18-45) where there are no > _known_ militants. That is far from "everyone". > >> Even with a ground followup, there's precious little incentive to >> report that they killed civilians. What incentive does the US >> command have to count otherwise? They wouldn't want to issue a >> press release saying that they killed 3 militants and 15 civilians, >> even if they knew. Better not to know. > > They _do_ count and they _do_ report such numbers; that is _why_ they > made the above policy change: the number of "civilians" reported killed > by drone strikes before that was deemed "too high". > >>>> Unfortunately, that only works for domestic consumption. For >>>> every one of those, several relatives who didn't much care before >>>> become your mortal enemy. This does accumulate into a problem >>>> over the long term. >>> >>> If males age 18-45 are subject to summary execution regardless of >>> their actual guilt, then what is their disincentive to _becoming_ >>> militants? >> >> Absolutely none. >> >> We're seeing more women being involved, too. Not in hand to hand >> combat, but the suicide bomber is the poor man's cruise missile. > > Protecting women/girls is critical for a society to maintain/grow its > population; That has never been true. > that is why most prohibit or at least discourage > them in combat or other dangerous professions. Even sillier than you usually manage and doesn’t explain Boudicca or the Amazons etc etc etc. > In contrast, men are considered expendable, especially > in polygynous societies. Boys have an odd status, being > protected like women/girls while being trained to grow > into expendable men. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage with that last. The Spartans never did anything like that. > One exception is children unlikely to survive to adulthood or produce > viable/desirable offspring, e.g. due to birth/genetic defects; their > parents may be convinced by religious fanatics that martyrdom will > result in their child being cured in the afterlife. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 05:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <9527c347-d65c-4460-891b-0df68adcf841@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155802 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-7, jack wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message > news:n69tm2$lsk$1@dont-email.me... > > Protecting women/girls is critical for a society to maintain/grow its > > population; > That has never been true. A man can make many women pregnant; a woman takes nine months to have a baby or twins. So of *course* this is true, even if... illustrations... are rare. (There was a case where polygyny became the norm in one Latin American country for a time after a very destructive war.) > > that is why most prohibit or at least discourage > > them in combat or other dangerous professions. > Even sillier than you usually manage and doesn't > explain Boudicca or the Amazons etc etc etc. What most societies do is not contradicted by occasional exceptions. > > In contrast, men are considered expendable, especially > > in polygynous societies. Boys have an odd status, being > > protected like women/girls while being trained to grow > > into expendable men. > Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage with that last. > The Spartans never did anything like that. Men are the ones who get drafted into combat, not women, and this has been pretty universal over historical time. Why you seem to think that the entire history of Western Civilization - plus China and India too - is somehow not widespread enough to be considered the norm... is puzzling to me. Perhaps too much indoctrination in political correctness. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web