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 12 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 36 Next page →
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 11:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8a3b4.18f.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155663 |
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. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 18:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8arr6.16e.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155675 |
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?.. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 15:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <pPGdnctNU4q6NxjLnZ2dnUVZ5vwAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155693 |
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.
[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 | <569099402.473346400.524315.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155707 |
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. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 17:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <6t-dnRN2WtVFKhvLnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155722 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 05:51 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <deo06fF4rt9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155727 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:6t-dnRN2WtVFKhvLnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > 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. The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 01:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155736 |
On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
{snip}
>>
>> 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.
>
> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
Learn a bit more history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 20:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <deoreuFbdilU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155753 |
"Andrew Swallow" wrote:
> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> {snip}
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>
> Learn a bit more history.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
Since Rod's chosen mission in life is to be the Supreme Nit Picker, my
thought on reading his post, earlier, was that a law was passed that forbad
slavery. The court's part would then be to merely enforce the law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 15:34 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dep2biFcrneU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155755 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:deoreuFbdilU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Andrew Swallow" wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> {snip}
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>>
>> Learn a bit more history.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
>
> Since Rod's chosen mission in life is to be the Supreme Nit Picker, my
> thought on reading his post, earlier, was that a law was passed that
> forbad slavery.
Yes, nothing like what he claimed actually happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
And that isnt a nit, it’s a gross misrepresentation of what actually
happened.
> The court's part would then be to merely enforce the law.
Yes, he mangled the real story utterly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 15:32 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dep271FcqvoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155753 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> {snip}
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>
> Learn a bit more history.
Don’t need to.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 18:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <t4-dnU1iC-nsjxXLnZ2dnUU78YmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155756 |
On 02/01/2016 04:32, jack wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> {snip}
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>>
>> Learn a bit more history.
>
> Don’t need to.
>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
>
> Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
>
These judgement add up to a ban on slavery in the UK.
[quote]
Lord Henley LC said in Shanley v. Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126, 127 that as
soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.
[/quote]
[quote]
In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Lord Chief Justice William Murray,
Lord Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench, started by talking about
the capture and forcible detention of Somersett. He finished with:
So high an act of dominion must be recognized by the law of the
country where it is used. The power of a master over his slave has been
exceedingly different, in different countries.
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of
being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by
positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons,
occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory.
It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but
positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the
decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
[/quote]
For Scotland
[quote]
After reading about Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved African
who had been purchased by his master John Wedderburn in Jamaica and
brought to Scotland, left him. Married and with a child, he filed a
freedom suit, on the grounds that he could not be held as a slave in
Great Britain. In the case of Knight v. Wedderburn (1778), Wedderburn
said that Knight owed him "perpetual servitude". The Court of Sessions
of Scotland ruled against him, saying that chattel slavery was not
recognised under the law of Scotland, and slaves could seek court
protection to leave a master or avoid being forcibly removed from
Scotland to be returned to slavery in the colonies.
[/quote]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 07:17 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <deqpicFqig0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155775 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:t4-dnU1iC-nsjxXLnZ2dnUU78YmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 02/01/2016 04:32, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>>>
>>> Learn a bit more history.
>>
>> Don’t need to.
>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
>>
>> Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
>>
>
> These judgement add up to a ban on slavery in the UK.
Wrong. And we weren't discussing slavery in the UK anyway.
> [quote]
> Lord Henley LC said in Shanley v. Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126, 127 that as
>
> soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.
> [/quote]
That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
> [quote]
> In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Lord Chief Justice William Murray, Lord
> Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench, started by talking about the
> capture and forcible detention of Somersett. He finished with:
> So high an act of dominion must be recognized by the law of the
> country where it is used. The power of a master over his slave has been
> exceedingly different, in different countries.
> The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of
> being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive
> law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time
> itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory.
> It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but
> positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the
> decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
> England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
> [/quote]
That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
> For Scotland
>
> [quote]
> After reading about Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved African
> who had been purchased by his master John Wedderburn in Jamaica and
> brought to Scotland, left him. Married and with a child, he filed a
> freedom suit, on the grounds that he could not be held as a slave in Great
> Britain. In the case of Knight v. Wedderburn (1778), Wedderburn said that
> Knight owed him "perpetual servitude". The Court of Sessions of Scotland
> ruled against him, saying that chattel slavery was not recognised under
> the law of Scotland, and slaves could seek court protection to leave a
> master or avoid being forcibly removed from Scotland to be returned to
> slavery in the colonies.
> [/quote]
That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 23:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155781 |
On 02/01/2016 20:17, jack wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:t4-dnU1iC-nsjxXLnZ2dnUU78YmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 02/01/2016 04:32, jack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>>>>
>>>> Learn a bit more history.
>>>
>>> Don’t need to.
>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
>>>
>>> Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
>>>
>>>
>>
>> These judgement add up to a ban on slavery in the UK.
>
> Wrong. And we weren't discussing slavery in the UK anyway.
>
Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar
common law.
>> [quote]
>> Lord Henley LC said in Shanley v. Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126, 127 that as
>>
>> soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.
>> [/quote]
>
> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
>
>> [quote]
>> In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Lord Chief Justice William Murray,
>> Lord Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench, started by talking about
>> the capture and forcible detention of Somersett. He finished with:
>
>> So high an act of dominion must be recognized by the law of the
>> country where it is used. The power of a master over his slave has
>> been exceedingly different, in different countries.
>
>> The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of
>> being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by
>> positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons,
>> occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from
>> memory.
>
>> It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but
>> positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the
>> decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
>> England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
>> [/quote]
>
> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
>
>> For Scotland
>>
>> [quote]
>> After reading about Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved
>> African who had been purchased by his master John Wedderburn in
>> Jamaica and brought to Scotland, left him. Married and with a child,
>> he filed a freedom suit, on the grounds that he could not be held as a
>> slave in Great Britain. In the case of Knight v. Wedderburn (1778),
>> Wedderburn said that Knight owed him "perpetual servitude". The Court
>> of Sessions of Scotland ruled against him, saying that chattel slavery
>> was not recognised under the law of Scotland, and slaves could seek
>> court protection to leave a master or avoid being forcibly removed
>> from Scotland to be returned to slavery in the colonies.
>> [/quote]
>
> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 19:06 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n69s1u$h8b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155785 |
On 02-Jan-16 17:18, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 02/01/2016 20:17, jack wrote: >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> On 02/01/2016 04:32, jack wrote: >>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery. >>>>> >>>>> Learn a bit more history. >>>> >>>> Don’t need to. >>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles >>>> >>>> Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions >>> >>> These judgement add up to a ban on slavery in the UK. >> >> Wrong. And we weren't discussing slavery in the UK anyway. > > Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar > common law. It was necessarily identical except where courts with differing jurisdictions disagreed, which is generally required before a higher court will accept an appeal; that's how common law works! Furthermore, each of the new states enacted a "reception" statute (or similar clause in its constitution) that received all pre-Independence British common law--and much of that remains in effect to this day. However, states were also free to subsequently develop new statute or common law of their own that overrode that received law, which is how slavery remained legal in the South. Also, please don't feed the troll. 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 | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:20 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dersu5F454nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155785 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 02/01/2016 20:17, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:t4-dnU1iC-nsjxXLnZ2dnUU78YmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 02/01/2016 04:32, jack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:qo2dnfPwCqsotRrLnZ2dnUU78LGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 01/01/2016 18:51, jack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn a bit more history.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t need to.
>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t say anything like that about the courts.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Judicial_decisions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> These judgement add up to a ban on slavery in the UK.
>>
>> Wrong. And we weren't discussing slavery in the UK anyway.
>>
>
> Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar common
> law.
But they never had any court have any say on whether
slavery was legal there because it obviously was until
Congress changed that.
>>> [quote]
>>> Lord Henley LC said in Shanley v. Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126, 127 that as
>>>
>>> soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.
>>> [/quote]
>>
>> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
>>
>>> [quote]
>>> In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Lord Chief Justice William Murray,
>>> Lord Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench, started by talking about
>>> the capture and forcible detention of Somersett. He finished with:
>>
>>> So high an act of dominion must be recognized by the law of the
>>> country where it is used. The power of a master over his slave has
>>> been exceedingly different, in different countries.
>>
>>> The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of
>>> being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by
>>> positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons,
>>> occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from
>>> memory.
>>
>>> It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but
>>> positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the
>>> decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of
>>> England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
>>> [/quote]
>>
>> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
>>
>>> For Scotland
>>>
>>> [quote]
>>> After reading about Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved
>>> African who had been purchased by his master John Wedderburn in
>>> Jamaica and brought to Scotland, left him. Married and with a child,
>>> he filed a freedom suit, on the grounds that he could not be held as a
>>> slave in Great Britain. In the case of Knight v. Wedderburn (1778),
>>> Wedderburn said that Knight owed him "perpetual servitude". The Court
>>> of Sessions of Scotland ruled against him, saying that chattel slavery
>>> was not recognised under the law of Scotland, and slaves could seek
>>> court protection to leave a master or avoid being forcibly removed
>>> from Scotland to be returned to slavery in the colonies.
>>> [/quote]
>>
>> That didn’t stop slavery, even in the UK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 05:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <79039e5f-71b1-46e6-9605-284cc47f9e9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155801 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:20:55 PM UTC-7, jack wrote: > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com... > > Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar common > > law. > But they never had any court have any say on whether > slavery was legal there because it obviously was until > Congress changed that. No British court, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, there's Dred Scott. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 04:52 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <det5e3FefajU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155807 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:79039e5f-71b1-46e6-9605-284cc47f9e9d@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:20:55 PM UTC-7, jack wrote: >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com... > >> > Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar >> > common >> > law. > >> But they never had any court have any say on whether >> slavery was legal there because it obviously was until >> Congress changed that. > > No British court, if that's what you mean. I meant no american court after independence either. > Otherwise, there's Dred Scott. That didn't abolish slavery in the US. It took Congress to do that. Same with the UK, it took Parliament to abolish slavery, not those court decisions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 10:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <0dcb8c12-d645-492c-810d-6e66d934697d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155826 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-7, jack wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:79039e5f-71b1-46e6-9605-284cc47f9e9d@googlegroups.com... > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:20:55 PM UTC-7, jack wrote: > >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> news:SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com... > > > >> > Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar > >> > common > >> > law. > > > >> But they never had any court have any say on whether > >> slavery was legal there because it obviously was until > >> Congress changed that. > > > > No British court, if that's what you mean. > > I meant no american court after independence either. > > > Otherwise, there's Dred Scott. > > That didn't abolish slavery in the US. It took Congress to do that. No, the judges decided that slavery _was_ legal. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:03 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <detnldFj4vpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155836 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:0dcb8c12-d645-492c-810d-6e66d934697d@googlegroups.com... > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-7, jack wrote: >> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message >> news:79039e5f-71b1-46e6-9605-284cc47f9e9d@googlegroups.com... >> > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:20:55 PM UTC-7, jack wrote: >> >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:SMudnUvsf7lOxxXLnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@giganews.com... >> > >> >> > Before independence the USA was part of the British Empire. Similar >> >> > common >> >> > law. >> > >> >> But they never had any court have any say on whether >> >> slavery was legal there because it obviously was until >> >> Congress changed that. >> > >> > No British court, if that's what you mean. >> >> I meant no american court after independence either. >> >> > Otherwise, there's Dred Scott. >> >> That didn't abolish slavery in the US. It took Congress to do that. > > No, the judges decided that slavery _was_ legal. And did that in Britain and Scotland too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 15:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <xoydndFBcpEgZRvLnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155727 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web