Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154844 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-07 23:49 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 22:38 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-12-08 17:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:18 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-08 16:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 23:10 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 12:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-12-09 01:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:47 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 16:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-12-09 17:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 18:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-10 04:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 12:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 19:32 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 21:53 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-10 23:03 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-09 18:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 11:04 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 16:06 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:36 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-10 07:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-10 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 01:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-11 15:18 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:21 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-09 17:47 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 22:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Ranger" <r5432@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:20 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-11 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-10 01:41 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-10 16:45 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:26 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-11 14:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:31 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 08:11 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-12 11:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 16:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 05:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:19 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-06 07:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:26 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:36 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:00 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-07 23:56 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 07:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:32 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 11:03 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:50 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 10:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 12:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:40 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:56 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 19:01 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:12 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:35 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 02:00 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 20:45 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:46 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-05 12:50 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 10:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:03 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:10 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:12 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:00 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:49 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:51 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:36 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:24 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 13:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 16:22 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:31 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:13 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 15:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:09 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:49 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 18:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:47 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 11:01 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 17:01 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:52 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-11 12:34 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 23:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:14 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 12:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:32 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:43 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 17:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:02 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 09:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:42 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 21:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-08 21:25 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Page 4 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 17 Next page →
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6c67i$emp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155816 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > In article <47f7fb8a-cf50-4dc6-a80a-770de14c9d6a@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> >> > Never happen, because we keep redefining poverty upwards. I'm not sure how >> > much actual hunger is left in developing countries, obviously some, but >> > most people have access to some assistance, though not all take advantage >> > of it. >> >> Also, as discussed before, there is a subset of the population that, >> well, is troubled, and has great difficulty taking adequate care of >> itself. The definitions, causes, and solutions are greatly debated. >> Some conservatives claim that social programs created a dependency, >> while liberals claim post-industrialization and inadequate social >> programs are a cause. >> >> I just wish the ideologues would get out of the way. That won't be >> a total solution, but at least an improvement over now. > > I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year > recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to > get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom > line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly > all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the > kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. > The big thing > the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > trouble and not pour more trouble on him. Triple negative? I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often as it should? When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more trouble than they help? We need better ideas about how to do things. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f39688cf07bde4989d88@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155843 |
In article <n6c67i$emp$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > In article <47f7fb8a-cf50-4dc6-a80a-770de14c9d6a@googlegroups.com>, > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >> > >> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> > >> > Never happen, because we keep redefining poverty upwards. I'm not sure how > >> > much actual hunger is left in developing countries, obviously some, but > >> > most people have access to some assistance, though not all take advantage > >> > of it. > >> > >> Also, as discussed before, there is a subset of the population that, > >> well, is troubled, and has great difficulty taking adequate care of > >> itself. The definitions, causes, and solutions are greatly debated. > >> Some conservatives claim that social programs created a dependency, > >> while liberals claim post-industrialization and inadequate social > >> programs are a cause. > >> > >> I just wish the ideologues would get out of the way. That won't be > >> a total solution, but at least an improvement over now. > > > > I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year > > recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to > > get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom > > line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly > > all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the > > kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. > > > The big thing > > the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > > trouble and not pour more trouble on him. > > Triple negative? > > I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: > > The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often > as it should? > > When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more > trouble than they help? The government just pours trouble without regard to whether it makes a bad situation worse or whether it actually makes any sense in the particular case. Just an example--some guy's been out of work for a while, spent his savings, barely making ends meet working multiple minimum wage jobs, and can't afford to fix his lawn mower. Government solution--fine him $5000/month for "blight". > We need better ideas about how to do things. Yes, we do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6d2hk01jnh@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #155849 |
On 2016-01-04, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <n6c67i$emp$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The big thing
>>> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in
>>> trouble and not pour more trouble on him.
>>
>> Triple negative?
>>
>> I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence:
>>
>> The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often
>> as it should?
>>
>> When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more
>> trouble than they help?
>
> The government just pours trouble without regard to whether it makes a
> bad situation worse or whether it actually makes any sense in the
> particular case. Just an example--some guy's been out of work for a
> while, spent his savings, barely making ends meet working multiple
> minimum wage jobs, and can't afford to fix his lawn mower. Government
> solution--fine him $5000/month for "blight".
To steal a quote from someone else's .sig:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it
everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the
wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx
>> We need better ideas about how to do things.
>
> Yes, we do.
We also need politicians that will allow those ideas to
be implemented. Many of them have hidden agendas that
conflict with these better ideas.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6e22q$8eq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155849 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > In article <n6c67i$emp$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > In article <47f7fb8a-cf50-4dc6-a80a-770de14c9d6a@googlegroups.com>, >> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:11:37 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> >> >> >> > Never happen, because we keep redefining poverty upwards. I'm not sure how >> >> > much actual hunger is left in developing countries, obviously some, but >> >> > most people have access to some assistance, though not all take advantage >> >> > of it. >> >> >> >> Also, as discussed before, there is a subset of the population that, >> >> well, is troubled, and has great difficulty taking adequate care of >> >> itself. The definitions, causes, and solutions are greatly debated. >> >> Some conservatives claim that social programs created a dependency, >> >> while liberals claim post-industrialization and inadequate social >> >> programs are a cause. >> >> >> >> I just wish the ideologues would get out of the way. That won't be >> >> a total solution, but at least an improvement over now. >> > >> > I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year >> > recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to >> > get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom >> > line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly >> > all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the >> > kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. >> >> > The big thing >> > the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in >> > trouble and not pour more trouble on him. >> >> Triple negative? >> >> I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: >> >> The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often >> as it should? >> >> When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more >> trouble than they help? > > The government just pours trouble without regard to whether it makes a > bad situation worse or whether it actually makes any sense in the > particular case. Just an example--some guy's been out of work for a > while, spent his savings, barely making ends meet working multiple > minimum wage jobs, and can't afford to fix his lawn mower. Government > solution--fine him $5000/month for "blight". So this would be a municipality fining a homeowner for bringing down property values, all because the homeowner can't borrow a mower to mow his lawn? I find this example completely off the mark. >> We need better ideas about how to do things. > > Yes, we do. I'm not believing we have a critical lawnmower problem with the unemployed. If this government making things worse problem truly exists, the first step would be to define the problem. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f543a98d-32ed-456f-be06-57514c2636e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155849 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:29:58 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > The government just pours trouble without regard to whether it makes a > bad situation worse or whether it actually makes any sense in the > particular case. Just an example--some guy's been out of work for a > while, spent his savings, barely making ends meet working multiple > minimum wage jobs, and can't afford to fix his lawn mower. Government > solution--fine him $5000/month for "blight". The issue is tricky. Yes, it's tough for a poor person to properly maintain their home and then face fines for neglect. But on the other hand, an ill-maintained house can and often does adversely impact neighbors. Some poor people are, regretfully, a little 'off', and refuse to properly maintain things, making life hard for their neighbors, even refusing offers of free help to clean up. A poor person driving (forced to drive) without car insurance gets into an accident, and the other motorist is screwed. A big challenge is that some people are poor through no fault of their own, and would gladly work hard _if_ work was available. (Conservatives don't get it that sometimes there just aren't any jobs at all, or only extremely low paying jobs that won't even provide basic sustenance.) However, there are also poor people who have screwed up their lives and so are dysfunctional they they cannot hold down a job nor live responsibily in a community. (Liberals seem to refuse to apply any kind of personal responsibility to people to hold them accountable, and are quick to blame other elements of society.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f4f445aa101b10989d8c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155893 |
In article <f543a98d-32ed-456f-be06-57514c2636e3@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:29:58 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > The government just pours trouble without regard to whether it makes a > > bad situation worse or whether it actually makes any sense in the > > particular case. Just an example--some guy's been out of work for a > > while, spent his savings, barely making ends meet working multiple > > minimum wage jobs, and can't afford to fix his lawn mower. Government > > solution--fine him $5000/month for "blight". > > The issue is tricky. > > Yes, it's tough for a poor person to properly maintain their home > and then face fines for neglect. But on the other hand, an > ill-maintained house can and often does adversely impact neighbors. > Some poor people are, regretfully, a little 'off', and refuse to > properly maintain things, making life hard for their neighbors, > even refusing offers of free help to clean up. If the town offered "free help" it would be one thing, but that is not usually the case. Around here they don't even try to find out what the problem is. In fact they sometimes impose fines without even bothering to see if the property is in compliance. > A poor person driving (forced to drive) without car insurance > gets into an accident, and the other motorist is screwed. Why is the other motorist screwed, was he also driving without insurance? > A big challenge is that some people are poor through no fault > of their own, and would gladly work hard _if_ work was available. Many poor people work very hard at jobs that don't pay anything. But that's another issue--line outside Home Depot hoping for a few hours of day labor, you're "self employed" had have to pay a 15 percent tax over and above any income tax. > (Conservatives don't get it that sometimes there just aren't > any jobs at all, or only extremely low paying jobs that won't > even provide basic sustenance.) > > However, there are also poor people who have screwed up their > lives and so are dysfunctional they they cannot hold down a > job nor live responsibily in a community. And those are a separate problem. Unfortunately there isn't really anything that can be done about them other than providing inducements for them to move to a different community, which is why so many of them end up in major cities--the 'burbs were successful in driving them out. There was a time when they would have been institutionalized, but the courts have made that far more difficult than it used to be. > (Liberals seem to refuse to apply any kind of personal > responsibility to people to hold them accountable, and > are quick to blame other elements of society.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pdqdnUh23MA7qBbLnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155927 |
J. Clarke wrote: > > Why is the other motorist screwed, was he also driving without > insurance? In Missouri, as I understand it, if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, your insurance company is forbidden by state law from paying you. Your ONLY recourse is to sue the uninsured motorist in court (if you can even find him)! I guess I see the reason the law is this way, but it penalizes insured drivers who did nothing wrong. Also, all drivers are required to keep medical liability coverage so they can cover expenses for THEIR passengers that might be injured in a wreck caused by an uninsured motorist. I am pretty sure I correctly understand the meaning of this law, I had it explained to me by an insurance company representative when one of my kids had an incident with a driver whose insurance might not have been current. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f5621ea3b66f19989d92@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155933 |
In article <pdqdnUh23MA7qBbLnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, elson@pico- systems.com says... > > J. Clarke wrote: > > > > > > Why is the other motorist screwed, was he also driving without > > insurance? > In Missouri, as I understand it, if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, > your insurance company is forbidden by state law from paying you. Care to cite the law on that? Since Missouri requires uninsured motorist coverage it seems rather silly to prevent its use. > Your ONLY > recourse is to sue the uninsured motorist in court (if you can even find > him)! I guess I see the reason the law is this way, but it penalizes > insured drivers who did nothing wrong. I think the reason that you think the law is this way is that somebody has misinformed you about the law. > Also, all drivers are required to keep medical liability coverage so they > can cover expenses for THEIR passengers that might be injured in a wreck > caused by an uninsured motorist. I would like to see the statutory requirement for that. > > I am pretty sure I correctly understand the meaning of this law, I had it > explained to me by an insurance company representative when one of my kids > had an incident with a driver whose insurance might not have been current. I am pretty sure you need to have a lawyer contact that insurance company representative, and I am also pretty sure you need to change carriers, because that sounds like he's trying to get out of delivering the coverage for which you paid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <878u43rhah.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #155933 |
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes: > J. Clarke wrote: > > >> >> Why is the other motorist screwed, was he also driving without >> insurance? > In Missouri, as I understand it, if you get hit by an uninsured motorist, > your insurance company is forbidden by state law from paying you. > Your ONLY Isn't that exactly *BACKWARDS*? One of the specific line items I had in CA auto insurance was "Unisured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage". It was SPECIFICALLY designed to pay off for losses caused by cases where the counterpart in a loss was unable to be located, or did not carry sufficient insurance to cover the loss. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2isj8bd4banu1g3hus1ku5ljeedfogj92m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155843 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:12:33 -0500, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>> The big thing
>> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in
>> trouble and not pour more trouble on him.
>
>Triple negative?
No. There are two not's, and they are in different clauses.
>I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence:
>
> The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often
> as it should?
>
> When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more
> trouble than they help?
>
>We need better ideas about how to do things.
A bit of restating:
The big thing that the government could do, but is not doing
would be 1) to recognise when somebody is in trouble and 2) to not
pour more trouble on him.
Is this more understandable?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104064840.357f22653f3bbf6ba851a5e6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155855 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:20:29 -0800 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:12:33 -0500, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: > > >"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > [snip] > > >> The big thing > >> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > >> trouble and not pour more trouble on him. > > > >Triple negative? > > No. There are two not's, and they are in different clauses. > > >I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: > > > > The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often > > as it should? > > > > When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more > > trouble than they help? > > > >We need better ideas about how to do things. > > A bit of restating: > > The big thing that the government could do, but is not doing > would be 1) to recognise when somebody is in trouble and 2) to not > pour more trouble on him. It could be generalised to state that the primary purpose of a state should be to be of benefit to the people who constitute that state. All government action *should* have this as the first principle. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6e296$8eq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155855 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:12:33 -0500, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: > >>"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > [snip] > >>> The big thing >>> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in >>> trouble and not pour more trouble on him. >> >>Triple negative? > > No. There are two not's, and they are in different clauses. > >>I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: >> >> The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often >> as it should? >> >> When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more >> trouble than they help? >> >>We need better ideas about how to do things. > > A bit of restating: > > The big thing that the government could do, but is not doing > would be 1) to recognise when somebody is in trouble and 2) to not > pour more trouble on him. > > Is this more understandable? Yes, except for defining the trouble. Pretty sure it's not a lawnmower problem. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f4f48a2360f7a2989d8d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155877 |
In article <n6e296$8eq$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > > Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: > > > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:12:33 -0500, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > > wrote: > > > >>"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > > [snip] > > > >>> The big thing > >>> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > >>> trouble and not pour more trouble on him. > >> > >>Triple negative? > > > > No. There are two not's, and they are in different clauses. > > > >>I tried to understand but I got 2 things out of that sentence: > >> > >> The government isn't recognizing when someone is in trouble as often > >> as it should? > >> > >> When the government recognizes someone is in trouble they cause more > >> trouble than they help? > >> > >>We need better ideas about how to do things. > > > > A bit of restating: > > > > The big thing that the government could do, but is not doing > > would be 1) to recognise when somebody is in trouble and 2) to not > > pour more trouble on him. > > > > Is this more understandable? > > Yes, except for defining the trouble. > Pretty sure it's not a lawnmower problem. It's one example of the government making a bad situation worse. The problem is that the poor bastard can't find a job that lets him pay all his bills. The lawn mower is a symptom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4186018-6116-486b-a362-9fee1c71b979@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155816 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year > recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to > get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom > line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly > all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the > kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. The big thing > the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > trouble and not pour more trouble on him. Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap poured on them from both government and the private sector. For instance, they don't have money and are forced to drive an old junker that might not pass m/v inspection. They get fines or get their car towed. If they go to govt to get help, they must wait in endless lines for service, deal with voluminous complex mysterious paperwork, deal with overwhelmed and untrained agents, and deal with conflicting regulations. Both liberals and conservatives are at fault for this. Conservatives order cutbacks and force the agencies to have tough rules and inadequate staff and facilities. Liberals don't understand core problems and needs and develop theoretical pie-in-the-sky programs that are meaningless 'on the ground'. In the private sector, stores in poor neighborhoods often treat their customers differently than stores in good neighborhoods (for a variety of reasons), but it makes it harder for poor people. Low-paying jobs have no benefits and tough working conditions. Low paid workers are sometimes cheated by their employer and little is done about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <devq1sF3i8jU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155891 |
On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year
>> recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to
>> get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom
>> line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly
>> all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the
>> kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. The big thing
>> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in
>> trouble and not pour more trouble on him.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap
> poured on them from both government and the private sector.
>
> For instance, they don't have money and are forced to drive an
> old junker that might not pass m/v inspection.
No they aren't. If they can't afford to run a car, they can't afford it. End
of debate.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104190426.0774fa23eadaee1a315d8f1a@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155892 |
On 4 Jan 2016 17:56:12 GMT Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > For instance, they don't have money and are forced to drive an > > old junker that might not pass m/v inspection. > > No they aren't. If they can't afford to run a car, they can't afford it. > End of debate. Can't afford to run a car, can't get to work without one. This is not an uncommon problem. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <908ec91c-45f3-4802-b397-e993c9b65364@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155898 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Can't afford to run a car, can't get to work without one. This is > not an uncommon problem. It's getting worse. Years ago, poor people could live in cities and use transit reasonably well to get to work. But now many poor people live in the suburbs and have no transit. Or, they live in the city, but the jobs have moved to the suburbs and there's no way out there. I loved the state's anti-transit legislature's action. To save money, they terminated subsidy of a bus route from the city to a suburban indutrial park, which served low-wage workers. The workers then couldn't get to work, quit their jobs, and went back on welfare. Did the taxpayers really save money? Were the workers better off? city govt officials claim the jobs have moved to China. That is not totally true. a lot of the jobs moved only to the suburbs or exurbs, because conditions within the city were so onerous for a business to operate. city officials shouldn't make excuses (or blame racism), and deal with the problems that make employers flee the city.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df0agdF7q4pU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155912 |
On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> Can't afford to run a car, can't get to work without one. This is
>> not an uncommon problem.
>
> It's getting worse.
>
> Years ago, poor people could live in cities and use transit
> reasonably well to get to work. But now many poor people live
> in the suburbs and have no transit. Or, they live in the city,
> but the jobs have moved to the suburbs and there's no way out there.
>
> I loved the state's anti-transit legislature's action. To save
> money, they terminated subsidy of a bus route from the city to
> a suburban indutrial park, which served low-wage workers. The
> workers then couldn't get to work, quit their jobs, and went back
> on welfare. Did the taxpayers really save money? Were the workers
> better off?
You don't really expect large organisations of any kind to do "joined
up thinking", do you?
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87lh83rik5.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #155898 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > On 4 Jan 2016 17:56:12 GMT > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > For instance, they don't have money and are forced to drive an >> > old junker that might not pass m/v inspection. >> >> No they aren't. If they can't afford to run a car, they can't afford it. >> End of debate. > > Can't afford to run a car, can't get to work without one. This is > not an uncommon problem. A uniquely American problem, caused by fifty years of willfully bad planning. It only became clear to me when I *left* the US, and realized that it doesn't have to be thus. I don't see a solution in my remaining lifespan. --NK1G/XE1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f4f4bb72936080989d8e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155892 |
In article <devq1sF3i8jU10@mid.individual.net>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid says... > > On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > >> I had the fortune to work in an inner-city career center for a year > >> recently. I got to see first hand how people were going about trying to > >> get out of poverty. I could go on at length about it but the bottom > >> line is that there's no one solution--each case was different and nearly > >> all have more than one problem, and the problems are not generally the > >> kind that can be fixed with massive government programs. The big thing > >> the government could do and isn't is recognize when somebody's in > >> trouble and not pour more trouble on him. > > > > Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap > > poured on them from both government and the private sector. > > > > For instance, they don't have money and are forced to drive an > > old junker that might not pass m/v inspection. > > No they aren't. If they can't afford to run a car, they can't afford it. End > of debate. So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy job that they do have. Big help _you_ are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web