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 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10a6a3fee9a9164-bb4b2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #155943 |
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:19:54AM -0500, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, > rogblake@iname.invalid says... > > > > On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy job > > > that they do have. Big help _you_ are. > > > > _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. > > So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, > and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an example > of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely > hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. This may be news to you, but it seems to be in fashion today to do evil for evil's sake. Most effective when the consequences are put off to succeeding generations (polluting freshwater resources, moving industry to low-wage, low-regulation countries), but of course we have had several generations of that attitude by now and with predictable consequences. Greed is sometimes an excuse that obscures the deeper motivation. Possibly the main factor in America's decline is a consequence of the fact that exploiting poverty and ignorance is easier than being creative and competent in a non-trivial area of expertise, although it must be said that there are some very clever people criminally exploiting others in the West today. Police, politicians, et. al. tend to follow their lead. -- We all cannot be intelligent, but at least we can all be polite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104181059.c48b80b80887c26ebc8bafed@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155891 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:51:32 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap > poured on them from both government and the private sector. A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly charges the #12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 for allowing their account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making ends meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe gets bumped to #12 for late payment. -- 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 11:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <34b5e41a-1f1a-4dab-a509-8114f492c502@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155894 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends > meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and > it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly charges the > #12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 for allowing their > account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making ends > meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe gets > bumped to #12 for late payment. Yes. Banks are now real quick to debit your account, but real slow to credit your account with your deposits, even if they really have the money in hand. So, a poor person, who barely can keep their balance, can get surprised by bouncing a check (fee $35!). Also, poor people have low balances and thus get checked very onerous service charges. Banks make big profits from service charges now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104203802.9e20810a4b376ff190b31945@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155897 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > > A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends > > meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to > > #8 and it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly > > #charges the 12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 > > #for allowing their > > account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making > > ends meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe > > gets bumped to #12 for late payment. > > Yes. Banks are now real quick to debit your account, but real slow to > credit your account with your deposits, even if they really have the > money in hand. Thankfully ours aren't that bad - unless you deposit cheques but cheques are getting really rare (I gather they take five working days now). Not long ago the banks were forced to make transfers within Europe free of charge and have them arrive by the next business day. Most salaries are paid by transfer so this has made things much better. > So, a poor person, who barely can keep their balance, can get > surprised by bouncing a check (fee $35!). Ouch! I thought the €12.50 they charge here for a failed payment was bad. > Also, poor people have low balances and thus get checked very onerous > service charges. Banks make big profits from service charges now. Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1521220983.473634695.311047.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155903 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> >>> A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends >>> meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to >>> #8 and it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly >>> #charges the 12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 >>> #for allowing their >>> account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making >>> ends meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe >>> gets bumped to #12 for late payment. >> >> Yes. Banks are now real quick to debit your account, but real slow to >> credit your account with your deposits, even if they really have the >> money in hand. > > Thankfully ours aren't that bad - unless you deposit cheques but > cheques are getting really rare (I gather they take five working days now). > Not long ago the banks were forced to make transfers within Europe free of > charge and have them arrive by the next business day. Most salaries are > paid by transfer so this has made things much better. > >> So, a poor person, who barely can keep their balance, can get >> surprised by bouncing a check (fee $35!). > > Ouch! I thought the €12.50 they charge here for a failed payment was > bad. > >> Also, poor people have low balances and thus get checked very onerous >> service charges. Banks make big profits from service charges now. > > Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few > years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. > Some banks also process checks largest to smallest, to ensure that if you're going to bounce a check you bounce lots of them. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df075oF7q4pU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155908 |
On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST)
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
[30 lines snipped]
>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few
>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception.
>>
>
> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest,
I don't believe that.
--
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 | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q92dncp9rq0RqhbLnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155916 |
Huge wrote: > On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > [30 lines snipped] > >>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few >>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. >>> >> >> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest, > > I don't believe that. > > This is VERY well documented, there were class actions suits and I believe action from the Justince Department and finally legislation changes to partially block this behavior. Here are a couple articles: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15847179 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjShOWJ3JHKAhUS0WMKHSX7B68QFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerist.com%2F2013%2F10%2F22%2Fbank- of-america-stops-overdraft-friendly-practice-of-re-ordering-transactions- from-high-to-low%2F&usg=AFQjCNEJHuaM_EsvLQX0ub5dU9w1_qpicg http://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-is-legal-for-banks-to-stack-the- deck/ Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df1ju6Fi6vtU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155934 |
On 2016-01-05, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST)
>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> [30 lines snipped]
>>
>>>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few
>>>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest,
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>>
>>
> This is VERY well documented, there were class actions suits and I believe
> action from the Justince Department and finally legislation changes to
> partially block this behavior. Here are a couple articles:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15847179
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjShOWJ3JHKAhUS0WMKHSX7B68QFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerist.com%2F2013%2F10%2F22%2Fbank-
> of-america-stops-overdraft-friendly-practice-of-re-ordering-transactions-
> from-high-to-low%2F&usg=AFQjCNEJHuaM_EsvLQX0ub5dU9w1_qpicg
>
> http://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-is-legal-for-banks-to-stack-the-
> deck/
Wow. Well, it certainly doesn't happen here. (In the UK).
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
Celebrate Mungday
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f5687ac2365119989d96@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155946 |
In article <df1ju6Fi6vtU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid says... > > On 2016-01-05, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote: > > Huge wrote: > > > >> On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) > >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> > >> [30 lines snipped] > >> > >>>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few > >>>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest, > >> > >> I don't believe that. > >> > >> > > This is VERY well documented, there were class actions suits and I believe > > action from the Justince Department and finally legislation changes to > > partially block this behavior. Here are a couple articles: > > > > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15847179 > > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjShOWJ3JHKAhUS0WMKHSX7B68QFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerist.com%2F2013%2F10%2F22%2Fbank- > > of-america-stops-overdraft-friendly-practice-of-re-ordering-transactions- > > from-high-to-low%2F&usg=AFQjCNEJHuaM_EsvLQX0ub5dU9w1_qpicg > > > > http://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-is-legal-for-banks-to-stack-the- > > deck/ > > Wow. Well, it certainly doesn't happen here. (In the UK). Oh, that explains it, you're in the UK but you know all about being poor in the US.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df1n95Fi6vtU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155949 |
On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <df1ju6Fi6vtU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid
> says...
>>
>> On 2016-01-05, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>> > Huge wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST)
>> >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [30 lines snipped]
>> >>
>> >>>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few
>> >>>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest,
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > This is VERY well documented, there were class actions suits and I believe
>> > action from the Justince Department and finally legislation changes to
>> > partially block this behavior. Here are a couple articles:
>> >
>> > http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15847179
>> >
>> > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjShOWJ3JHKAhUS0WMKHSX7B68QFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsumerist.com%2F2013%2F10%2F22%2Fbank-
>> > of-america-stops-overdraft-friendly-practice-of-re-ordering-transactions-
>> > from-high-to-low%2F&usg=AFQjCNEJHuaM_EsvLQX0ub5dU9w1_qpicg
>> >
>> > http://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-is-legal-for-banks-to-stack-the-
>> > deck/
>>
>> Wow. Well, it certainly doesn't happen here. (In the UK).
>
> Oh, that explains it, you're in the UK but you know all about being poor
> in the US.
I'm taking my prompt from you. You apparently know everything about everything,
other than how not to be a twat on Usenet.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
Celebrate Mungday
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f574abcdc65738989d98@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155953 |
In article <df1n95Fi6vtU15@mid.individual.net>, Huge@nowhere.much.invalid says... > I'm taking my prompt from you. You apparently know everything about everything, > other than how not to be a twat on Usenet. <plonk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1255841405.473707320.834262.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155916 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-04, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:21:15 -0800 (PST) >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > [30 lines snipped] > >>> Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few >>> years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. >>> >> >> Some banks also process checks largest to smallest, > > I don't believe that. > > Believe it. They got my daughter this way once. Multiple overdraft fees instead of one. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3d6ca54-8d73-4fc9-9ccc-27074d8eaebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155903 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Banks here got their wrists slapped for excessive charges a few > years back - the non payment charges seem to be an exception. U.S. banks make half their income from fees, now. It has been deregulated. Thanks to massive mergers, consumers don't have much of a choice of banks as they used to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6fgnn02lib@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #155897 |
On 2016-01-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends >> meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and >> it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly charges the >> #12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 for allowing their >> account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making ends >> meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe gets >> bumped to #12 for late payment. > > Yes. Banks are now real quick to debit your account, but real slow to > credit your account with your deposits, even if they really have the > money in hand. That's why I always make my deposits in person. It's hard to argue that the money isn't there when you have a stamped receipt. > So, a poor person, who barely can keep their balance, can get > surprised by bouncing a check (fee $35!). > > Also, poor people have low balances and thus get checked very onerous > service charges. Banks make big profits from service charges now. Not just now - it's been going on for some time. It was over 20 years ago that my sister worked in a bank, and even then she was reprimanded several times for not gouging customers with enough service charges. And now our banks are crying the blues because they're only posting profits of a billion dollars a quarter... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6emhm$utu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155894 |
On 1/4/2016 12:10 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:51:32 -0800 (PST) > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap >> poured on them from both government and the private sector. > > A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends > meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and > it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly charges the > #12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 for allowing their > account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making ends > meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe gets > bumped to #12 for late payment. > And with that history, other banks won't open an account for the person. Doubly so if the person has "paperwork problems" (which could range from "undocumented alien" to "don't have a birth certificate"). Reasons why a lot of poor people don't have bank, and do their "banking" at check cashing and payday loan places. (Both of which also have accessible offices with hours that are more convenient than a bank.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1423562100.473634829.288563.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155904 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 1/4/2016 12:10 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:51:32 -0800 (PST) >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap >>> poured on them from both government and the private sector. >> >> A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends >> meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and >> it arrived the day before they got paid - the bank promptly charges the >> #12.50 for the failed payment and perhaps another #12.50 for allowing their >> account to go overdrawn leaving them with even less chance of making ends >> meet. If the poor victim is really unlucky then the #10 they owe gets >> bumped to #12 for late payment. >> > And with that history, other banks won't open an account for the > person. Doubly so if the person has "paperwork problems" (which could > range from "undocumented alien" to "don't have a birth certificate"). > > Reasons why a lot of poor people don't have bank, and do their > "banking" at check cashing and payday loan places. (Both of which also > have accessible offices with hours that are more convenient than a bank.) > If it were as simple as this non-profits could open such places with reasonable fees and interest charges. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3aaffc8b-2b1c-461d-9a70-29e81ff09349@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155909 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:14:51 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > If it were as simple as this non-profits could open such places with > reasonable fees and interest charges. Credit unions were supposed to be that non-profit service organization. But many of them have become as greedy and callous as commercial banks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6epf7$8ov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155914 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:14:51 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> If it were as simple as this non-profits could open such places with >> reasonable fees and interest charges. > > Credit unions were supposed to be that non-profit service organization. > > But many of them have become as greedy and callous as commercial > banks. Don't know how you know that. My credit union is still great. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6f1l6$a05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155914 |
On 1/4/2016 3:34 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:14:51 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> If it were as simple as this non-profits could open such places with >> reasonable fees and interest charges. > > Credit unions were supposed to be that non-profit service organization. AFAIK they are, for their members. But I think they're not so much a service organization as a co-op. > > But many of them have become as greedy and callous as commercial > banks. Maybe, but none of the ones I've been part of have been. The one that made a concerted effort to tackle the market in question (poor people) failed and was taken over by another. But they've always been happy to notarize stuff I brought in for free, and my current CU has MM rates better than all but a very few mutual funds. They were the cheapest place to get a car loan. It used to be hard to get into a CU, you needed to have a "common bond" like work at the same company. But these days, the common bond tends to be "has a detectable pulse."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df072qF7q4pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155894 |
On 2016-01-04, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:51:32 -0800 (PST)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that people in trouble get _more_ crap
>> poured on them from both government and the private sector.
>
> A prime example being banks. Someone having trouble making ends
> meet finds that a payment of #10 gets bounced because they're down to #8 and
> it arrived the day before they got paid
IOW they commit fraud.
--
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]
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web