Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9276ba4-e262-4d2d-928f-60e86b1d7996@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156431 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > mausg@wrote: > > > Watching a Gregory Peck Western, the > > hero has a young girl left with him, so he takes off her clothes, and > > washes her in the river , Ouch. > > Then nobody would see anything wrong in it, he wanted her clean and > that was it. Problem now is it's the wrong thing to do even if it's for the > right reason - if a young girl falls down and hurts herself in front of me > I would not dare to pick her up. Never saw the movie, but am a little surprised at that action unless the girl was very little. Could see it happening if it was boy, indeed I think that sort of thing was on TV westerns. Unfortunately, in today's litigous paranoid world, one must be very careful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfip1kF1p3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156440 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:f9276ba4-e262-4d2d-928f-60e86b1d7996@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > wrote: > >> mausg@wrote: >> >> > Watching a Gregory Peck Western, the >> > hero has a young girl left with him, so he takes off her clothes, and >> > washes her in the river , Ouch. >> >> Then nobody would see anything wrong in it, he wanted her clean and >> that was it. Problem now is it's the wrong thing to do even if it's for >> the >> right reason - if a young girl falls down and hurts herself in front of >> me >> I would not dare to pick her up. > > Never saw the movie, but am a little surprised at that action unless > the girl was very little. Could see it happening if it was boy, indeed > I think that sort of thing was on TV westerns. > > Unfortunately, in today's litigous paranoid world, one must be very > careful. Not really. I can remember one doco where someone did it with a tibetan boy who looked like he had never had a proper bath in his life, in a river on the way to some school or something. The kid wasn't too impressed but it wasn't clear if that was because he'd never had a bath in his life, or the river was fucking cold or he just wasn't too keen on being starkers in front of the foreigners and the camera crew or what.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99mpm.173.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156440 |
On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> mausg@wrote: >> >> > Watching a Gregory Peck Western, the >> > hero has a young girl left with him, so he takes off her clothes, and >> > washes her in the river , Ouch. >> >> Then nobody would see anything wrong in it, he wanted her clean and >> that was it. Problem now is it's the wrong thing to do even if it's for the >> right reason - if a young girl falls down and hurts herself in front of me >> I would not dare to pick her up. > > Never saw the movie, but am a little surprised at that action unless > the girl was very little. Could see it happening if it was boy, indeed > I think that sort of thing was on TV westerns. > > Unfortunately, in today's litigous paranoid world, one must be very careful. > I will look it up on utube today, if I have time. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n70psg12pl9@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156381 |
On 2016-01-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2016 4:29 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote: > >> On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >>> differences... >>> >>> --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >>> whenever they went out, and of course at work. >> >> The tie thing was very important, and still is to a lesser extent, >> I haave pictures from the late 1940's of a working place, where even >> the manual workers wore ties. I have never worn a tie, since I >> started working with machinery, and realized what a danger a tie is. > > Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I > did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, > they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. A PPOE once declared "tacky tie day", presumably in an attempt to build the morale that the new management team had been systematically destroying. I found a piece of rope and fashioned it into a noose. -- /~\ 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 | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156381 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I > did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, > they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the summer. That may still apply to this day. (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. Cops should wear a uniform cap.) As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit or jacket and tie. Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants really made more sense than a dress/skirt). In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more conservative look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfibeiFqvjvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156398 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > >> Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I >> did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, >> they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. > > Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we > didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student > intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. > > People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as > mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar > jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. > > Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the > summer. That may still apply to this day. > > (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. Cops > should wear a uniform cap.) > > As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be > considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just > a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots > of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who > were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- > white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit > or jacket and tie. A university classmate set a cat among the pigeons by turning up for his new job at the local IBM plant wearing a pink shirt and with a copy of the Worker, a communist newspaper, under his arm (in 1970). -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111349140.14582@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156409 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Anonymous wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >> >>> Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I >>> did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, >>> they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. >> >> Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we >> didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student >> intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. >> >> People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as >> mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar >> jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. >> >> Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the >> summer. That may still apply to this day. >> >> (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. Cops >> should wear a uniform cap.) >> >> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >> or jacket and tie. > > A university classmate set a cat among the pigeons by turning up for > his new job at the local IBM plant wearing a pink shirt and with a copy > of the Worker, a communist newspaper, under his arm (in 1970). > He was pretending to be one of those "commie pinkos"? Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfj2daF2677U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156411 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Anonymous wrote: > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >>> >>>> Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I >>>> did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, >>>> they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. >>> >>> Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we >>> didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student >>> intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. >>> >>> People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as >>> mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar >>> jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. >>> >>> Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the >>> summer. That may still apply to this day. >>> >>> (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. Cops >>> should wear a uniform cap.) >>> >>> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >>> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >>> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >>> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >>> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >>> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >>> or jacket and tie. >> >> A university classmate set a cat among the pigeons by turning up for >> his new job at the local IBM plant wearing a pink shirt and with a copy >> of the Worker, a communist newspaper, under his arm (in 1970). >> > He was pretending to be one of those "commie pinkos"? Not quite. He _was_ one of those commie pinkos. -- Bill Findlay
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfie7vFro51U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156398 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > >> Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I >> did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, >> they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. > > Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we > didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student > intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. > > People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as > mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar > jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. > > Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the > summer. That may still apply to this day. Not here it doesn't. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop wearing a tie and the bus driver who drove the bus a couple of weeks ago didn't either. Neither did the train driver. > (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. > Cops should wear a uniform cap.) Caps are a lot more practical and I can't see why they have to wear any form of head gear at all and few of ours do. > As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be > considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just > a few years earlier. I don't buy that with the hippies of the 60s. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots > of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who > were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- > white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit > or jacket and tie. The only time I have seen that recently is with the courts where one of the legal reps was flayed by the magistrate for wearing joggers. > Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear > pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember > women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with > their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the > women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. > Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to > wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants > really made more sense than a dress/skirt). But even then plenty wore scrubs after operations when talking to the relatives etc. > In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they > also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more > conservative look. Don't remember anyone doing that here and I left in the 60s, not the 70s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156398 |
In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > > > Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I > > did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, > > they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. > > Back then, when we were in high school and got jobs as clerks, we > didn't wear a necktie. But when we got to college and got student > intern jobs in offices, we were expected to wear ties. > > People who worked in blue collar jobs did not wear ties, indeed, as > mentioned, some could not for safety reasons. Many blue collar > jobs, such as maintenance men or truck drivers, wore uniforms. Foremen though had to wear ties, presumably so that one could tell they were Foremen. > > Bus drivers and cops wore neckties in the winter, but not in the > summer. That may still apply to this day. The Navy white uniforms cannot be worn with a tie--the trop whites don't have a collar button and the dress whites button all the way up. > (One modern touch I dislike is cops wearing baseball caps. Cops > should wear a uniform cap.) > > As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be > considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just > a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots > of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who > were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- > white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit > or jacket and tie. I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was tearing a line printer or copier apart. > Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear > pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember > women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with > their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the > women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. > Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to > wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants > really made more sense than a dress/skirt). I remember in my high school girls were allowed to wear shorts for a while, but the sight of teen aged girls sitting with their legs spread was apparently too much for one of the teachers and the principal changed the dress code, leaving the students wondering who the perv was and why he didn't get fired. > In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they > also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more > conservative look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <debce63a-62ca-48fb-96b0-1370f24bbe82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156455 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always > thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was > tearing a line printer or copier apart. Good question. Yes, it was certainly foolish to have a man in good clothes tear apart mechanical equipment. They had to use lubricants and cleaning solutions, all of which were messy. I also thought it was dangerous to have a man wear a necktie working on mechanical equipment. Most places I worked would prohibit computer operators form wearing a tie for that very reason. (A few older IBM guys wore bow-ties)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r0temc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156462 |
In article <debce63a-62ca-48fb-96b0-1370f24bbe82@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >> thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >> tearing a line printer or copier apart. > >Good question. Yes, it was certainly foolish to have a man in good >clothes tear apart mechanical equipment. They had to use lubricants >and cleaning solutions, all of which were messy. > >I also thought it was dangerous to have a man wear a necktie working >on mechanical equipment. Most places I worked would prohibit computer >operators form wearing a tie for that very reason. (A few older IBM >guys wore bow-ties) Or you could use the breakaway ones that police, busdrivers etc use, where the neck attchnent is just a very thin and easily breakable string. If it gets wedged it just comes right off. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9ksemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156455 |
In article <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >> >> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >> or jacket and tie. > >I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >tearing a line printer or copier apart. That is what lab coats were for. You were expected to doff the jacket and don a lab coat when doing dirty work. We had license to wear jeans/tshirt when doing such work, but were expected to change before and after. >> Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear >> pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember >> women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with >> their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the >> women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. >> Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to >> wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants >> really made more sense than a dress/skirt). > >I remember in my high school girls were allowed to wear shorts for a >while, but the sight of teen aged girls sitting with their legs spread >was apparently too much for one of the teachers and the principal >changed the dress code, leaving the students wondering who the perv was >and why he didn't get fired. > >> In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they >> also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more >> conservative look. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfksqcFg5l5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156482 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:9ksemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>> >>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >>> > >>> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >>> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >>> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >>> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >>> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >>> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >>> or jacket and tie. >> >>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>tearing a line printer or copier apart. > > That is what lab coats were for. You were expected to doff the > jacket and don a lab coat when doing dirty work. Fark, we never had anything like that. No one in the real labs ever had a jacket to doff, even the staff, of which I was one. The professor was a silly senile old fart and likely did wear a jacket but I don’t recall any of the other staff did. We had license > to wear jeans/tshirt when doing such work, but were expected to > change before and after. Never had anything like that either and never saw any of the DEC field service monkeys ever do anything like that. Don’t recall seeing any of the IBM or CDC monkeys so its not too clear what they did but I bet they didn’t either. >>> Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear >>> pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember >>> women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with >>> their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the >>> women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. >>> Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to >>> wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants >>> really made more sense than a dress/skirt). >> >>I remember in my high school girls were allowed to wear shorts for a >>while, but the sight of teen aged girls sitting with their legs spread >>was apparently too much for one of the teachers and the principal >>changed the dress code, leaving the students wondering who the perv was >>and why he didn't get fired. >> >>> In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they >>> also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more >>> conservative look.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5cvfmc-3d8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156519 |
In article <dfksqcFg5l5U1@mid.individual.net>, jack <jkl8976@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:9ksemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >> In article <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org>, >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, >>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> >> >>>> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >>>> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >>>> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >>>> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >>>> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >>>> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >>>> or jacket and tie. >>> >>>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>>tearing a line printer or copier apart. >> >> That is what lab coats were for. You were expected to doff the >> jacket and don a lab coat when doing dirty work. > >Fark, we never had anything like that. No one in the real labs >ever had a jacket to doff, even the staff, of which I was one. >The professor was a silly senile old fart and likely did wear >a jacket but I don’t recall any of the other staff did. > >We had license >> to wear jeans/tshirt when doing such work, but were expected to >> change before and after. > >Never had anything like that either and never saw any of >the DEC field service monkeys ever do anything like that. > >Don’t recall seeing any of the IBM or CDC monkeys so its >not too clear what they did but I bet they didn’t either. They were the ones in lab coats. I can confirm this from observation of trade show installation in the 1980s. The true IBMers showed up impeccable as always, and changed shoes and wore a lab coat when they got to the rough and dirty bits; like pulling (heavy) cable in old conduits. This may have changed with Gerstner(sp?). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <etidnXxr0IdkBgjLnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156519 |
>>>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>>tearing a line printer or copier apart. Yes, they generally DID wear suits. When grunt work was necessary, they could take off the jacket. I think the CE room did have a lab coat for serious digging into printers, card readers, etc. Cleaning the train on a 1403 printer involved dribbling solvent into the track and starting the motor, and black solvent would spray all over the room. The rest of the computer room staff would head to the other end of the machine room while this was going on, to avoid the spray and the fumes, which could get pretty strong. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7716j02l94@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156565 |
"Jon Elson" <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote: >>>>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>>>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>>>tearing a line printer or copier apart. Crazy, maybe, but that's the way it was. 'way back when, the branch office that serviced my account was like that until one day the branch office manager was promoted to a slot up in Galactic Headquarters. A temporary BO manager was brought in but it was several months before a new permanent manager showed up, and in the meantime the dress code had gone from rigid to ... um, let's just say "colorful." As best I can remember literally *none* of the customers serviced by the BO had any problems with the disappearance of the white shirt/dark suit dress code. > Yes, they generally DID wear suits. When grunt work was necessary, they > could take off the jacket. I think the CE room did have a lab coat for > serious digging into printers, card readers, etc. I don't recall ever seeing a CE in a lab coat, although when working on things like the hydraulic motor in the 1403 printer they did take off their coat and rolled up the sleeves. > Cleaning the train on a > 1403 printer involved dribbling solvent into the track and starting the > motor, and black solvent would spray all over the room. The rest of the > computer room staff would head to the other end of the machine room while > this was going on, to avoid the spray and the fumes, which could get > pretty > strong. H'mmm...as both an engineer and a past data center manager, if a CE or operator did that the individual would be at risk of being asked to leave and not return. There would also be a careful discussion with the operations manager, who would be asked to explain why the trains were not cleaned using the 3M train cleaning material (sheets on pinfeed, coated with a very sticky velvet-like material and nicknamed "pink fuzzy stuff"). Mount the pink fuzzy stuff, remove the ribbon, then run a program that would slam hammers against all of the glyphs on the train; the dirt and such on the glyphs would adhere to the sticky surface of the paper. And if a train became significantly contaminated, or needed to be cleaned to print a special job that the front office wanted to be picture-perfect, it wasn't a particularly long or difficult task to remove the slugs, wipe them down with solvent, and replace them in the train after wiping the raceway. Dirty, yes (I recall doing that a couple of times) but it would not result in splattering grime and solvent all over the place. Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <YLWdnXbkfPpmoQrLnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156620 |
Joe Morris wrote: > "Jon Elson" <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote: >> Cleaning the train on >> a >> 1403 printer involved dribbling solvent into the track and starting the >> motor, and black solvent would spray all over the room. The rest of the >> computer room staff would head to the other end of the machine room while >> this was going on, to avoid the spray and the fumes, which could get >> pretty >> strong. > > H'mmm...as both an engineer and a past data center manager, if a CE or > operator did that the individual would be at risk of being asked to leave > and not return. There would also be a careful discussion with the > operations manager, who would be asked to explain why the trains were not > cleaned using the 3M train cleaning material (sheets on pinfeed, coated > with > a very sticky velvet-like material and nicknamed "pink fuzzy stuff"). > Mount the pink fuzzy stuff, remove the ribbon, then run a program that > would slam hammers against all of the glyphs on the train; the dirt and > such on the glyphs would adhere to the sticky surface of the paper. > We had the cleaning forms, but maybe just couldn't be bothered to use them enough. Anyway, sometimes the train would bind up and trip the breaker, and then you had to get IBM in to fix it. > And if a train became significantly contaminated, or needed to be cleaned > to print a special job that the front office wanted to be picture-perfect, > it wasn't a particularly long or difficult task to remove the slugs, wipe > them down with solvent, and replace them in the train after wiping the > raceway. Dirty, yes (I recall doing that a couple of times) but it would > not result in splattering grime and solvent all over the place. I guess the CE's who tended to our facilities were afraid of scrambling the slugs and then having to diagnose which ones were misplaced. I NEVER saw them disassemble a train. (But, I didn't work in the machine room, so could have missed that. I did go in there a lot and got to see a lot of interesting stuff.) I probably am overstating the mess they made, but I definitely did watch a CE working on a 1403, using solvent and rags, ON the printer, to unjam a train. He'd dribble some solvent in the train, then hold the rag in a certain spot and flip the breaker on, then twist the hand knob to try to get it to spin under power. Repeat until he got it to stay running for at least a few seconds. The odor of the solvent was quite noticeable from ten feet away, smelled just like the stuff in old mimeograph machines. I'm pretty sure the operators were never doing this sort of repair. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n74d3i$9jc$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156519 |
In article <dfksqcFg5l5U1@mid.individual.net>, jack <jkl8976@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:9ksemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >> In article <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org>, >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, >>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> >> >>>> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >>>> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >>>> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >>>> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >>>> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >>>> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >>>> or jacket and tie. >>> >>>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>>tearing a line printer or copier apart. >> I believe they would reimburse it. I know at DEC we were able to remove the tie and coat when working on printers and screwing around with ribbons on printers and DECwriters. >> That is what lab coats were for. You were expected to doff the >> jacket and don a lab coat when doing dirty work. > Never had one in any Field Service spots. Jacket and tie were required but by the mid-80s we could get by with just the tie. Which came off when working on printers. >Fark, we never had anything like that. No one in the real labs >ever had a jacket to doff, even the staff, of which I was one. >The professor was a silly senile old fart and likely did wear >a jacket but I don’t recall any of the other staff did. > >We had license >> to wear jeans/tshirt when doing such work, but were expected to >> change before and after. > >Never had anything like that either and never saw any of >the DEC field service monkeys ever do anything like that. The only guys with that kind of stuff was the DEC "In House" Field Service who didn't wear jackets and just did the lab coat. > >Don’t recall seeing any of the IBM or CDC monkeys so its >not too clear what they did but I bet they didn’t either. Pretty much the same as DEC for IBM -- except they were held to higher dress standards. My blue shirt might have passed at IBM -- but I don't think the pink or salmon stuff would've been accepted. > >>>> Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear >>>> pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember >>>> women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with >>>> their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the >>>> women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. >>>> Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to >>>> wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants >>>> really made more sense than a dress/skirt). >>> >>>I remember in my high school girls were allowed to wear shorts for a >>>while, but the sight of teen aged girls sitting with their legs spread >>>was apparently too much for one of the teachers and the principal >>>changed the dress code, leaving the students wondering who the perv was >>>and why he didn't get fired. >>> >>>> In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they >>>> also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more >>>> conservative look. DEC was pretty easygoing on facial hair and hair length. If you did your job they really didn't seem to care -- as long as you were need and reasonably well groomed. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfltrkFo4i4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156568 |
"William Pechter" <pechter@pechter.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:n74d3i$9jc$1@pechter.eternal-september.org... > In article <dfksqcFg5l5U1@mid.individual.net>, jack <jkl8976@nospam.com> > wrote: >> >> >>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >>news:9ksemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >>> In article <MPG.30fe0a358999c680989dea@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>In article <0b1e5873-aafc-48f0-b304-092b8f03ae0b@googlegroups.com>, >>>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:45:21 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> As mentioned, in the film, the men wore outfits that might be >>>>> considered 'loud' or gaudy by today's standards, or those of just >>>>> a few years earlier. Anyway, I want to point out that while lots >>>>> of men did dress that way in 1975, there were some employers who >>>>> were conservative (like IBM), and followed a similar dress code-- >>>>> white shirts, not colored or patterned, and a conservative suit >>>>> or jacket and tie. >>>> >>>>I wonder if IBM paid the cleaning bill for those suits. I always >>>>thought it was crazy for some guy to be wearing a suit while he was >>>>tearing a line printer or copier apart. >>> > > I believe they would reimburse it. I know at DEC we were able to remove > the tie and coat when working on printers and screwing around with ribbons > on > printers and DECwriters. > >>> That is what lab coats were for. You were expected to doff the >>> jacket and don a lab coat when doing dirty work. >> > > Never had one in any Field Service spots. Jacket and tie were required > but by > the mid-80s we could get by with just the tie. Which came off when > working > on printers. > >>Fark, we never had anything like that. No one in the real labs >>ever had a jacket to doff, even the staff, of which I was one. >>The professor was a silly senile old fart and likely did wear >>a jacket but I don’t recall any of the other staff did. >> >>We had license >>> to wear jeans/tshirt when doing such work, but were expected to >>> change before and after. >> >>Never had anything like that either and never saw any of >>the DEC field service monkeys ever do anything like that. > The only guys with that kind of stuff was the DEC "In House" > Field Service who didn't wear jackets and just did the lab coat. Not here. They never had jackets here or lab coats either. In the late 60s and very early 70s. >>Don’t recall seeing any of the IBM or CDC monkeys so its >>not too clear what they did but I bet they didn’t either. > > Pretty much the same as DEC for IBM -- except they were held to higher > dress standards. My blue shirt might have passed at IBM -- but I don't > think the pink or salmon stuff would've been accepted. > >> >>>>> Also, back then, many offices would not allow women to wear >>>>> pants to the office, it was dresses or skirts only. I remember >>>>> women complaining loud about that restriction and arguing with >>>>> their employers about it. I recall one day in school all the >>>>> women faculty and staff decided to all wear pants in one day. >>>>> Likewise, in a hospital, all the female employees decided to >>>>> wear pants uniforms. (For women hospital workers, pants >>>>> really made more sense than a dress/skirt). >>>> >>>>I remember in my high school girls were allowed to wear shorts for a >>>>while, but the sight of teen aged girls sitting with their legs spread >>>>was apparently too much for one of the teachers and the principal >>>>changed the dress code, leaving the students wondering who the perv was >>>>and why he didn't get fired. >>>> >>>>> In college, as seniors began to interview for career jobs, they >>>>> also began to shave and cut their busy haircuts to a more >>>>> conservative look. > > DEC was pretty easygoing on facial hair and hair length. If you did your > job > they really didn't seem to care -- as long as you were need and reasonably > well > groomed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web