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 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a5bd066-5b61-4658-8dd9-b6b5ec548451@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156364 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:59:16 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > It wasn't until later, as I was reading replies to your post, that I realized > you were talking about handsets without any means of dialing a number. Which > I've seen, having a plastic plate where the dial would be. So people in the > motel would pick up the phone, and talk to an operator to have a call placed. > Which, of course, makes sense, as the kind of system where you dial 9 for an > outside line, and your ability to make long distance calls is controlled, was > very expensive back then. In this film, the motel was a plain basic place in a small town. A nicer big city hotel or upscale motel might have dial phones in the rooms by 1975, especially if it was a larger facility. (Circa 1972, I stayed at several large hotels and they had large manual telephone switchboards, requiring several operators to handle the traffic from guest room phones without any dial.) In 1975, the Bell System had developed some cheaper dial PBX systems, and manually operated switchboards were starting to fade away. However, in small motel service, where the desk clerk was likely needed to handle most calls anyway, it was more economical to stick with a manual switchboard and guest phones without any dial. I think around 1980-1985 they finally came out with cost-competitive small motel PBX systems. There are a few places today where there is a service phone that doesn't have a dial on it, but these are rare. But in 1975, a dial blank PBX telephone was definitely not unusual, and people knew that an operator would answer to take the call. Kind of hard to imagine today. > Some of the other changes you list, like wearing a suit and tie to work, I > would have thought dated back to a time earlier than 1977. > > John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <71kdmc-8t3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156380 |
In article <0a5bd066-5b61-4658-8dd9-b6b5ec548451@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:59:16 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> It wasn't until later, as I was reading replies to your post, that I realized >> you were talking about handsets without any means of dialing a number. Which >> I've seen, having a plastic plate where the dial would be. So people in the >> motel would pick up the phone, and talk to an operator to have a call placed. >> Which, of course, makes sense, as the kind of system where you dial 9 for an >> outside line, and your ability to make long distance calls is controlled, was >> very expensive back then. > >In this film, the motel was a plain basic place in a small town. A nicer >big city hotel or upscale motel might have dial phones in the rooms by >1975, especially if it was a larger facility. (Circa 1972, I stayed at >several large hotels and they had large manual telephone switchboards, requiring several operators to handle the traffic from >guest room phones >without any dial.) I had a "Grand Your" of the US&Canada in 1987, and we genrally stayed at the Best Western chain. A budget one, but reasonable quality. They were just migrating from these non-dialable phones to ones that could make local and 800 calls, but you had to go through the reception for everything else. There were some minute charges for the local calls in some places, I remember we got billed 7 cents in one place. These "non-dial" phones did have an "attention" key and a hookflash one. >In 1975, the Bell System had developed some cheaper dial PBX systems, >and manually operated switchboards were starting to fade away. However, >in small motel service, where the desk clerk was likely needed to handle >most calls anyway, it was more economical to stick with a manual >switchboard and guest phones without any dial. I think around 1980-1985 >they finally came out with cost-competitive small motel PBX systems. > >There are a few places today where there is a service phone that >doesn't have a dial on it, but these are rare. But in 1975, a dial >blank PBX telephone was definitely not unusual, and people knew that >an operator would answer to take the call. Kind of hard to imagine >today. Limited hotel PBXes are coming back. There is a requirement in most of Europe for hotel guests to be able to call the emergency number from all hotel facilities. Lots of hotels have specially programmed ones where you can dial 112, 911 or any reasonbly known emergency number, and after a brief message about "connecting to emergency services" in a few languages pushes the call through to the real emergency number, complete with extensive caller information. >> Some of the other changes you list, like wearing a suit and tie to work, I >> would have thought dated back to a time earlier than 1977. I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156445 |
Morten Reistad wrote: <snip> > I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate > dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, > but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of > the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. > > I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that > required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for > such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. > > The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where > the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher > you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? 1860s? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jb1a9bhgq7errctttbc3llikpd8jedhqd8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
On 12 Jan 2016 13:24:25 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: > ><snip> > >> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >> >> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >> >> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. > >I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >1860s? > >/BAH Suits became fairly common in the 1920. Before that jackets were made of different cloth to trousers. Narrow pinstripe spacing was to avoid men looking like clowns. Steve -- Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfku1bFgfo7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156492 |
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@easynn.com> wrote in message news:jb1a9bhgq7errctttbc3llikpd8jedhqd8@4ax.com... > On 12 Jan 2016 13:24:25 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>Morten Reistad wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer >>> facilites, >>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>> >>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >>> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >>> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >>> >>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >> >>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>1860s? > > Suits became fairly common in the 1920. Before that jackets were made > of different cloth to trousers. That happened a full century before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_suits > Narrow pinstripe spacing was to avoid men looking like clowns. Solid colors don't look like clowns. Wiki is silent on the origin of pinstripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_stripes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9adcl.6m0.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
On 12 Jan 2016 13:24:25 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: > ><snip> > >> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >> >> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >> >> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. > > I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that > fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? > 1860s? Beau Brummel (early 1800s) is credited with inventing the suit. Before him trouser (pants) were not acceptable, gentlemen were expected to wear britches and hose - trousers were for manual workers who needed to protect their legs and came in pairs like a cowboy's chaps. They're still called a pair although it's now a single garment :-) The Duke of Wellington was once refused entry to an exclusive club because he turned up in trousers. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7c6om$qn9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156515 |
"Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message news:slrnn9adcl.6m0.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > The Duke of Wellington was once refused entry to an exclusive club > because he turned up in trousers. > "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society." -- Mark Twain -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <362de780-355e-4731-8c28-38c44d78e5ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156725 |
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in > society." -- Mark Twain I sort of figured the readers of this newsgroup were of the "Ward & June Cleaver" type. Apparently not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601191550250.29952@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #157009 |
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in >> society." -- Mark Twain > > I sort of figured the readers of this newsgroup were of the "Ward > & June Cleaver" type. Apparently not. > Talk about stereotypes. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfktn3Fgd2mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com... > Morten Reistad wrote: > > <snip> > >> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >> >> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >> >> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. > > I had never heard of that. Me neither and never saw anything like it either. > There must be some reasoning behind that fashion for suits. There never is with most fashion. What the fuck is the 'reasoning' behind ties for christ sakes ? Hats and shoes are a bit more rational. > Do you know what it is? I'm not convinced that there ever was. > When did suits start? 1860s? Rather earlier than that, early 19th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_suits
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YZ6dneerirJfDQjLnZ2dnUU78IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156521 |
On 12/01/2016 18:07, jack wrote:
{snip}
> What the fuck is the 'reasoning' behind ties for christ sakes ?
Ties force men to hide their cleavage. Sexy cleavage is (was?) a woman's
monopoly. They are also the only interesting bit of colour a gentleman
is allowed to wear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dflloiFmdpuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156561 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:YZ6dneerirJfDQjLnZ2dnUU78IudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 12/01/2016 18:07, jack wrote:
> {snip}
>
>> What the fuck is the 'reasoning' behind ties for christ sakes ?
>
> Ties force men to hide their cleavage.
There are much better ways of doing that.
> Sexy cleavage is (was?) a woman's monopoly. They are also the only
> interesting bit of colour a gentleman is allowed to wear.
Could have sworn that loud shirts and T shirts did that fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <W_CdnRXxaZzwTwjLnZ2dnUU78LudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156566 |
On 13/01/2016 00:57, jack wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:YZ6dneerirJfDQjLnZ2dnUU78IudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/01/2016 18:07, jack wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> What the fuck is the 'reasoning' behind ties for christ sakes ?
>>
>> Ties force men to hide their cleavage.
>
> There are much better ways of doing that.
>
>> Sexy cleavage is (was?) a woman's monopoly. They are also the only
>> interesting bit of colour a gentleman is allowed to wear.
>
> Could have sworn that loud shirts and T shirts did that fine.
They were banned with suits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfm371Fp7smU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156576 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:W_CdnRXxaZzwTwjLnZ2dnUU78LudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 13/01/2016 00:57, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:YZ6dneerirJfDQjLnZ2dnUU78IudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 12/01/2016 18:07, jack wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>> What the fuck is the 'reasoning' behind ties for christ sakes ?
>>>
>>> Ties force men to hide their cleavage.
>>
>> There are much better ways of doing that.
>>
>>> Sexy cleavage is (was?) a woman's monopoly. They are also the only
>>> interesting bit of colour a gentleman is allowed to wear.
>>
>> Could have sworn that loud shirts and T shirts did that fine.
> They were banned with suits.
Trouble with that line is that ties aren't just seen with suits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vtufmc-3d8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156489 |
In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: > ><snip> > >> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >> >> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >> >> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. > >I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >1860s? This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark that any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in finance and state bureaucracy. A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock Exchange Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This is all informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But the proper tailors know. So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low on the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the history. I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring confirmation that this is still in place. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005293795F23AE7@aca43c5b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156535 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>> >>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >>> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >>> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >>> >>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >> >>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>1860s? > > This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark that > any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in finance and > state bureaucracy. > > A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey > stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few > mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock Exchange > Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This is all > informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But the > proper tailors know. > > So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low > on the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. > > The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic > "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the > history. > > I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented > anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring > confirmation that this is still in place. Sounds like a wonderful PhD thesis. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfn7vmFt0s9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156581 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer >>>> facilites, >>>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>>> >>>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, >>>> that required some dressing up. We had several garments in the >>>> wardrobe for such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a >>>> day. >>>> >>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes >>>> where the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner >>>> the higher you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince >>>> Charles. >>> >>>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>>1860s? >> >> This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark >> that any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in >> finance and state bureaucracy. >> >> A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey >> stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few >> mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock >> Exchange Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This >> is all informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But >> the proper tailors know. >> >> So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low on >> the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. >> >> The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic >> "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the >> history. >> >> I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented >> anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring >> confirmation that this is still in place. > > Sounds like a wonderful PhD thesis. There are better subjects! Although only a bachelor's thesis at MIT, a friend of mine did on on science fiction.. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/58858#files-area -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005294B5B6777E9@aca40c23.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156583 |
Bob Eager wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>>>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer >>>>> facilites, >>>>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>>>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>>>> >>>>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, >>>>> that required some dressing up. We had several garments in the >>>>> wardrobe for such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a >>>>> day. >>>>> >>>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes >>>>> where the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner >>>>> the higher you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince >>>>> Charles. >>>> >>>>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>>>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>>>1860s? >>> >>> This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark >>> that any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in >>> finance and state bureaucracy. >>> >>> A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey >>> stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few >>> mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock >>> Exchange Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This >>> is all informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But >>> the proper tailors know. >>> >>> So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low on >>> the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. >>> >>> The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic >>> "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the >>> history. >>> >>> I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented >>> anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring >>> confirmation that this is still in place. >> >> Sounds like a wonderful PhD thesis. > > There are better subjects! Although only a bachelor's thesis at MIT, a > friend of mine did on on science fiction.. > > http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/58858#files-area There may be better subjects but it would be unique. I can imagine a lot of financial history could be included with the development of the suit heirarchy. I read a PhD thesis on housework; it was facinating and even explained why white shirts became the uniform in offices. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfqanaFrop2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156637 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005294B5B6777E9@aca40c23.ipt.aol.com... > Bob Eager wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:13:06 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>>>>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer >>>>>> facilites, >>>>>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>>>>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>>>>> >>>>>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, >>>>>> that required some dressing up. We had several garments in the >>>>>> wardrobe for such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a >>>>>> day. >>>>>> >>>>>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes >>>>>> where the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner >>>>>> the higher you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince >>>>>> Charles. >>>>> >>>>>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>>>>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>>>>1860s? >>>> >>>> This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark >>>> that any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in >>>> finance and state bureaucracy. >>>> >>>> A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey >>>> stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few >>>> mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock >>>> Exchange Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This >>>> is all informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But >>>> the proper tailors know. >>>> >>>> So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low on >>>> the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. >>>> >>>> The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic >>>> "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the >>>> history. >>>> >>>> I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented >>>> anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring >>>> confirmation that this is still in place. >>> >>> Sounds like a wonderful PhD thesis. >> >> There are better subjects! Although only a bachelor's thesis at MIT, a >> friend of mine did on on science fiction.. >> >> http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/58858#files-area > > There may be better subjects but it would be unique. I can imagine > a lot of financial history could be included with the development of > the suit heirarchy. I read a PhD thesis on housework; it was > facinating and even explained why white shirts became the uniform > in offices. Why was that ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052937B48D4987@aca43c5b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156535 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00052922A55F1F82@aca40449.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> I worked for the Stock Exchange 1985-95, and we had a very elaborate >>> dress code. We were allowed jeans etc when working in computer facilites, >>> but had to have a tie and jacked when out in the non-secured parts of >>> the building. And have a pinstripe suit for some meetings. >>> >>> I got to read the riot act to the manager of Reuters Europe once, that >>> required some dressing up. We had several garments in the wardrobe for >>> such occasions, and we regularly changed 2-3 times a day. >>> >>> The pinstripe hierarchy is amusing. You can see from the stripes where >>> the person is in the pecking order. The less and the thinner the higher >>> you are. If they are barely visible you are Prince Charles. >> >>I had never heard of that. There must be some reasoning behind that >>fashion for suits. Do you know what it is? When did suits start? >>1860s? > > This is for the dark (may be "blue" or "brown", but these are so dark that > any layman would call them "black") pinstripe suits used in finance and > state bureaucracy. > > A junior trainee will have half a centimeter wide white or light grey > stripes, often in slightly irregular patterns. A broker will have a few > mm, regular pattern; often paired. A minister of Finance or Stock Exchange > Chairman will have sub-mm stripes, pretty widely spaced. This is all > informal, I have never seen any writeups of this anywhere. But the > proper tailors know. > > So the caricatures of the brokers usually depict someone pretty low > on the ladder, since they overdo these stripes. > > The pinstripes arrived just after Napoleon. Together with the classic > "bowler" hat and/or top hat and slim umbrella. But I don't know the > history. > > I googled around, and can find no hint of this hierarchy documented > anywhere, but pictures of people in the finance industry do bring > confirmation that this is still in place. I wonder if the pinstripe differences were due to cost of manufacturing them. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web