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 12 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 20 Next page →
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <O4udnXZtwdZDowrLnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156568 |
William Pechter wrote: > > 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. We had a Memorex CE who used to be an IBM CE. Not sure if he served our facility when working for IBM, but maybe. he was REALLY good, supposedly the best in the region. Anyway, after moving to Memorex, he took to working in Hawaiian shirts, no tie or jacket. This was in conflict with the Memorex dress code, too, but he was so good, they let hom get away with it. I saw him work on our 360/65, and he REALLY knew what he was doing. They had a problem where COBOL programs that had been running fine for years started blowing up with divide by zero errors. He was there to work on Memorex drive stuff, but said "can I have the machine?" The operators told him they'd stopped it as they didn't want any programs misbehaving. Thining a moment, he said "Hmm, COBOL only, must be the decimal divide hardware, that isn't common to anything else in the machine." He entered some values in local store, then entered a decimal divide instruction FROM MEMORY without consulting a green card to get the op-code, and executed it. Sure enough, 5 / 3 got a zero result and a check. I was pretty impressed. The CE cabinet was locked, so he couldn't run the FLTs for IBM to tell them what boards to bring. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1731285248.474321483.098975.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156455 |
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: >> >>> 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. This reminds me of a story about one IBM salesman. His territory was downtown Albany, so he walked from the branch to most customer sites. He submitted an expense voucher for new shoes, complaining that salesman with more widespread customer bases got milage on their personal cars, while he wore out his shoes and got nothing. I think he still came up empty-handed (or footed). > >> 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. > > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n73tei020d0@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156538 |
On 2016-01-12, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > This reminds me of a story about one IBM salesman. His territory was > downtown Albany, so he walked from the branch to most customer sites. He > submitted an expense voucher for new shoes, complaining that salesman with > more widespread customer bases got milage on their personal cars, while he > wore out his shoes and got nothing. I think he still came up empty-handed > (or footed). I got reimbursed for parking when driving to customer sites. I always wished I could get reimbursed for parking tickets if the only way to get there was to park illegally, but no such luck. (Well, delivery trucks seemed to be exempt...) -- /~\ 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 | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7c6ud$r41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156551 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n73tei020d0@news3.newsguy.com... > On 2016-01-12, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> This reminds me of a story about one IBM salesman. His territory was >> downtown Albany, so he walked from the branch to most customer sites. He >> submitted an expense voucher for new shoes, complaining that salesman >> with >> more widespread customer bases got milage on their personal cars, while >> he >> wore out his shoes and got nothing. I think he still came up >> empty-handed >> (or footed). > > I got reimbursed for parking when driving to customer sites. I always > wished I could get reimbursed for parking tickets if the only way to > get there was to park illegally, but no such luck. (Well, delivery > trucks seemed to be exempt...) > Charlie: Perhaps you should buy a delivery truck and drive that to customer sites! :-) -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7elb101g8k@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156726 |
On 2016-01-16, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message > news:n73tei020d0@news3.newsguy.com... > >> On 2016-01-12, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> This reminds me of a story about one IBM salesman. His territory was >>> downtown Albany, so he walked from the branch to most customer sites. He >>> submitted an expense voucher for new shoes, complaining that salesman >>> with >>> more widespread customer bases got milage on their personal cars, while >>> he >>> wore out his shoes and got nothing. I think he still came up >>> empty-handed >>> (or footed). >> >> I got reimbursed for parking when driving to customer sites. I always >> wished I could get reimbursed for parking tickets if the only way to >> get there was to park illegally, but no such luck. (Well, delivery >> trucks seemed to be exempt...) > > Charlie: Perhaps you should buy a delivery truck and drive that to customer > sites! :-) That might work. One time I was coming out of an underground parking lot and a large delivery van was blocking my view of the street. I carefully crept out onto the road, watching for traffic. The driver of the car that was coming along was totally oblivious to what was going on. She made no attempt to slow down or move over - her first clue that I was there was the crash as she piled into my left front fender at 30 mph. The front of her car was turned into scrap metal. My Suburban, aside from the dented fender, was unhurt - after the police took down the particulars I pried our bumpers apart and drove away. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of admitting that had I gotten far enough out onto the street to turn, I would have been turning left. (I was a callow youth then, not so wise in the ways of the world.) Thus, even though the other driver was not paying attention, and the delivery van was parked 10 feet over the line, and two city policemen standing across the street saw the whole thing, I was held 100% at fault. -- /~\ 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 | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877fjfmgki.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #156398 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > 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. In 1964, my room mate, then a uni senior in economics and finance, interviewed with IBM. (Didn't really want to work for IBM but did it for a lark.) He wore a suit, tie, and a pale blue dress shirt. The interview proceded normally. At the end, the interviewer remarked, "Oh, by the way, you'll find that people at your level at IBM wear *white* shirts." -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cntemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156473 |
In article <877fjfmgki.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> 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. > >In 1964, my room mate, then a uni senior in economics and finance, >interviewed with IBM. (Didn't really want to work for IBM but did it >for a lark.) He wore a suit, tie, and a pale blue dress shirt. The >interview proceded normally. At the end, the interviewer remarked, >"Oh, by the way, you'll find that people at your level at IBM wear >*white* shirts." A brother of a good friend got a trainee job with Hambro's Bank in London (part of the bedrock of good manners etc). He dressed up *really* well; he thought. And his boss just commented "having an early weekend, are we?". -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2011368101.474322556.534099.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| 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.) I Actually like that. There are so many styles of uniform cap, even leaving aside the smokey bear hats and stetsons (do any cops wear aussie-style digger hats?) Often when I see (real) cops on TV I can tell they're not from around here because their hats are a unique design. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfla6fFjmc7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156541 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2011368101.474322556.534099.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > <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.) > > I Actually like that. There are so many styles of uniform cap, even > leaving > aside the smokey bear hats and stetsons (do any cops wear aussie-style > digger hats?) Some of ours do, but they are the minority. In rural Queensland and the NT from memory. > Often when I see (real) cops on TV I can tell they're not > from around here because their hats are a unique design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfib3vFqsosU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156362 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnn97101.16v.mausg@smaus.org... > 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. I had to wear a tie at the last school I attended, a non govt school. And a hat. Always hated both and never wore a tie voluntarily again and only ever wore one to a wedding after that. Still hate hats but do wear a cap when out walking for exercise, just to keep the sun out of my eyes because I normally in summer go out as soon as its light enough so I don’t trip over stuff and at other times of the year don’t have enough hair to avoid skin cancer. >> --The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. >> >> --Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. > > Ther big yankee car was a real status symbol, some even got one > shipped from the states to showoff. I remember people trying > to drive them around the `ring of Kerry', every sharp turn meant > reversing, forward, reverse, eetc. And plenty of yanks were into small european cars like Beetles. >> --Many TV sets were only b&w. > > We had to wait to 1961, before a local station was allowed. The Church > did not want it. > >> >> --Goofy fast food place. >> >> --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. > > John Wayne, Humprey Bogart, could hardly get through a scene > without lighting up. Both, AFAIK, died of cancer. > > >> >> --In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present >> and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. >> >> --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common >> back then. >> >> There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't >> comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) >> >> Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? >> >> >> As to computers in 1976, they were certainly commonplace, but not >> as widespread as today. A small business would do its work by hand >> or send it out to a service bureau. I think by 1976 mini-computers >> were reasonably common in medium sized businesses. >> >> I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my >> car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my >> household, yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a >> physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, >> but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information >> gets overlooked. >> >> > > Of course, data breaches were unknown then also.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111406440.14582@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156362 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 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. > I showed a book to someone, it was about Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and there were lots of photos of the Wobbly era. And his comment was "they are all wearing hats", and it was true, not just hats but suits, usually with vests. It seems like a much more formal time. Even when you see railroad bulls in movies set in the time, they are often in proper suits, except they've taken off their jackets. I gather even in the civil rights era, everyone was told to dress properly, so every day dress may have changed by the late fifties, but the photos of the demonstrations represent something different since there often was a dress code. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <981b5a14-25f0-4116-82e8-1a3a9ea7762b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156416 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:05:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > I showed a book to someone, it was about Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and there > were lots of photos of the Wobbly era. And his comment was "they are all > wearing hats", and it was true, not just hats but suits, usually with > vests. It seems like a much more formal time. Even when you see railroad > bulls in movies set in the time, they are often in proper suits, except > they've taken off their jackets. Until about the mid 1970s, men wore hats almost everywhere. To work and social occasions, they wore the fancy fedora, just like in old movies. By the 1970s the brim became very narrow, as compared to the 1950s, but men still wore hats. (I have a photo of a commuter train and all the men are wearing hats). However, by the 1970s, the young generation didn't bother with them, so hats went out of style. Around 1970 our school system dropped its dress code, and overnight every kid, boy and girl, switched to blue jeans. In September and June they wore shorts (the school buildings were warm). But in the early 1960s, it was common for high school boys to wear neckties every day. I'm not sure when ties were dropped. I do remember we had to wear shoes, not sneakers (except for gym), and they were very strict about it. In the late 1960s, when mini-skirts came out, the school administration argued with the girls about proper skirt length--the girls wanted to wear shorter skirts, but the school strongly objected, even arguing with the parents about it. (Actress Maureen McCormick wrote in her memoir that she wanted her character, Marcia Brady, to wear sexier clothing but the producers wouldn't allow it. > I gather even in the civil rights era, everyone was told to dress > properly, so every day dress may have changed by the late fifties, but the > photos of the demonstrations represent something different since there > often was a dress code. In the late 1950s, most people wore better clothes even for an informal trip out to the avenue to shop. Maybe the adult protesters were told to dress properly to make a more positive impression, but much of what they wore, as seen in photos, were basically the style for adults of the era. When the college kids protested, dressed like hippies in the 1960s, they made a negative impression on viewers. A lot of veterans of the civil rights movement think they were big heroes, but in some cases, their efforts were counter-productive as they alienated mainstream America. Certainly, many voters opted for Nixon in both '68 and '72, thanks to dislike of the protesters. News reports after the '68 Chicago riots found that most of the country supported the Chicago cops and objected to the protesters. Those riots may have been the tipping point that gave Nixon the election.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfifsoFs5u9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156423 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:981b5a14-25f0-4116-82e8-1a3a9ea7762b@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:05:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > >> I showed a book to someone, it was about Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and >> there >> were lots of photos of the Wobbly era. And his comment was "they are all >> wearing hats", and it was true, not just hats but suits, usually with >> vests. It seems like a much more formal time. Even when you see >> railroad >> bulls in movies set in the time, they are often in proper suits, except >> they've taken off their jackets. > > Until about the mid 1970s, men wore hats almost everywhere. To work > and social occasions, they wore the fancy fedora, just like in old movies. Hardly anyone was doing that here by that time. > By the 1970s the brim became very narrow, as compared to the > 1950s, but men still wore hats. Most didn't, even there. > (I have a photo of a commuter train and all the men are wearing hats). Sure, but that was much earlier than the mid 70s. > However, by the 1970s, the young generation didn't bother with them, I'm not convinced that it was just the younger generation that didn't by then. > so hats went out of style. > Around 1970 our school system dropped its dress code, and overnight > every kid, boy and girl, switched to blue jeans. In September and > June they wore shorts (the school buildings were warm). None of our schools allow that stuff even now, but they do have long pants in the winter and shorts in the summer. > But in the early 1960s, it was common for high school boys to > wear neckties every day. It wasn't that common at all here in government schools. Still very common in non government church schools. Cant remember what the roman catholic schools did at that time, I never went to one. > I'm not sure when ties were dropped. I do remember > we had to wear shoes, not sneakers (except for gym), > and they were very strict about it. Ours still are on that. And the courts are too with the legal parasites. Not with the accused or witnesses tho. > In the late 1960s, when mini-skirts came out, the school administration > argued with the girls about proper skirt length--the girls wanted to > wear shorter skirts, but the school strongly objected, even arguing > with the parents about it. > (Actress Maureen McCormick wrote in her memoir that she wanted > her character, Marcia Brady, to wear sexier clothing but the producers > wouldn't allow it. > > > >> I gather even in the civil rights era, everyone was told to dress >> properly, so every day dress may have changed by the late fifties, but >> the >> photos of the demonstrations represent something different since there >> often was a dress code. > > In the late 1950s, most people wore better clothes even for an informal > trip out to the avenue to shop. Maybe the adult protesters were told to > dress properly to make a more positive impression, but much of what > they wore, as seen in photos, were basically the style for adults of > the era. > > When the college kids protested, dressed like hippies in the 1960s, > they made a negative impression on viewers. A lot of veterans of > the civil rights movement think they were big heroes, but in some > cases, their efforts were counter-productive as they alienated > mainstream America. Certainly, many voters opted for Nixon in > both '68 and '72, thanks to dislike of the protesters. News > reports after the '68 Chicago riots found that most of the country > supported the Chicago cops and objected to the protesters. Those > riots may have been the tipping point that gave Nixon the election.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99e91.54v.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156423 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:38:21 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > Until about the mid 1970s, men wore hats almost everywhere. To work > and social occasions, they wore the fancy fedora, just like in old > movies. Back in the '50s there was a famous photographer (I forget who) who went round the poorer parts of New York photographing the people. In one photo there a guy sitting in his living room with no shirt on but still wearing his hat! -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | timcaffrey420@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16b001fe-9d01-4b30-a6db-6d15eb31ef9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156362 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:29:24 AM UTC-5, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked.
>
> John Wayne, Humprey Bogart, could hardly get through a scene
> without lighting up. Both, AFAIK, died of cancer.
>
I'm not saying John Wayne didn't die from smoking, but look at
the history of the movie "The Conqueror". Lots of the cast &
crew died from cancer from that one (they were downwind from
a nuclear bomb test).
- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1447df98-eef0-4d0b-ba6d-39b643587654@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156427 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:54:46 PM UTC-5, timcaf...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm not saying John Wayne didn't die from smoking, but look at > the history of the movie "The Conqueror". Lots of the cast & > crew died from cancer from that one (they were downwind from > a nuclear bomb test). In past generations, there was so much pollution everywhere that it is hard to know if smoking killed someone or just effluent from chemical factories, general smoke, auto exhaust, asbestos, etc. I _think_ they said the chances of getting cancer increase greatly if a _combination_ of two factors are present, e.g., asbestos and smoking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111527500.15034@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156427 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, timcaffrey420@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:29:24 AM UTC-5, ma...@mail.com wrote: > >>> --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. >> >> John Wayne, Humprey Bogart, could hardly get through a scene >> without lighting up. Both, AFAIK, died of cancer. >> > > I'm not saying John Wayne didn't die from smoking, but look at > the history of the movie "The Conqueror". Lots of the cast & > crew died from cancer from that one (they were downwind from > a nuclear bomb test). > Didn't he say something along those lines, towards the end? I certainly remember a strong suggestion that the cancer that killed him was from the bomb test, but I can't remember if it was folk knowledge or something somebody more directly involved said. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9855r.1p8.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156427 |
On 2016-01-11, timcaffrey420@gmail.com <timcaffrey420@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:29:24 AM UTC-5, ma...@mail.com wrote: > >> > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. >> >> John Wayne, Humprey Bogart, could hardly get through a scene >> without lighting up. Both, AFAIK, died of cancer. >> > > I'm not saying John Wayne didn't die from smoking, but look at > the history of the movie "The Conqueror". Lots of the cast & > crew died from cancer from that one (they were downwind from > a nuclear bomb test). > > - Tim > I remember that movie, its probably miscasting at its worse. Yes, radiation would have been a problem. Lauren Bacall is still with us, afaik, and she would have been around Bogart a lot. My mother smoked all her life, no problems, when she was old we would clean the room where she watched TV and smoked. It would take an effort to get that tar off the walls. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <gqs89bl9mq5sqionfl42ils70sidhi1bhj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156439 |
On 11 Jan 2016 20:46:52 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
[snip]
>I remember that movie, its probably miscasting at its worse.
>Yes, radiation would have been a problem. Lauren Bacall is still
>with us, afaik, and she would have been around Bogart a lot.
Wikipedia says no (2014).
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c623f0d7-6778-4805-a3bd-8105a94b0747@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 8:18:09 PM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common > back then. The first time I read this, I thought you meant that the telephones were Touch-Tone telephones. Which were already available starting late in the 1960s. But then that puzzled me, since you were referring to the ones without dials as the older kind. 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. 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]
Page 12 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web