Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155149 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 708 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-15 05:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 07:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-15 17:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-15 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:02 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-15 18:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 16:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 23:34 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:48 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:08 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:02 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:04 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:36 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 08:04 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 16:51 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 07:37 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-17 16:17 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:03 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-18 13:46 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:20 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:43 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:12 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 13:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 11:28 -0600
Re: Viet Nam was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 12:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:09 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 19:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:58 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-17 23:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 12:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 12:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 13:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:29 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 13:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 23:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-20 10:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-19 13:35 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-19 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-19 14:44 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:40 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 14:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 20:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:05 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-12-19 15:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 17:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 16:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-19 14:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 18:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 09:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 20:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-23 07:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 18:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:01 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-23 08:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2015-12-23 11:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-18 17:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-18 21:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-19 04:24 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 10:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-19 09:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-19 16:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 14:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 17:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 13:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:36 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-21 21:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:44 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 23:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 00:13 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 17:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 10:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 11:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-29 11:39 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 12:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 00:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 17:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 08:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-03 15:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 05:19 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 13:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 20:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-01 11:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:00 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 18:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 12:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 10:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 17:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 23:09 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:04 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:16 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-31 09:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 20:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-01 14:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:52 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-02 16:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:07 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:49 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 12:40 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:18 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-01 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 21:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 12:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 08:50 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 09:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:02 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-30 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 00:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 07:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 20:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 07:17 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 23:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:06 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 04:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:07 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:52 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:09 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:43 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 10:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:08 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 22:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 15:42 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-01 14:36 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-02 22:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:29 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 22:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-20 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 17:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-21 07:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-21 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 16:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-21 18:12 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 08:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 12:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:07 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-22 18:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 15:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-23 06:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:40 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 03:57 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-23 21:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 05:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-24 08:13 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 09:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 12:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:30 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 23:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 19:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 01:21 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 19:12 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 09:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:11 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 04:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:20 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 04:54 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:48 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 18:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 12:01 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 06:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:08 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 01:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 22:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:17 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 14:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-29 21:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:59 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 17:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:24 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 11:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 17:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 15:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 00:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-24 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-25 06:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-27 07:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 16:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-27 19:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 19:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 06:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 10:57 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 11:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 22:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 16:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-29 19:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 05:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 14:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:53 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 10:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-04 07:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:13 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 17:58 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 19:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:31 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:46 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:53 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-01 10:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 06:25 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 11:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 17:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 06:50 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:45 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:28 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-02 08:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 15:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:39 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-03 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 20:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:52 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:57 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-03 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 12:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:20 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-05 15:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:43 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:15 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:25 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-04 04:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 01:22 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hda <agent700@ay.invalid> - 2016-02-04 14:17 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:21 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 12:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:09 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:36 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 16:04 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:11 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:37 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:35 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 11:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 18:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 08:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:33 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 14:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:55 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-05 17:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 20:39 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:16 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-03 09:59 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:11 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 13:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 13:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 15:24 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 15:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 20:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 21:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-02 17:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:56 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-30 10:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:25 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:20 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:10 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:46 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:27 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:26 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 16:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-29 04:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-29 17:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:51 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 09:44 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-23 20:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 19:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 20:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:34 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:36 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 14:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-26 08:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 18:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:45 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:39 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-10 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 15:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 12:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 19:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 03:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-04 10:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 05:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 09:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-08 18:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 17:58 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 09:55 +0000
Re: Hitler hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:08 -0800
Re: Hitler mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 16:23 +0000
Re: Hitler Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 10:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 16:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 10:53 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-24 13:08 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:37 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:20 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-23 14:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 12:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-21 13:26 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 10:09 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) bbreynolds <bbreynolds@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 18:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 14:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 12:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 16:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:10 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-21 17:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:14 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:06 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-23 03:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-23 11:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 21:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 19:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-25 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:38 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 16:25 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 14:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-21 07:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:56 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100
Page 15 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 36 Next page →
| From | "kipg" <io@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 15:13 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dggcvkFddafU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157380 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:6200fcb2-7fcb-47c5-ae3d-161e399e6d07@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:37:03 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler > wrote: >> In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, McNamara recalled the >> firebombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945: "In that single night, we burned >> to death a hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo--men, women, and >> children." After the war, General LeMay said to McNamara: "If we'd lost >> the war we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." > > LeMay also wrote that in his memoirs, published earlier. > > But it is notable that despite the deaths of 100,000 people in both > [each] Tokyo and Dresden, neither Germany and Japan would recognize > that they had lost the war and surrender. More soldiers and civilians > of both sides would have to die before surrender. > > That is what is scary about the fanatics. Why is that any different to Britain not giving up because of the blitz ? > The only saving issue is that some of the groups > are relatively small and not well equipped. > In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled > angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired > terrorist attack. That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. > (Actually, there's more of a chance of getting killed > in an automobile crash, but that's another issue.) > > > > > >> past refs were that 1943 US stratetic bombing program claimed that it >> could win the war ... but turned out to be incorrect for a number of >> reasons. First they wanted all money to go to large strategic bombers >> and none for long-range fighters ... failed to learn anything from the >> German blitz on england needing long-range fighers (eventually learned >> the hard way), even with NORDEN bomb-sites it was hard to hit targets >> from 5-6 miles up ... even with accurate coordinates (gotten from >> wallstreet which were instrumental in rebuilding the German industry and >> military) ... turns out that it is almost impossible to miss a large >> target like a city with fire bombs (just about had to hit something). > > Also, some of the Allied bombing was intended to break the 'will' of > the enemy to fight. This was foolish thinking. First off, German and > Japanese* bombing only hardened Allied resolve, not weakened it. Well, > it did the same thing--the Germans and Japanese were loyal to defending > their country. Secondly, Germany and Japan were dictatorships and no > dissent was tolerated or discussed. So even if some leading civilians > or politicians thought the war was lost, they had to keep their mouths > shut or would be shot (and some were). It was rather more complicated than that in Japan just before the nukes were dropped. > *Japan anticipated that the US would recoil in fear and step aside after > Pearl Harbor. No they did not. And Yamamoto knew that that wouldn't happen. > But, (mostly) to their surprise, the US got angry and fought back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 06:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n7vnqc$n7u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #157381 |
On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > >> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >> terrorist attack. > > That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US gets three 9/11's per year. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 14:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <Qe2dnX83KKMMEz7LnZ2dnUU78UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157389 |
On 23/01/2016 11:22, Walter Banks wrote: > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >>> terrorist attack. >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >> > > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US gets > three 9/11's per year. > > w.. > ISIS is forming a state in Iraq and Syria. They are silly enough to attack the West. The Chines idea of winning without fighting is obviously not something they subscribe to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 16:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnna7b83.18i.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #157392 |
On 2016-01-23, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 23/01/2016 11:22, Walter Banks wrote: >> On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: >> >>> >>>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >>>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >>>> terrorist attack. >>> >>> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >>> >> >> I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less >> 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US gets >> three 9/11's per year. >> >> w.. >> > > ISIS is forming a state in Iraq and Syria. They are silly enough to > attack the West. > > The Chines idea of winning without fighting is obviously not something > Isis, Daesh, whatever. Allies: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, US (which supplies it with arms) Enemies: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the US, Iraq. UK(when it can get permission to fly over Syria from Russia and the US) Go figure. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "kipg" <io@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 03:57 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dghpokFob59U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157389 |
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:n7vnqc$n7u$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >>> terrorist attack. >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >> > > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. Sure, but that's not really mass shooting and they mostly shoot each other, not others so the risk of those not involved in street shootings getting shot is quite low. The homicide rate in the leafy suburbs of the US is actually a bit lower then in the leafy suburbs of some other modern first world countries. Not by much, but certainly by a little bit. > More or less 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it > is US gets three 9/11's per year. Sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 21:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n80pm511ick@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #157389 |
On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >>> terrorist attack. >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. > > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US gets > three 9/11's per year. And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. -- /~\ 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 | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 05:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <20160124052844.8fdb0ec3c28d685ed86ec7a9@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #157431 |
On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > > > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > > > >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled > >>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired > >>> terrorist attack. > >> > >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. > > > > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less > > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US > > gets three 9/11's per year. > > And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass destruction. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 08:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnna91t9.8is.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #157457 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:28:44 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >> > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: >> > >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a troubled >> >>> angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true foreign-group inspired >> >>> terrorist attack. >> >> >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >> > >> > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less >> > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US >> > gets three 9/11's per year. >> >> And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. > > Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass destruction. > and now they're turning them into cheap cruise missiles :-) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 09:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <20160124093606.1eee5c30ce747cd2072d0648@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #157474 |
On 24 Jan 2016 08:13:29 GMT Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:28:44 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT > > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: > >> > > >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a > >> >>> troubled angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true > >> >>> foreign-group inspired terrorist attack. > >> >> > >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. > >> > > >> > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less > >> > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US > >> > gets three 9/11's per year. > >> > >> And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. > > > > Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass > > destruction. > > > > and now they're turning them into cheap cruise missiles :-) Y'know I hadn't stopped to contemplate car bombs in the days of self driving cars, now I'm wishing I hadn't. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 08:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnnabn2q.8ul.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #157476 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:36:06 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 24 Jan 2016 08:13:29 GMT > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:28:44 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> > On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT >> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a >> >> >>> troubled angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true >> >> >>> foreign-group inspired terrorist attack. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >> >> > >> >> > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less >> >> > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US >> >> > gets three 9/11's per year. >> >> >> >> And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. >> > >> > Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass >> > destruction. >> > >> >> and now they're turning them into cheap cruise missiles :-) > > Y'know I hadn't stopped to contemplate car bombs in the days of > self driving cars, now I'm wishing I hadn't. > People have been looking at the problem...it's *not* an easy one to solve! -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 13:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <pihhnc-0k1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #157599 |
In article <slrnnabn2q.8ul.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:36:06 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot ><steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> On 24 Jan 2016 08:13:29 GMT >> Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:28:44 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> > On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT >>> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a >>> >> >>> troubled angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true >>> >> >>> foreign-group inspired terrorist attack. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >>> >> > >>> >> > I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less >>> >> > 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US >>> >> > gets three 9/11's per year. >>> >> >>> >> And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. >>> > >>> > Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass >>> > destruction. >>> > >>> >>> and now they're turning them into cheap cruise missiles :-) >> >> Y'know I hadn't stopped to contemplate car bombs in the days of >> self driving cars, now I'm wishing I hadn't. >> > >People have been looking at the problem...it's *not* an easy one to >solve! Real security requires constant vigilance and multiple layers. This has been known from all operators of large web sites open to the public for a few decades. Now another industry has to learn this the hard way, instead of hiring a handful of experienced, netsavvy sysadmins and then listening to their advice. We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for everything, including blacklists; using the service network for updates through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 12:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <d72dnR62gsYPhjvLnZ2dnUU78VGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157603 |
On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <slrnnabn2q.8ul.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:36:06 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>> On 24 Jan 2016 08:13:29 GMT >>> Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:28:44 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >>>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>>>> On 23 Jan 2016 21:00:53 GMT >>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-01-23, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22/01/2016 11:13 PM, kipg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the U.S., there's a lot more chance of getting killed by a >>>>>>>>> troubled angry person in a mass shooting, then by a true >>>>>>>>> foreign-group inspired terrorist attack. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is very arguable indeed given 9/11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think including 9/11 if you include street shootings. More or less >>>>>>> 10,000 per year. 9/11 was a 3,000 blip. Another way to put it is US >>>>>>> gets three 9/11's per year. >>>>>> >>>>>> And ten 9/11s a year die on the roads. >>>>> >>>>> Bomb the car makers! They're making weapons of distributed mass >>>>> destruction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> and now they're turning them into cheap cruise missiles :-) >>> >>> Y'know I hadn't stopped to contemplate car bombs in the days of >>> self driving cars, now I'm wishing I hadn't. >>> >> >> People have been looking at the problem...it's *not* an easy one to >> solve! > > Real security requires constant vigilance and multiple layers. This > has been known from all operators of large web sites open to the public > for a few decades. Now another industry has to learn this the hard way, > instead of hiring a handful of experienced, netsavvy sysadmins and > then listening to their advice. > > We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw > at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for > everything, including blacklists; using the service network for updates > through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that > will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > > -- mrr > In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire links. No updating using wifi. This is both cheap and reuses the vehicle's physical security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 13:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgmktfFtho0U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157604 |
On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote:
[46 lines snipped]
>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw
>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for
>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for updates
>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that
>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude.
>>
>> -- mrr
>>
> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire links.
> No updating using wifi.
That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 25th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157608 |
On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > > [46 lines snipped] > >>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for updates >>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>> >>> -- mrr >>> >> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire links. >> No updating using wifi. > > That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car firms understand. It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:30 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgnph7Fafj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157672 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> [46 lines snipped] >> >>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for updates >>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>> >>>> -- mrr >>>> >>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire links. >>> No updating using wifi. >> >> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >> > > Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car > firms understand. But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle with the engine control alg detail right now. > It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics to make changes when those are required.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 23:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157685 |
On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > > > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>> [46 lines snipped] >>> >>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>> updates >>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>> >>>>> -- mrr >>>>> >>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>> links. >>>> No updating using wifi. >>> >>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>> >> >> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >> firms understand. > > But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > with the engine control alg detail right now. > >> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > > But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > to make changes when those are required. But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. Virus not tuning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 19:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157687 |
On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >> >> >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> >>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>> >>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >>>>>> throw >>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >>>>>> for >>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>> updates >>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>> protection that >>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>> >>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>> links. >>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>> >>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>> >>> >>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >>> firms understand. >> >> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >> with the engine control alg detail right now. >> >>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >> >> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >> to make changes when those are required. > > But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > Virus not tuning. You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do that? And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able to. In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take control of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 16:08 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgodakFemsrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157704 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me... > On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>> >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >>>>>>> throw >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>> updates >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>> links. >>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>> >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >>>> firms understand. >>> >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>> >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>> >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>> to make changes when those are required. >> >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >> Virus not tuning. > > You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do that? I'm sure they wont, because of the security problem. > And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able to. Which is why the cops wont be able to do that. If they could, any rogue cop could be the bomber. > In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take control > of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow. But if you can take control of it when its moving, you can then tell it to go to where you have the payload ready to load.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 01:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n876ms$dkm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157723 |
On 1/25/2016 11:08 PM, jack wrote: > > > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > news:n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me... >> On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >>>>>>>> throw >>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>>> links. >>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>> >>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >>>>> the car >>>>> firms understand. >>>> >>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>> >>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>> >>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>> to make changes when those are required. >>> >>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>> Virus not tuning. >> >> You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do >> that? > > I'm sure they wont, because of the security problem. > >> And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able >> to. > > Which is why the cops wont be able to do that. I'm not sure if it's that our police aren't that smart, or that they just don't care. But I can guarantee that we'll be hearing that it's absolutely necessary because people will use the cars to attack the police, or try to escape from the police. And that it won't be hackable because the smart minds in Silicon Valley will make sure. We're hearing that now about backdoors in encryption. Politicians and Fox News viewers (who don't understand the tech) will believe that stuff. I dunno if that will fly, but pols are the ones who make the laws. And if they can make the public fearful enough, the public will be ok with it. > > If they could, any rogue cop could be the bomber. They've been giving cops armored vehicles and grenade launchers. How's this different? > >> In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take >> control of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow. > > But if you can take control of it when its moving, you can > then tell it to go to where you have the payload ready to load. Or you highjack it, or steal it, or buy it at a dealership. Even at retail, it's still cheap for a cruise missile. Even cheaper used, and the buyer won't care that the upholstry is beat up and the radio doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 19:12 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgoo3mFh5f0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157726 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n876ms$dkm$1@dont-email.me... > On 1/25/2016 11:08 PM, jack wrote: >> >> >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >>>>>>>>> throw >>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >>>>>> the car >>>>>> firms understand. >>>>> >>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>> >>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>> >>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>> >>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>> Virus not tuning. >>> >>> You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do >>> that? >> >> I'm sure they wont, because of the security problem. >> >>> And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able >>> to. >> >> Which is why the cops wont be able to do that. > > I'm not sure if it's that our police aren't that smart, or that they just > don't care. But I can guarantee that we'll be hearing that it's absolutely > necessary because people will use the cars to attack the police, or try to > escape from the police. How odd that that hasn’t been mandated with the current cars when its been technical feasible for decades now for the cops to be able to remotely stop the engine. > And that it won't be hackable because the smart minds in Silicon Valley > will make sure. How odd that the military hasn’t been able to ensure that their web sites are never hacked. > We're hearing that now about backdoors in encryption. Politicians and Fox > News viewers (who don't understand the tech) will believe that stuff. I > dunno if that will fly, It wont, you watch. > but pols are the ones who make the laws. And if they can make the public > fearful enough, They can't. > the public will be ok with it. Bullshit. >> If they could, any rogue cop could be the bomber. > They've been giving cops armored vehicles and grenade launchers. How's > this different? Those are nothing even remotely like a car stuffed with explosives. >>> In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take >>> control of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow. >> >> But if you can take control of it when its moving, you can >> then tell it to go to where you have the payload ready to load. > > Or you highjack it, or steal it, or buy it at a dealership. Even at > retail, it's still cheap for a cruise missile. Sure, the last is certainly a much more viable way to go, so all this shit about the cops being able to do anything they like with any self driving car is just mindless silly stuff. > Even cheaper used, and the buyer won't care that the upholstry is beat up > and the radio doesn't work. So all this piss and wind about the cops being able to do anything they like with self driving cars is just that, mindless silly stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web