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 21 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 36 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n908r211cag@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158757 |
On 2016-02-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:16:02 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Many don't know how to handle them. Certainly inexperienced drivers don't >> - I can remember to this day the first few times I drove in snow. Certain >> weather conditions may be relatively rare. People in the northeast laugh >> at drivers from, for example, D.C., who can't handle an inch of snow that, >> for us, us almost a clear road in winter. > > I submit many motorists do know how to drive safely, but are so > impatient they simply forget safety and hit the gas. It's really amusing to watch how paralyzed local drivers become when faced with even a dusting of snow. (Unless you're stuck behind the jams and pile-ups they cause, of course.) There seems to be an instinctive impulse to floor it when your wheels start to slip. > Let's be honest--driving fast down a road is a lot more fun than > driving carefully. > > They learned ages ago that something happens to a person when he gets > behind the wheel of his car. The most gentle sweet caring person > turns in to a monster. But they haven't figured out how to deal with > that transformation. Disney produced a cartoon in 1950 titled "Motor Mania" which describes this phenomenon. You can find it on YouTube. > Indeed, it's gotten worse. At the risk of being sexist, young women > used to be careful drivers, it was the young boys who were reckless. > But today, the young women are just as aggressive. Cops do not enjoy > pulling them over; they get really nasty. The downside of sexual equality, I guess... -- /~\ 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 | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 10:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <slrnnb8vl8.192.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #158843 |
On 2016-02-04, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-02-04, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 5:16:02 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Many don't know how to handle them. Certainly inexperienced drivers don't >>> - I can remember to this day the first few times I drove in snow. Certain >>> weather conditions may be relatively rare. People in the northeast laugh >>> at drivers from, for example, D.C., who can't handle an inch of snow that, >>> for us, us almost a clear road in winter. >> >> I submit many motorists do know how to drive safely, but are so >> impatient they simply forget safety and hit the gas. > > It's really amusing to watch how paralyzed local drivers become when > faced with even a dusting of snow. (Unless you're stuck behind the > jams and pile-ups they cause, of course.) There seems to be an > instinctive impulse to floor it when your wheels start to slip. > >> Let's be honest--driving fast down a road is a lot more fun than >> driving carefully. >> >> They learned ages ago that something happens to a person when he gets >> behind the wheel of his car. The most gentle sweet caring person >> turns in to a monster. But they haven't figured out how to deal with >> that transformation. > > Disney produced a cartoon in 1950 titled "Motor Mania" which describes > this phenomenon. You can find it on YouTube. > >> Indeed, it's gotten worse. At the risk of being sexist, young women >> used to be careful drivers, it was the young boys who were reckless. >> But today, the young women are just as aggressive. Cops do not enjoy >> pulling them over; they get really nasty. > > The downside of sexual equality, I guess... > There were stories here of Irish people who were working in Oslo, and had white-knuckled drives to the office after a snowstorm. Everyone else there had a laugh. Depends on what you are used to. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <2101691269.475805840.808257.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158152 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> There are "speed traps" in the United States still, apparently, but those are >> things where a speed limit sign is hidden, so that innocent out-of-town >> individuals who are intending to drive within the law can be dishonestly >> arrested and fined. > >> The Department of Justice ought to be taking all necessary steps to wipe this >> scourge from the soil of the nation. > > Those--where the sign is hidden and a true "trap"--are rather rare. > > They are also illegal. > > What some motoriing advocates demand is the 85th percentile, that is, > the speed should be at what 85% of the motorists drive--regardless of > the safety experience or impact to others. Advocates complain, for > instance, that a street that looks wide or rural but signed for 25 mph > is a speed trap, even if the signs are prominent. > > > >> >> But as far as ensuring that motorists obey the rules which are set down for >> purposes of safety (as opposed to extraneous purposes, such as fuel >> conservation) if the penalties are severe enough, and the enforcement >> consistent enough, motorists will learn. There is no alternative, because we >> don't have the ability to raise pedestrians and law-abiding motorists killed in >> car accidents from the dead, so we have no right to tolerate car accidents. > It's a form of democracy. Drivers use their best judgement to determine a safe speed. Many drivers are pretty good at this. If the majority of drivers decide 55 is a safe speed for a stretch of road, who's to say they're wrong. Obviously there are a few nutcases and lots of drunks, but no speed limit is going to help with them. Besides, a safe speed for you might not be safe for me (I'm getting slower as I age). The only problem here is that it's really unsafe to have most drivers going 60 and one guy going 30. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 17:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <0394e846-42a7-4e16-b20b-c36015758c34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158198 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > It's a form of democracy. Drivers use their best judgement to determine a > safe speed. Many drivers are pretty good at this. If the majority of > drivers decide 55 is a safe speed for a stretch of road, who's to say > they're wrong. Obviously there are a few nutcases and lots of drunks, but > no speed limit is going to help with them. Besides, a safe speed for you > might not be safe for me (I'm getting slower as I age). The only problem > here is that it's really unsafe to have most drivers going 60 and one guy > going 30. The problem is that drivers are NOT good at determining the safe speed. If they were, the crash rate would be far less than it is. We wouldn't have all that massive multi-vehicle pile ups on the Interstates. The reality is that a lot of motorists are quite arrogant, and believe their driving skills are superior to what they really are. It's pretty easy to 'safely' drive a car at 60 mph down a 25 mph street. That is, if nothing _unexpected_ happens. The problem is that lots of unexpected things do happen, and when they do, a driver cannot react safely in time. Another safety issue is that different motorists drive at different speeds due to variations in ability and vehicle. Going 70 and coming around a curve to a vehicle going 40 can be dangerous. We had an old 1950s expressway which was a death trap. Despite narrow lanes, short ramps, and heavy traffic volume, drivers went too fast on it and many got killed. (The road has since been improved). Anyway, the point is that drivers fail to see the 'big picture' and consider all the factors related to safe driving. Freeways that are 55 instead of 70 are that way for a reason. A second consideration the 85th percentile ignores is that there roads are shared. Motorists on side streets have to get out, as do motorists from parking spaces. Pedestrians have to cross the street. High speed traffic impedes the safe access of others. (If you visit the roads newsgroup, you will find very passionate arguments opposed to the above.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 21:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3115efbacd5a93e3989ee2@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158215 |
In article <0394e846-42a7-4e16-b20b-c36015758c34@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > > > > It's a form of democracy. Drivers use their best judgement to determine a > > safe speed. Many drivers are pretty good at this. If the majority of > > drivers decide 55 is a safe speed for a stretch of road, who's to say > > they're wrong. Obviously there are a few nutcases and lots of drunks, but > > no speed limit is going to help with them. Besides, a safe speed for you > > might not be safe for me (I'm getting slower as I age). The only problem > > here is that it's really unsafe to have most drivers going 60 and one guy > > going 30. > > The problem is that drivers are NOT good at determining the safe speed. > If they were, the crash rate would be far less than it is. We wouldn't > have all that massive multi-vehicle pile ups on the Interstates. > The reality is that a lot of motorists are quite arrogant, and > believe their driving skills are superior to what they really are. > > It's pretty easy to 'safely' drive a car at 60 mph down a 25 mph street. > That is, if nothing _unexpected_ happens. The problem is that lots of > unexpected things do happen, and when they do, a driver cannot react safely > in time. Another safety issue is that different motorists drive at different > speeds due to variations in ability and vehicle. Going 70 and coming > around a curve to a vehicle going 40 can be dangerous. > > We had an old 1950s expressway which was a death trap. Despite narrow > lanes, short ramps, and heavy traffic volume, drivers went too fast on > it and many got killed. (The road has since been improved). Anyway, > the point is that drivers fail to see the 'big picture' and consider > all the factors related to safe driving. Freeways that are 55 instead > of 70 are that way for a reason. > > > A second consideration the 85th percentile ignores is that there roads > are shared. Motorists on side streets have to get out, as do motorists > from parking spaces. Pedestrians have to cross the street. High speed > traffic impedes the safe access of others. > > (If you visit the roads newsgroup, you will find very passionate > arguments opposed to the above.) Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? It is my understanding that that number does not come from "advocates" but from research. The Federal Highway Administration seems to disagree with your viewpoint.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 08:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <c2bf786b-0ec1-4408-8f63-0ff51c7669b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158224 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:47:54 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th > percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? It should be clear from simple reason that the safe speed of a road is something that engineers studying the road would determine accurately. There's no particular reason to assume that any given percentage of ordinary motorists driving on that road would guess the correct answer. It may well be, as you state, that _most of the time_ the 85th percentile is a good rule of thumb for determining the safe speed of a road. If you _exclude_ factors like whether the road is passing by a school and so on. But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower than the actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th percentile be made the standard at least sounds unreasonable, because speed limits should be based on the best possible expert knowledge, and can legitimately reflect factors not obvious to the average driver. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 12:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3116bbf54c052148989f02@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158271 |
In article <c2bf786b-0ec1-4408-8f63-0ff51c7669b8@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:47:54 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th > > percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? > > It should be clear from simple reason that the safe speed of a road is something > that engineers studying the road would determine accurately. There's no > particular reason to assume that any given percentage of ordinary motorists > driving on that road would guess the correct answer. > > It may well be, as you state, that _most of the time_ the 85th percentile is a > good rule of thumb for determining the safe speed of a road. If you _exclude_ > factors like whether the road is passing by a school and so on. > > But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower than the > actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th percentile be made the > standard at least sounds unreasonable, because speed limits should be based on > the best possible expert knowledge, and can legitimately reflect factors not > obvious to the average driver. In other words you have no evidence and are assuming that there is some other methodology that is widely known among highway designers but a complete mystery to everone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 15:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <730356961.475879743.667401.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158278 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <c2bf786b-0ec1-4408-8f63-0ff51c7669b8@googlegroups.com>, > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... >> >> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:47:54 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th >>> percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? >> >> It should be clear from simple reason that the safe speed of a road is something >> that engineers studying the road would determine accurately. There's no >> particular reason to assume that any given percentage of ordinary motorists >> driving on that road would guess the correct answer. >> >> It may well be, as you state, that _most of the time_ the 85th percentile is a >> good rule of thumb for determining the safe speed of a road. If you _exclude_ >> factors like whether the road is passing by a school and so on. >> >> But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower than the >> actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th percentile be made the >> standard at least sounds unreasonable, because speed limits should be based on >> the best possible expert knowledge, and can legitimately reflect factors not >> obvious to the average driver. > > In other words you have no evidence and are assuming that there is some > other methodology that is widely known among highway designers but a > complete mystery to everone else. > > I'm sure they have some guidelines, I'm just not sure how relevant they are. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 05:37 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dh4e6tFg1tgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158271 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:c2bf786b-0ec1-4408-8f63-0ff51c7669b8@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 7:47:54 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > >> Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th >> percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? > > It should be clear from simple reason that the safe speed of a road is > something that engineers studying the road would determine accurately. That isnt even possible. And it's determined by the risk of something unexpected happening like a little kid running after a ball that ends up the road or a pet on the road, not by the design of the road anyway. > There's no particular reason to assume that any given percentage of > ordinary motorists driving on that road would guess the correct answer. In fact we know they are hopeless at doing that. > It may well be, as you state, that _most of the time_ the 85th percentile > is a good rule of thumb for determining the safe speed of a road. Because you increase the risk of an accident by going faster than most of the traffic, or lower than most of the traffic. > If you _exclude_ factors like whether the road is passing by a school and > so on. Trouble is that you can't for the other ones like little kids chasing balls or poor visibility on stuff like the interstates that don't have the problem with kids and pets most of the time. > But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not > be set lower than the actual safe speed of the road, There is no such tidy number. > to ask that the 85th percentile be made the standard at least > sounds unreasonable, because speed limits should be based > on the best possible expert knowledge, and can legitimately > reflect factors not obvious to the average driver. There is no such animal. The most you can actually say is that the slower the cars are moving, the more time there is for the drivers to react to something unusual, and so there will always be a drop in the accident rate as the speed limit is reduced. Of course the accident rate is zero if the speed limit is 0 but that isnt actually a practical speed limit for any road. Speed limits have to be a tradeoff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 16:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8jdpr$vbc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158271 |
On 30-Jan-16 10:34, Quadibloc wrote: > But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower > than the actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th > percentile be made the standard at least sounds unreasonable, because > speed limits should be based on the best possible expert knowledge, > and can legitimately reflect factors not obvious to the average > driver. Here, state highway speed limits must be set at the 85th percentile absent an engineering report (with a granularity of no more than one mile, and no more than five years old) showing that a lower speed is necessary for public safety. However, there is no such rule for local roads, so they tend to have much lower speeds. For instance, a highway may be 55-60mph while parallel roads with equal/better construction are 30-45mph. *sigh* S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 20:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <4ed5d88a-508a-4717-a5bd-60966f603732@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158318 |
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:37:26 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 30-Jan-16 10:34, Quadibloc wrote: > > But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower > > than the actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th > > percentile be made the standard at least sounds unreasonable, because > > speed limits should be based on the best possible expert knowledge, > > and can legitimately reflect factors not obvious to the average > > driver. > > Here, state highway speed limits must be set at the 85th percentile > absent an engineering report (with a granularity of no more than one > mile, and no more than five years old) showing that a lower speed is > necessary for public safety. This might be a perfectly sensible rule, particularly given that there is research supporting it. Of course, once signs are put up giving a speed limit, one would hope that would turn out to be the speed at, or under, which 99.9% of motorists drive. If not - well, steps may need to be taken _pour encourager les autres_. > However, there is no such rule for local roads, so they tend to have > much lower speeds. For instance, a highway may be 55-60mph while > parallel roads with equal/better construction are 30-45mph. *sigh* Well, _they_ might run in front of schools. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 19:49 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dh604nFrftfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158337 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:4ed5d88a-508a-4717-a5bd-60966f603732@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:37:26 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 30-Jan-16 10:34, Quadibloc wrote: >> > But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set lower >> > than the actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the 85th >> > percentile be made the standard at least sounds unreasonable, because >> > speed limits should be based on the best possible expert knowledge, >> > and can legitimately reflect factors not obvious to the average >> > driver. >> >> Here, state highway speed limits must be set at the 85th percentile >> absent an engineering report (with a granularity of no more than one >> mile, and no more than five years old) showing that a lower speed is >> necessary for public safety. > > This might be a perfectly sensible rule, particularly given that there is > research supporting it. Of course, once signs are put up giving a speed > limit, > one would hope that would turn out to be the speed at, or under, which > 99.9% of > motorists drive. Nothing like that happens here. > If not - well, steps may need to be taken _pour encourager les autres_. Not even possible. >> However, there is no such rule for local roads, so they tend to have >> much lower speeds. For instance, a highway may be 55-60mph while >> parallel roads with equal/better construction are 30-45mph. *sigh* > Well, _they_ might run in front of schools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 19:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8p0om$jlp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158337 |
On 30-Jan-16 22:22, Quadibloc wrote: > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:37:26 PM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk > wrote: >> On 30-Jan-16 10:34, Quadibloc wrote: >>> But while it is reasonable to ask that speed limits not be set >>> lower than the actual safe speed of the road, to ask that the >>> 85th percentile be made the standard at least sounds >>> unreasonable, because speed limits should be based on the best >>> possible expert knowledge, and can legitimately reflect factors >>> not obvious to the average driver. >> >> Here, state highway speed limits must be set at the 85th >> percentile absent an engineering report (with a granularity of no >> more than one mile, and no more than five years old) showing that a >> lower speed is necessary for public safety. > > This might be a perfectly sensible rule, particularly given that > there is research supporting it. Of course, once signs are put up > giving a speed limit, one would hope that would turn out to be the > speed at, or under, which 99.9% of motorists drive. > > If not - well, steps may need to be taken _pour encourager les > autres_. One must consider enforcement too, both positive and negative. For instance, it's common here for cops to ignore speeding by 5-10mph unless conditions make that unsafe, so the signs are probably lower than they should be. OTOH, the reason everyone speeds is they know the cops will ignore it because the signs are low, so it's a vicious cycle. In other places, you'd get a ticket for doing the same speed on the same road with the same signs. >> However, there is no such rule for local roads, so they tend to >> have much lower speeds. For instance, a highway may be 55-60mph >> while parallel roads with equal/better construction are 30-45mph. >> *sigh* > > Well, _they_ might run in front of schools. So might state highways. Near my CPOE's office in Austin, there is a school on a 75mph highway; there is a 30mph school zone around the school itself, plus a 55mph school zone around _that_. There's no reason local roads couldn't be exactly the same. In the case I was thinking of above, there are no schools on either the highway or the local road that parallels it nor any other differences that would justify the difference in limits; the latter is simply lower to generate more ticket revenue for the city. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 15:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <bbce9f00-a2da-4b4a-998e-74e9d0ea8151@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158582 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:31:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > For instance, it's common here for cops to ignore speeding by 5-10mph > unless conditions make that unsafe, so the signs are probably lower than > they should be. OTOH, the reason everyone speeds is they know the cops > will ignore it because the signs are low, so it's a vicious cycle. > In other places, you'd get a ticket for doing the same speed on the same > road with the same signs. On a local road in a residential neighborhood signed for 25 mph, police go after those going 40 mph or more. They have plenty of customers. Motoring advocates naturally say the road should be signed for 40 mph, regardless of its residential character and narrow width. This demonstrates that motorists need to change their attitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 20:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311b28c2660eb0e989f2b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158649 |
In article <bbce9f00-a2da-4b4a-998e-74e9d0ea8151@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:31:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > For instance, it's common here for cops to ignore speeding by 5-10mph > > unless conditions make that unsafe, so the signs are probably lower than > > they should be. OTOH, the reason everyone speeds is they know the cops > > will ignore it because the signs are low, so it's a vicious cycle. > > In other places, you'd get a ticket for doing the same speed on the same > > road with the same signs. > > On a local road in a residential neighborhood signed for 25 mph, > police go after those going 40 mph or more. They have plenty > of customers. Motoring advocates naturally say the road should > be signed for 40 mph, regardless of its residential character > and narrow width. > > This demonstrates that motorists need to change their attitude. What do highway engineers say? Was anybody other than a politician consulted when that speed limit was set?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 19:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <71cd30c2-f026-4146-9425-13f39d3c7d04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158663 |
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > On a local road in a residential neighborhood signed for 25 mph, > > police go after those going 40 mph or more. They have plenty > > of customers. Motoring advocates naturally say the road should > > be signed for 40 mph, regardless of its residential character > > and narrow width. > > > > This demonstrates that motorists need to change their attitude. > > What do highway engineers say? Was anybody other than a politician > consulted when that speed limit was set? Highway engineers set the speed limit at 25 mph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 05:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311b9ad2e02838fc989f32@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158670 |
In article <71cd30c2-f026-4146-9425-13f39d3c7d04@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > > > > On a local road in a residential neighborhood signed for 25 mph, > > > police go after those going 40 mph or more. They have plenty > > > of customers. Motoring advocates naturally say the road should > > > be signed for 40 mph, regardless of its residential character > > > and narrow width. > > > > > > This demonstrates that motorists need to change their attitude. > > > > What do highway engineers say? Was anybody other than a politician > > consulted when that speed limit was set? > > Highway engineers set the speed limit at 25 mph. They did? You've seen the engineering analysis? Or are you just making the naive assumption that highway engineers establish speed limits?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <PM00052ADDEB5BA77E@aca48097.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #158649 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:31:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> For instance, it's common here for cops to ignore speeding by 5-10mph >> unless conditions make that unsafe, so the signs are probably lower than >> they should be. OTOH, the reason everyone speeds is they know the cops >> will ignore it because the signs are low, so it's a vicious cycle. >> In other places, you'd get a ticket for doing the same speed on the same >> road with the same signs. > > On a local road in a residential neighborhood signed for 25 mph, > police go after those going 40 mph or more. They have plenty > of customers. Motoring advocates naturally say the road should > be signed for 40 mph, regardless of its residential character > and narrow width. > > This demonstrates that motorists need to change their attitude. Is the road a truck route? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 12:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <ff8a5e61-323e-4ee5-8f3f-e0ecd8a387ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158224 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:47:54 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th > percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? It is my > understanding that that number does not come from "advocates" but from > research. > > The Federal Highway Administration seems to disagree with your > viewpoint. Highway engineers explain that there are many factors that go into determining the posted speed limit of a highway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8jded0gm3@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158302 |
On 2016-01-30, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:47:54 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> Do you have actual evidence to present that demonstrates the the 85th >> percentile speed is unsafe, or are you just speculating? It is my >> understanding that that number does not come from "advocates" but from >> research. >> >> The Federal Highway Administration seems to disagree with your >> viewpoint. > > Highway engineers explain that there are many factors that go into > determining the posted speed limit of a highway. Unfortunately, a number of these factors are political, and have little if any to do with actual safety considerations. -- /~\ 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]
Page 21 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 23 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web