Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread

1976 vs. 2016?

Started byhancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
First post2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Last post2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers


Contents

  1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
                                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
                                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
                                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
                                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
                                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
                                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
                                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
                                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
                                                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
                                                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
                                                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
                                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
                                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
                                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
                                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
                                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
                                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
                                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
                                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
                                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
                                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
                                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
                                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
                                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
                            Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
                              Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
                                Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
                                  Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
                                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
                                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
                                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
                                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
                              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
                      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
                        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
                          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
                            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
                    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
                  Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
                Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
            Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
              Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
    Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
        Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
          Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
      Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000

Page 8 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 20  Next page →


#158495

FromAlfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca>
Date2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Message-ID<XnsA5A166924CFAfalkarcabca@213.239.209.88>
In reply to#158438
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601312222300.22012@darkstar.example.org: 

> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
>> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
<snip>
>>
>>> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in
>>> the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle. 
>>
>> Both parties support eliminating the penny, except (of course) for
>> specific politicians owned by the zinc blank vendor.  Their lobbyists
>> claim the Mint would lose more by eliminating the penny because of its
>> allocation of fixed costs, which would shift to other coins, and
>> higher demand for the nickel, which performs even worse than the
>> penny. 
>>
>> As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather
>> than the effects.  The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that
>> sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized
>> countries.  Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on
>> its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more.
>>
> I don't know.
> 
> Until 1990 or 1991, here in Canada there was a federal tax that was 
> included in the price, then a provincial tax added on top.
> 
> Then they changed it so the "manufacturing tax" (I think it was called)
> was removed, but a "Goods and Services tax" was added as things were 
> tallied up at the cash.

"Federal Sales Tax" (FST) was applied only to manufactured goods, whether 
domestic or imported.  It was 12% and "hidden" at the retail level.  The 
introduction of the GST was motivated in part by the recognition of the 
increasing importance of services in the economy.  The immediate impact of 
the GST was to slightly lower cost of manufactured goods (although 
substantially reduce _prices_, because GST is not hidden).  At the same time 
cost of everything else went up.  GST has pretty much the same effect as VAT 
as applied in many other countries.

> What I noticed was suddenly I was paying more tax on things, I didn't
> have much money so the important things, food and books and magazines,
> didn't generally get a tax added of any kind.  There were exceptions,
> but I can't remember if things like chocolate bars were taxed or not. 
> Clothes were exempt.  So the real things I ended up paying an added tax
> on was electronic equipment (and probably parts, but I can't remember).
> 
> WHen they shifted to the GST, they included a lot more items, though at
> least Quebec gave an instant rebate on books (so technically it's rung
> up at the cash, then removed).  Magazines and clothes were no longer 
> exempted, I had to pay GST on books (though no provincial tax), it
> seemed like more food items were on the taxable list.
> 
> The result was I kept coming home with way more pennies than I had in
> the past.  It was all because the GST and provincial tax got added, and
> that moved things to odd totals.
> 
> When they "eliminated" the penny here (it's still valid, but if you pay
> for with pennies, they won't go back into circulation), they decided 
> things would be rounded to the nearest nickel.  That seems to work
> okay, better than I expected.
> 
> But the odd thing is, there's been no switch in prices on the things
> that arne't taxed.  So there are still the 1.99 cauliflowers and the
> 2.98 whatever, which previously made use of those pennies.  I'm not
> sure if the prices were rounded up, so no more "1.99", if that would
> change things. 

Prices generally did not change with elimination of the penny, as the 
rounding only applies at the total in a cash transaction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158502

FromMichael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Date2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Message-ID<alpine.LNX.2.02.1602011307170.23109@darkstar.example.org>
In reply to#158495
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Alfred Falk wrote:

> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601312222300.22012@darkstar.example.org:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny. I'm pretty sure in
>>>> the USA the issue would somehow turn into major party battle.
>>>
>>> Both parties support eliminating the penny, except (of course) for
>>> specific politicians owned by the zinc blank vendor.  Their lobbyists
>>> claim the Mint would lose more by eliminating the penny because of its
>>> allocation of fixed costs, which would shift to other coins, and
>>> higher demand for the nickel, which performs even worse than the
>>> penny.
>>>
>>> As usual, though, it would be more effective to treat the cause rather
>>> than the effects.  The only reason we _need_ so many pennies is that
>>> sales taxes aren't included in our prices like they are in civilized
>>> countries.  Fix _that_ and the penny would fall out of circulation on
>>> its own, and nobody would notice when we stopped minting more.
>>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> Until 1990 or 1991, here in Canada there was a federal tax that was
>> included in the price, then a provincial tax added on top.
>>
>> Then they changed it so the "manufacturing tax" (I think it was called)
>> was removed, but a "Goods and Services tax" was added as things were
>> tallied up at the cash.
>
> "Federal Sales Tax" (FST) was applied only to manufactured goods, whether
> domestic or imported.  It was 12% and "hidden" at the retail level.  The
> introduction of the GST was motivated in part by the recognition of the
> increasing importance of services in the economy.  The immediate impact of
> the GST was to slightly lower cost of manufactured goods (although
> substantially reduce _prices_, because GST is not hidden).  At the same time
> cost of everything else went up.  GST has pretty much the same effect as VAT
> as applied in many other countries.
>
Thanks.  I couldn't remember what the built in tax had been called.

I remember being shocked that stamps got the GST.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158595

FromMike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Message-ID<8760y7polr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to#158495
Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> writes:

> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601312222300.22012@darkstar.example.org: 
> 
>> When they "eliminated" the penny here (it's still valid, but if you pay
>> for with pennies, they won't go back into circulation), they decided 
>> things would be rounded to the nearest nickel.  That seems to work
>> okay, better than I expected.
>> 
>> But the odd thing is, there's been no switch in prices on the things
>> that arne't taxed.  So there are still the 1.99 cauliflowers and the
>> 2.98 whatever, which previously made use of those pennies.  I'm not
>> sure if the prices were rounded up, so no more "1.99", if that would
>> change things. 
> 
> Prices generally did not change with elimination of the penny, as the 
> rounding only applies at the total in a cash transaction.

People (such as I) who use cash are becoming a minority.  The rounding
in Canada only applies to cash sales.  Credit/debit card sales are
billed to the cent.

I get a kick out of telling the person ahead of me at a checkout who's
having time-consuming problems with their multiple cards, PINs
etc. that there's this new technology now that frees you from the POS
terminal and hateful computer. It's called cash -- hand it over and
go.  Oddly, most of those folks with 10 or 20 assorted cards in their
wallets don't think the remark is funny.

Don't het me started on wallets.  New wallets all have numerous
pockets for standart plastic cards.  Old ones had fewer pockets but
ones that would take a standard business card.  You have to cut a
business card down on one end to put it in a new wallet.  Feh.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158598

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Message-ID<20160202074448.7dc7da56eeb65e2042f9f79c@eircom.net>
In reply to#158595
On 02 Feb 2016 03:18:08 -0400
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> Don't het me started on wallets.  New wallets all have numerous
> pockets for standart plastic cards.  Old ones had fewer pockets but
> ones that would take a standard business card.  You have to cut a
> business card down on one end to put it in a new wallet.  Feh.

	New wallets are designed to go in back pockets of jeans folded into
a fat roughly square shape. Those of us who still wear jackets and keep our
wallets in the top inside pocket can no longer find the old style 2x1
rectangular thin ones that suit these pockets.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158600

From"Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Message-ID<dhb6oaF6q3iU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#158598

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20160202074448.7dc7da56eeb65e2042f9f79c@eircom.net...
> On 02 Feb 2016 03:18:08 -0400
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Don't het me started on wallets.  New wallets all have numerous
>> pockets for standart plastic cards.  Old ones had fewer pockets but
>> ones that would take a standard business card.  You have to cut a
>> business card down on one end to put it in a new wallet.  Feh.
>
> New wallets are designed to go in back pockets of jeans folded into
> a fat roughly square shape. Those of us who still wear jackets and keep 
> our
> wallets in the top inside pocket can no longer find the old style 2x1
> rectangular thin ones that suit these pockets.

Bullshit. Plenty on Amazon etc. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158612

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Message-ID<lR2sy.279234$xz4.15926@fx12.iad>
In reply to#158598
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On 02 Feb 2016 03:18:08 -0400
>Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Don't het me started on wallets.  New wallets all have numerous
>> pockets for standart plastic cards.  Old ones had fewer pockets but
>> ones that would take a standard business card.  You have to cut a
>> business card down on one end to put it in a new wallet.  Feh.
>
>	New wallets are designed to go in back pockets of jeans folded into
>a fat roughly square shape. Those of us who still wear jackets and keep our
>wallets in the top inside pocket can no longer find the old style 2x1
>rectangular thin ones that suit these pockets.
>

I get my wallets at the local flea market.   A wide selection of pretty
much every style, usually for less than a fiver.   I generally carry
a bi-fold.   Never in the back pocket both for health (posture) and
secure reasons.   Business cards fit just fine without any alteration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158613

FromStephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com>
Date2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Message-ID<86f1bbhpo3qnvpokfhiumlbpf9v9d2p4f2@4ax.com>
In reply to#158598
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:44:48 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

>On 02 Feb 2016 03:18:08 -0400
>Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Don't het me started on wallets.  New wallets all have numerous
>> pockets for standart plastic cards.  Old ones had fewer pockets but
>> ones that would take a standard business card.  You have to cut a
>> business card down on one end to put it in a new wallet.  Feh.
>
>	New wallets are designed to go in back pockets of jeans folded into
>a fat roughly square shape. Those of us who still wear jackets and keep our
>wallets in the top inside pocket can no longer find the old style 2x1
>rectangular thin ones that suit these pockets.

I've never had a wallet because I think that it's too much to lose all
at once. Lose a wallet and lose everything. Someone bought me a £200+
wallet years ago. It's still in its presentation box. I just keep my
money and cards in my front pockets.

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158443

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Message-ID<n8mlmc$oku$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#158411
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I
>>> still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever
>>> saw.
>> 
>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in 
>> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for
>> a Susan Anthony. 
>
> I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math.

This was way back.

Could have been 1 game .50, 3 games 1.00.

Either way it was a rip off, only went there twice.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158456

FromHuge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Message-ID<dh8mptFhqfpU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#158411
On 2016-02-01, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I
>>> still have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever
>>> saw.
>> 
>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in 
>> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games for
>> a Susan Anthony. 
>
> I hope that's a typo, or your friend wasn't very good at math.
>
>> Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there.  Never had a
>> problem spending them either.
>
> I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but not
> Sac dollars.  I've never had a cashier refuse to accept either.

I've been visiting the US regularly for 35 years and I've never seen a
SBA or Sac dollar coin. I guess people just put them in coffee jars.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 32nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158499

FromStephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Date2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Message-ID<n8o5pf$dm4$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#158456
On 01-Feb-16 03:28, Huge wrote:
> On 2016-02-01, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there.  Never had a 
>>> problem spending them either.
>> 
>> I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but
>> not Sac dollars.  I've never had a cashier refuse to accept
>> either.
> 
> I've been visiting the US regularly for 35 years and I've never seen
> a SBA or Sac dollar coin. I guess people just put them in coffee
> jars.

$1 coins are in limited circulation, not quite as bad as $2 notes but
still not something one sees every day.  The most common way to get one
is change from vending machines that accept $5 to $20 notes, e.g. at
post offices or rail stations.  Cashiers accept them, but they usually
don't give them back out as change unless they're out of $1 notes and
would otherwise have to give out a pile of 25¢ coins.

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]


#158501

FromMichael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Date2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Message-ID<alpine.LNX.2.02.1602011304250.23109@darkstar.example.org>
In reply to#158499

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 01-Feb-16 03:28, Huge wrote:
>> On 2016-02-01, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-16 18:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available there.  Never had a
>>>> problem spending them either.
>>>
>>> I've had problems with SBA dollars being confused for quarters, but
>>> not Sac dollars.  I've never had a cashier refuse to accept
>>> either.
>>
>> I've been visiting the US regularly for 35 years and I've never seen
>> a SBA or Sac dollar coin. I guess people just put them in coffee
>> jars.
>
> $1 coins are in limited circulation, not quite as bad as $2 notes but
> still not something one sees every day.  The most common way to get one
> is change from vending machines that accept $5 to $20 notes, e.g. at
> post offices or rail stations.  Cashiers accept them, but they usually
> don't give them back out as change unless they're out of $1 notes and
> would otherwise have to give out a pile of 25¢ coins.
>
One reason may be the lack a place for them.

When Canada dropped the paper dollar (it was paper at the time) I recall 
some fussing with the drawers to make room, then it didn't matter since 
soon the paper dollars were out of circulation.

If cashiers don't get many dollar coins in the US, they likely don't have 
a space for it, and it may be uncommon enough that it fits in the novelty 
class.  So they find a place for it, and then it goes to the bank.

If they just get out of circulation, they won't stay in circulation.

We were bold here, the dollar bills were never made valueless, but any 
time you took some to the bank, or paid for them, they went out of 
circulation, causing the dollar coins to thrive.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158596

FromMike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Message-ID<871t8vpnz5.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to#158456
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> I've been visiting the US regularly for 35 years and I've never seen a
> SBA or Sac dollar coin. I guess people just put them in coffee jars.

In the 50s, I used to go to the bank with a sawbuck and get silver
dollars -- real big ol' silver dollars.  I gather that they were in
regular circulation in Nevada but in New England, it was always a lark
to spend them.  Virtually nobody had ever seen one.  I even had them
refused once.

Wish I had them now.  Value probably exceeds the 5- to 10-fold
inflation since then.

I'd never heard of a Sac dollar, hadda look it up. Haven't been to the
States in 20 years.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158633

FromQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
Date2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Message-ID<16aa23fa-8048-4faf-b87c-bcb5acef8524@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#158596
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 12:31:56 AM UTC-7, Mike Spencer wrote:

> I'd never heard of a Sac dollar, hadda look it up. Haven't been to the
> States in 20 years.

I'd _heard_ of the Sacagawea dollar, as a successor to the Susan B. Anthony 
dollar, but I still had to look it up to learn more about it.

I see that it is coated in manganese brass to give it a nice golden color, so 
this time they borrowed that from our loonie... and that while they minted some 
every year, it is only some of the time they put them into circulation, as, 
like their predecessor, they're not well liked - and abolishing the $1 and $2 
bill to give people no choice is not how the American system works.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158712

FromMichael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Date2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Message-ID<alpine.LNX.2.02.1602031244160.27112@darkstar.example.org>
In reply to#158633
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 12:31:56 AM UTC-7, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> I'd never heard of a Sac dollar, hadda look it up. Haven't been to the
>> States in 20 years.
>
> I'd _heard_ of the Sacagawea dollar, as a successor to the Susan B. Anthony
> dollar, but I still had to look it up to learn more about it.
>
I must have one, either it or a Susan B. Anthony.  A friend who was 
American but came to Canada, he had a stash of one of the coin types, I 
don't know why he had a small bag of them. Though from the stories here, 
that seems to be the norm.  So I got one that way.  I must look for it, 
I'd like to ahve a Sacajawea.

   Michael

> I see that it is coated in manganese brass to give it a nice golden color, so
> this time they borrowed that from our loonie... and that while they minted some
> every year, it is only some of the time they put them into circulation, as,
> like their predecessor, they're not well liked - and abolishing the $1 and $2
> bill to give people no choice is not how the American system works.
>
> John Savard
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158715

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Message-ID<fBrsy.324521$zT1.303529@fx26.iad>
In reply to#158712
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 12:31:56 AM UTC-7, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> I'd never heard of a Sac dollar, hadda look it up. Haven't been to the
>>> States in 20 years.
>>
>> I'd _heard_ of the Sacagawea dollar, as a successor to the Susan B. Anthony
>> dollar, but I still had to look it up to learn more about it.
>>
>I must have one, either it or a Susan B. Anthony.  A friend who was 
>American but came to Canada, he had a stash of one of the coin types, I 
>don't know why he had a small bag of them. Though from the stories here, 
>that seems to be the norm.  So I got one that way.  I must look for it, 
>I'd like to ahve a Sacajawea.
>

First non-silver dollar coin (which stopped being minted in 1935):

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_dollar

The eisenhower was larger than the modern dollar coins (1.5")

Then SBA:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_dollar

Then Sacagawea (with multiple reverse designs):

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_dollar

Then the Presidential Series:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_$1_Coin_Program
  https://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/


The presidential series appears in standard proof sets and can
be ordered from the mint in bags or rolls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158449

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Message-ID<n8n2t716lt@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to#158404
On 2016-02-01, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important
>>>>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are
>>>>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of
>>>>>> metrication.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to
>>>>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter.  I
>>>>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one  of those you
>>>>> knew you had a dollar.
>>>>
>>>> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more
>>>> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it
>>>> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at
>>>> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to
>>>> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars.
>>>>
>>>> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's
>>>> moot at this point.
>>
>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still
>> have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw. 
>
> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in
> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games
> for a Susan Anthony.  Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available
> there.  Never had a problem spending them either.
>
> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though.
>
> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny.
> I'm pretty sure in the USA the issue would somehow
> turn into major party battle.
> I guess we could always have Obama come out in favor of keeping the
> penny.

All this talk about problems with dollar coins is quite amusing
to us Canadians; we have not only dollar but two-dollar coins,
along with vending machines that can handle them.  The smallest
Canadian bill is now $5.  (I can't say "paper money" because it's
all plastic now.)

Having eliminated the penny, all amounts are rounded to the nearest
5 cents; I was somewhat surprised at how quickly this was accepted.
Credit and debit card transactions are still charged to the (now
nonexistent) penny, though.

It's hard to feel too sympathetic to vending machine manufacturers.
In the days of my youth when pop increased from 10 cents to 15,
some vending machines insisted on which coin went in first - but
cigarette machines could always accept any combination of coins
in any order.  So it was never a matter of whether the problem was
soluble, but only of how much effort they were willing to put into it.

-- 
/~\  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]


#158466

FromPeter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Message-ID<1904722245.476024931.982420.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#158449
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-02-01, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>> 
>>> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important
>>>>>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are
>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of
>>>>>>> metrication.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to
>>>>>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter.  I
>>>>>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one  of those you
>>>>>> knew you had a dollar.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more
>>>>> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it
>>>>> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at
>>>>> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to
>>>>> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's
>>>>> moot at this point.
>>> 
>>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still
>>> have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw. 
>> 
>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in
>> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games
>> for a Susan Anthony.  Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available
>> there.  Never had a problem spending them either.
>> 
>> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though.
>> 
>> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny.
>> I'm pretty sure in the USA the issue would somehow
>> turn into major party battle.
>> I guess we could always have Obama come out in favor of keeping the
>> penny.
> 
> All this talk about problems with dollar coins is quite amusing
> to us Canadians; we have not only dollar but two-dollar coins,
> along with vending machines that can handle them.  The smallest
> Canadian bill is now $5.  (I can't say "paper money" because it's
> all plastic now.)
> 
> Having eliminated the penny, all amounts are rounded to the nearest
> 5 cents; I was somewhat surprised at how quickly this was accepted.
> Credit and debit card transactions are still charged to the (now
> nonexistent) penny, though.
> 
> It's hard to feel too sympathetic to vending machine manufacturers.
> In the days of my youth when pop increased from 10 cents to 15,

Wow, I'm not sure I remember this! POP, eh?  I didn't know this was current
on the north side of the Great Lakes as well as the south.

> some vending machines insisted on which coin went in first - but
> cigarette machines could always accept any combination of coins
> in any order.  So it was never a matter of whether the problem was
> soluble, but only of how much effort they were willing to put into it.
> 

'

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158488

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Message-ID<PM00052AB7102FB405@aca40d45.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#158449
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2016-02-01, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important
>>>>>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are
>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of
>>>>>>> metrication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to
>>>>>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter.  I
>>>>>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one  of those you
>>>>>> knew you had a dollar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more
>>>>> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but it
>>>>> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, at
>>>>> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to
>>>>> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's
>>>>> moot at this point.
>>>
>>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still
>>> have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw.
>>
>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in
>> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games
>> for a Susan Anthony.  Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available
>> there.  Never had a problem spending them either.
>>
>> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though.
>>
>> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny.
>> I'm pretty sure in the USA the issue would somehow
>> turn into major party battle.
>> I guess we could always have Obama come out in favor of keeping the
>> penny.
>
> All this talk about problems with dollar coins is quite amusing
> to us Canadians; we have not only dollar but two-dollar coins,
> along with vending machines that can handle them.  The smallest
> Canadian bill is now $5.  (I can't say "paper money" because it's
> all plastic now.)
>
> Having eliminated the penny, all amounts are rounded to the nearest
> 5 cents; I was somewhat surprised at how quickly this was accepted.
> Credit and debit card transactions are still charged to the (now
> nonexistent) penny, though.

Thanks.  I was wondering how they handled that.  Do they really
round down when the extra cents are tax?

<snip>

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#158489

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Message-ID<n8o0b40l65@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to#158488
On 2016-02-01, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Having eliminated the penny, all amounts are rounded to the nearest
>> 5 cents; I was somewhat surprised at how quickly this was accepted.
>> Credit and debit card transactions are still charged to the (now
>> nonexistent) penny, though.
>
> Thanks.  I was wondering how they handled that.  Do they really
> round down when the extra cents are tax?

The rounding is done on the total amount, tax included, and goes
either up or down to the nearest nickel, so it's a wash.  The
government was smart enough to not be caught in what would be
such an obvious salami technique for a maximum of 0.3 cents per
transaction.

-- 
/~\  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]


#158513

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Message-ID<dh9ocqFqhvjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#158488

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052AB7102FB405@aca40d45.ipt.aol.com...
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2016-02-01, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30-Jan-16 17:44, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Avoiding the cost of replacing paper dollar bills is an important
>>>>>>>> practical measure that shouldn't be held up because people are
>>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it. Much the same might be said of
>>>>>>>> metrication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The big problem with the dollar coins is that the treasury seems to
>>>>>>> be stuck in a rut of making them the same size as a quarter.  I
>>>>>>> remember the Eisenhower dollars, and when you had one  of those you
>>>>>>> knew you had a dollar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Sac dollar has smooth edges and a different color so it's more
>>>>>> readily distinguished from the quarter than the SBA dollar was, but 
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> has the same size, weight and electrical properties as a SBA dollar, 
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> the insistence of the vending machine industry, which didn't want to
>>>>>> upgrade machines that already accepted SBA dollars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How/why the SBA dollar ended up so small is another matter, but it's
>>>>>> moot at this point.
>>>>
>>>> I took in a $25 roll of the Sacagawea coins at a grage sale, I still
>>>> have them in the orginal roll, they are the only ones I ever saw.
>>>
>>> There was a pinball place on Rt46 in NJ that was trying to pull in
>>> more than a quarter a game so they had machines that gave 5 games
>>> for a Susan Anthony.  Obviously, lots of Susan Anthonys available
>>> there.  Never had a problem spending them either.
>>>
>>> The damn things are too close to the size of a quarter though.
>>>
>>> Pretty civilized of Canada to kill their penny.
>>> I'm pretty sure in the USA the issue would somehow
>>> turn into major party battle.
>>> I guess we could always have Obama come out in favor of keeping the
>>> penny.
>>
>> All this talk about problems with dollar coins is quite amusing
>> to us Canadians; we have not only dollar but two-dollar coins,
>> along with vending machines that can handle them.  The smallest
>> Canadian bill is now $5.  (I can't say "paper money" because it's
>> all plastic now.)
>>
>> Having eliminated the penny, all amounts are rounded to the nearest
>> 5 cents; I was somewhat surprised at how quickly this was accepted.
>> Credit and debit card transactions are still charged to the (now
>> nonexistent) penny, though.
>
> Thanks.  I was wondering how they handled that.  Do they really
> round down when the extra cents are tax?

They do here. And round up too, so it all balances out. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 8 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 20  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers


csiph-web