Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160014 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 22:48 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-21 09:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-18 18:04 -0400
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:59 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 21:03 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:53 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:27 +1100
Re: Qbasic JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 12:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:17 +1100
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:03 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 06:18 -0600
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 06:53 -0700
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 08:45 -0600
Re: Qbasic mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-25 15:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-25 18:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-25 16:07 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 16:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-25 16:01 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 18:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-26 15:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-27 10:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-27 13:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 19:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 20:49 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 14:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 21:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 12:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 17:47 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 09:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:31 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 18:13 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-28 20:14 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-28 21:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-29 09:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 08:21 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-29 14:19 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:19 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-01 06:02 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-01 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 08:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-03 16:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-03 16:23 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:58 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-02 15:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 15:57 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 09:58 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 11:11 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 16:22 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 03:05 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 19:25 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 11:14 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 09:50 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 17:41 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 09:46 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 09:59 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 18:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 17:26 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 18:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 11:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-07 11:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-08 08:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 11:40 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-13 10:14 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:34 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:14 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@mongo.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-07 02:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:47 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-06 19:54 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 12:02 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 14:53 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 23:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 21:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-06 00:26 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:29 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 02:52 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:16 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 17:37 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:12 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 19:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:39 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:59 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 03:11 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-08 13:16 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:07 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 14:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-09 00:32 +0000
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:58 +1100
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:25 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 15:01 -0800
Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 07:18 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-08 15:06 -0400
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:44 +1100
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 05:09 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-03-08 11:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-06 09:54 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:57 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:35 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:51 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 14:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 10:38 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-04 12:57 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 12:08 -0700
Re: computer security hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 14:36 -0800
Re: computer security Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 15:37 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 00:35 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:34 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:37 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-27 00:28 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-28 14:03 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-29 14:52 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 09:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:33 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-27 08:32 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-27 11:21 -0500
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 15:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 17:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-25 08:11 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-23 12:29 -0600
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-24 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <slrnne020n.192.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #160718 |
On 2016-03-09, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 08/03/2016 22:58, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: >> >>> I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air >>> and Water Act. >> >> The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits >> or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything >> and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. >> >> The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. >> I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk >> radio to task for this. >> >> A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts >> trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a >> public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But >> the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line >> was crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.) >> > > The Bible must contain passages about clean water and food. It certainly > bans killing people. State employees are simply doing the job of the Rabbi. Well, killing some people. Check out the bit about the ethnic cleansing of Canaan (which was imaginery, according to most modern research) -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 15:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <804a4071-a3e5-4508-96aa-01d402f02364@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160698 |
[repost] On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: > I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air > and Water Act. The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk radio to task for this. A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line was crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 07:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <1094175373.479139423.075453.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160697 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Sangmo wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>> Sangmo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>> >>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>> >>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>> >>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >> >> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >> >>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >> >> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >> washing machines. > > Then you have better water than I do. The water here is > filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living > in Massachusetts is the water. Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an island in the Quabbin Reservoir? > > <snip> > > /BAH > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 15:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87wppc94bx.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #160700 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an > island in the Quabbin Reservoir? That island isn't all that big. How long before the snakes eat all the little rodenty things and decide to swim ashore in search of comestibles? Besides, they have a copious supply of vipers on Beacon Hill already. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D9DABF916FA@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160700 |
Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Sangmo wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>>> >>>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>>> >>>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >>> >>> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >>> >>>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >>> >>> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >>> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >>> washing machines. >> >> Then you have better water than I do. The water here is >> filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living >> in Massachusetts is the water. > > Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an > island in the Quabbin Reservoir? no. Why in the world would they want to do that? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <378900231.479223921.021646.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160725 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Sangmo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>>>> >>>>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>>>> >>>>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >>>> >>>> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >>>> >>>>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>>>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>>>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>>>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>>>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >>>> >>>> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >>>> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >>>> washing machines. >>> >>> Then you have better water than I do. The water here is >>> filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living >>> in Massachusetts is the water. >> >> Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an >> island in the Quabbin Reservoir? > > no. Why in the world would they want to do that? To protect them. Can't rattlesnakes swim? > > /BAH > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 04:44 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dkb5nqFpvuhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160728 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:378900231.479223921.021646.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Peter Flass wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the >>>>>>>>>> marketroids >>>>>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking >>>>>>>>>> about: >>>>>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't >>>>>>>>> changed >>>>>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>>>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >>>>> >>>>> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>>>>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>>>>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>>>>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>>>>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >>>>> >>>>> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >>>>> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >>>>> washing machines. >>>> >>>> Then you have better water than I do. The water here is >>>> filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living >>>> in Massachusetts is the water. >>> >>> Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an >>> island in the Quabbin Reservoir? >> >> no. Why in the world would they want to do that? > > To protect them. Can't rattlesnakes swim? Yes they can. It's unclear how far they do swim when they need to tho.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052DB1B7293A7F@aca43c3e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160728 |
Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Peter Flass wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> Sangmo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>>>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >>>>> >>>>> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>>>>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>>>>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>>>>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>>>>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >>>>> >>>>> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >>>>> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >>>>> washing machines. >>>> >>>> Then you have better water than I do. The water here is >>>> filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living >>>> in Massachusetts is the water. >>> >>> Did you see the state wants to establish a rattlesnake sanctuary on an >>> island in the Quabbin Reservoir? >> >> no. Why in the world would they want to do that? > > To protect them. Whose idea is this? > Can't rattlesnakes swim? I would think so. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 14:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <BjfEy.29420$zz1.27794@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #160789 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Can't rattlesnakes swim?
>
>I would think so.
Can't you guys use a search engine? First hit on google for
"can rattlesnakes swim?":
"It's unlikely that they climb high block walls; however, many
harmless non-venomous snakes can and do climb walls and shrubs. On
the other hand, rattlesnakes are adept at swimming and will take to
water readily in order to pursue food, mates and refuge, and to escape harassment."
<http://www.alongtheway.org/rattlesnakes/faq.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 05:09 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk8irgF5iu7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160697 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D8930DFEFAE@aca20289.ipt.aol.com... > Sangmo wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>> Sangmo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking >>>>>>> about: >>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>> >>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>> >>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>> >>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >> >> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >> >>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >> >> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >> washing machines. > > Then you have better water than I do. The water here is > filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living > in Massachusetts is the water. You don’t get 1/4" of gunk from the water and even if you did it would just be mud, completely harmless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <27423f25-dfdb-435f-848f-c5619ad2a5a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160697 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:15:15 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Sangmo wrote: > > "jmfbahciv" wrote in message > >> Sangmo wrote: > >>> "jmfbahciv" wrote in message: > >>>> hancock4 wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids > >>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you > >>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: > >>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not > >>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we > >>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better > >>>>> than their competitors.) > >>>>> > >>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at > >>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed > >>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the > >>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". > >>>>> > >>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I > >>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was > >>>>> it just marketing?) > >>>> > >>>> <snip> > >>>> > >>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer > >>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. > >>> > >>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever > >>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. > >> > >> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. > > > > No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. > > > >> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. > >> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease > >> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge > >> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to > >> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. > > > > Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was > > used because I have never seen anything like that with any > > washing machines. > > Then you have better water than I do. The water here is > filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living > in Massachusetts is the water. > > <snip> > > /BAH I can't speak for the whole state of Massachusetts, but the metropolitan area of Boston had great water. _______________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 09:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <3cvndbtaorum5jcb28iph6hra5jed3hs3d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160591 |
On 5 Mar 2016 23:42:16 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: <skippy> >Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. The singular productivity advantage of the GUI over the keyboard is that you can scratch your arse when required without pausing. Carl Goldsworthy -- Derivatives is a "zero sum game" - "The Big Lie".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:57 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk2uqdFln6qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160602 |
<Ibmekon> wrote in message news:3cvndbtaorum5jcb28iph6hra5jed3hs3d@4ax.com... > On 5 Mar 2016 23:42:16 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> > wrote: > > <skippy> >>Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >>all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >>way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >>done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >>use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. > The singular productivity advantage of the GUI over the keyboard > is that you can scratch your arse when required without pausing. What a pair of terminal fuckwits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbikj3013ig@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160609 |
On 2016-03-06, Sangmo <ju410@gmail.com> wrote: > <Ibmekon> wrote in message > news:3cvndbtaorum5jcb28iph6hra5jed3hs3d@4ax.com... > >> On 5 Mar 2016 23:42:16 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> <skippy> >> >>> Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >>> all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >>> way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >>> done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >>> use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. >> >> The singular productivity advantage of the GUI over the keyboard >> is that you can scratch your arse when required without pausing. Aw, you found me out. > What a pair of terminal fuckwits. Why thank you Rod, I thought you had forgotten me. -- /~\ 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 | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 13:35 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk47nhF1fk1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160632 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:nbikj3013ig@news3.newsguy.com... > On 2016-03-06, Sangmo <ju410@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <Ibmekon> wrote in message >> news:3cvndbtaorum5jcb28iph6hra5jed3hs3d@4ax.com... >> >>> On 5 Mar 2016 23:42:16 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>> <skippy> >>> >>>> Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >>>> all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >>>> way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >>>> done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >>>> use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. >>> >>> The singular productivity advantage of the GUI over the keyboard >>> is that you can scratch your arse when required without pausing. > > Aw, you found me out. > >> What a pair of terminal fuckwits. > > Why thank you Rod, I thought you had forgotten me. Try using a modern smartphone or tablet without the GUI. Or a spreadsheet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D61BDD7B268@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160591 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-03-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> >>>> the developers seem to change stuff just for the sake of changing >>>> stuff. >>> >>> I've _never_ met developers who did that. Marketing people, sure; they >>> often see change (even for the worse) as valuable differentiator. > > At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids > proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you > read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: > making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. > >> Lots of the computer folks have always liked to get as fancy as >> they could, even if the requirements do not call for certain features. >> This goes all the way back, even Feynman documented it in the early days. >> >> One of the challenges computer manufacturers had was putting the brakes >> on designers who wanted to do it all. Machines had to meet cost and >> delivery constraints, and excess design would overrun the plans. >> Further, excess design would add complexity making maintenance harder. >> (Likewise in programming--fancy programming can be a maintenance >> nightmare). >> >> Sure, some crazy designs are the result of marketing people. But a >> lot of stuff comes from the developers. > > Fred Brooks, in his book "The Mythical Man-Month", talks about the > "second system effect". That's when developers try to stuff in every > feature they missed in the first version (or thought about after > release). The result, if not controlled, can be disaster. We had plans for the next n releases. If a develpment item was complicated, version n was planned to do the set up for the change. If the change needed n+3 releases, the development was planned so that the customer would not be impacted at all. If the change required customers to change their ways or software, then it took 3 to 4 releases to nudge the customer and those 3 or 4 release changes were documented in the first release which dealt with the change. One example was changing the formats of "exe" files to *.EXE files. another example was the DATE75 project. <snip> /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:51 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk1d7qF9t20U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160589 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:b67b926d-3545-4e98-8236-a3b415eb2fd2@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >> > the developers seem to change stuff just for the sake of changing >> > stuff. >> >> I've _never_ met developers who did that. Marketing people, sure; they >> often see change (even for the worse) as valuable differentiator. > > Lots of the computer folks have always liked to get as fancy as > they could, even if the requirements do not call for certain features. > This goes all the way back, even Feynman documented it in the early days. > > One of the challenges computer manufacturers had was putting the brakes > on designers who wanted to do it all. Machines had to meet cost and > delivery constraints, and excess design would overrun the plans. > Further, excess design would add complexity making maintenance harder. > (Likewise in programming--fancy programming can be a maintenance > nightmare). > > Sure, some crazy designs are the result of marketing people. But a > lot of stuff comes from the developers. > > Of course, some innovation is needed. I don't think any of us would > want to have this conversation on a 10 char/sec Teletype, not even me. A few do, the ham radio people, and its not even 10 cps, only 45.45 baud. > But on the other hand, sometimes change is unnecessary, even disruptive. > > One example of a bad change: Google is supposedly this super smart > company, right? Well, it has a service, Google Groups. The old > one worked perfectly fine. For whatever reason, they came up with > a radically new version that is full of bugs, No its not. > is very bloated and runs slow using tons of memory, and actually offers > less features. > So why did they did this? Someone decided that its better than the old approach. > Why did they spend the money? It does not bring in more ad revenue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 14:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <ZagDy.7504$Na1.1903@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #160584 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >On 04-Mar-16 20:31, Peter Flass wrote: >> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>> The problem about this driver menagerie has been stated many times >>> by core windows maintainers as the main problem affecting windows >>> operatonal stability. The problem isn't so much the stability of >>> the drivers as they are initially developed, but the maintenence >>> along subsequent windows releases. >> >> Why would the driver interface have to change from release to >> release. That has always seemed to me to be the biggest >> weakness/problem of windows: >> ... >> Look at zOS, where the basic OS/360 interface is still there, though >> buried. Users have no need to change their code for each release. > >APIs are relatively stable; Windows is on only its third version, and >the second one still works fine. POSIX is even more stable. > >Device drivers are different because the entire kernel is exposed, in While this is true for linux (and a bone of contention as well), traditional unix systems (SVR4, Solaris) had a defined DDK (Driver Development Kit) that provide a set of apis that were the only interface to the OS by the drivers. Windows also has a DDK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <1997638494.479064723.209393.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160650 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 04-Mar-16 20:31, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>>> The problem about this driver menagerie has been stated many times >>>> by core windows maintainers as the main problem affecting windows >>>> operatonal stability. The problem isn't so much the stability of >>>> the drivers as they are initially developed, but the maintenence >>>> along subsequent windows releases. >>> >>> Why would the driver interface have to change from release to >>> release. That has always seemed to me to be the biggest >>> weakness/problem of windows: >>> ... >>> Look at zOS, where the basic OS/360 interface is still there, though >>> buried. Users have no need to change their code for each release. >> >> APIs are relatively stable; Windows is on only its third version, and >> the second one still works fine. POSIX is even more stable. >> >> Device drivers are different because the entire kernel is exposed, in > > While this is true for linux (and a bone of contention as well), traditional > unix systems (SVR4, Solaris) had a defined DDK (Driver Development Kit) > that provide a set of apis that were the only interface to the OS by > the drivers. Windows also has a DDK. > As does OS/2. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 12:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbclku$vm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160510 |
On 03-Mar-16 07:39, jmfbahciv wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Applications are frequently broken, and developers create new >> security bugs faster than others can fix them. The kernel does >> limit damage to what can be done by the user running the >> application, but if that user happens to be a superuser... > > That's a kernal security problem. An app should never have to run as > a superuser....period. If is does, then the pieces of code should be > controlled by the kernal. Moving those apps into the kernel is even worse! A bug in kernel code can crash the entire system; a misbehaving (but not malicious) app running as a superuser will generally only crash itself and can be easily restarted. >> Microsoft attempted to solve this by granting applications run by >> superusers only a subset of their rights, but most such rights >> were restricted to superusers in the first place because they can >> be leveraged (however indirectly) to obtain the others too. >> >> Unfortunately, some applications by their nature can _only_ be run >> by a superuser, and that is a very difficult problem to solve. > > No, it's not very difficult but it does require that every app > developer has to interface with the security service part of the > kernal. So far, those who've tried it haven't managed to make it work. There are various partial solutions, such as apps that start as a superuser so they can do certain setup tasks and then switch to a non-superuser to reduce the attack surface, but that only works for certain classes of apps. > Why does an app have to have superuser privs? The only reasons I can > think of is to change access parameters to the system and have > unlimited access to disk data files. Both can be done in a > non-priv'ed account with OS/kernal support. If an app has superuser rights even when run by non-superusers, even the smallest bug could mean that it could be abused to obtain full superuser rights. For instance, a backup/restore app that can read/write any file on the system can (indirectly) change who the superusers are! That's why superuser rights tend to be all-or-nothing: if you have one of them, you can probably abuse it to get all the others anyway. 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]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web