Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 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: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") |
| Message-ID | <8a7a1cfd-a80e-4723-ad46-a33da2e5f56e@googlegroups.com> |
On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: > Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: > > When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years > >later. > Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? Now, that is a good one! John Savard
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16m4ebpgco28bt6d5t8bj2qt0ah7urpo9h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160827 |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: >> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: > >> > When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years >> >later. > >> Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? > >Now, that is a good one! My first 'home' computer didn't have a modem. Storage was a cassette recorder. My 2nd had a 110 baud modem that you set the phone handset into. I was in HEAVEN when I got a 1200 baud that could actually DIAL withOUT the use of a phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbtop40h2q@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160839 |
On 2016-03-11, The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: >> >>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: >>> >>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years >>>> later. >>> >>> Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? >> >> Now, that is a good one! > > My first 'home' computer didn't have a modem. > Storage was a cassette recorder. My first computer had both (well, actually I used a pair of reel-to-reel tape recorders with hacked motor power circuits). I recorded a Bell 202 modem onto tape, and played it back into the modem to read the tape. > My 2nd had a 110 baud modem that you set the phone handset into. > > I was in HEAVEN when I got a 1200 baud that could actually DIAL > withOUT the use of a phone. I hacked a relay into a manual 300-baud modem - with a suitable driver I could pulse dial. Our central office switch was fast enough that I could dial at 20 pulses per second. -- /~\ 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 | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dvbarc-tq.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160841 |
In article <nbtop40h2q@news3.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-03-11, The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: >>>> >>>>> When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years >>>>> later. >>>> >>>> Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? >>> >>> Now, that is a good one! >> >> My first 'home' computer didn't have a modem. >> Storage was a cassette recorder. > >My first computer had both (well, actually I used a pair of >reel-to-reel tape recorders with hacked motor power circuits). >I recorded a Bell 202 modem onto tape, and played it back into >the modem to read the tape. My first had 300 baud storage to cassette tape as the primary storage medium. Diskettes (of a roaring 128k capacity) came a few years later. The first modem ran at 300 baud. The upgrades were 300, 450, 1200, 2400, 9600, 14400, 33800, 64000, 144000, 768000, 2000000, 12000000 and now 1000000000 bps. >> My 2nd had a 110 baud modem that you set the phone handset into. >> >> I was in HEAVEN when I got a 1200 baud that could actually DIAL >> withOUT the use of a phone. > >I hacked a relay into a manual 300-baud modem - with a suitable >driver I could pulse dial. Our central office switch was fast >enough that I could dial at 20 pulses per second. I got hold of a separate auto-dialler and hacked it into the circuit via two relays. At 450 baud for the modem. (Still V.23; it could theoretically do ~625 baud over an ideal phone line). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbuul611qrf@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160847 |
On 2016-03-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <nbtop40h2q@news3.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> I hacked a relay into a manual 300-baud modem - with a suitable >> driver I could pulse dial. Our central office switch was fast >> enough that I could dial at 20 pulses per second. > > I got hold of a separate auto-dialler and hacked it into the > circuit via two relays. At 450 baud for the modem. (Still V.23; > it could theoretically do ~625 baud over an ideal phone line). A local BBS had a Bell 103-style modem that could theoretically be pushed as fast as 710 baud. Apparently 450 baud worked quite well, although I wasn't willing to do the necessary hackery to generate that speed. However, it was easy for me to set my serial port to 600 baud. At that speed I'd get a garbled character every line or so, but when reading text messages it was close enough, and well worth the increase in speed. I remember sending someone a 50K file using Xmodem at 300 baud. It took half an hour. How times have changed... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbvfv7$u92$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160864 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:nbuul611qrf@news4.newsguy.com... > On 2016-03-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > I remember sending someone a 50K file using Xmodem at 300 baud. > It took half an hour. How times have changed... > "Times change but people never do." -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5v0erc-s01.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160864 |
In article <nbuul611qrf@news4.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-03-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <nbtop40h2q@news3.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I hacked a relay into a manual 300-baud modem - with a suitable >>> driver I could pulse dial. Our central office switch was fast >>> enough that I could dial at 20 pulses per second. >> >> I got hold of a separate auto-dialler and hacked it into the >> circuit via two relays. At 450 baud for the modem. (Still V.23; >> it could theoretically do ~625 baud over an ideal phone line). > >A local BBS had a Bell 103-style modem that could theoretically >be pushed as fast as 710 baud. Apparently 450 baud worked quite >well, although I wasn't willing to do the necessary hackery to >generate that speed. However, it was easy for me to set my serial >port to 600 baud. At that speed I'd get a garbled character every >line or so, but when reading text messages it was close enough, >and well worth the increase in speed. That worked a lot better with the Bell 103 than with the V.23-style modems. Different frequencies, different margins. >I remember sending someone a 50K file using Xmodem at 300 baud. >It took half an hour. How times have changed... I have a gigabit link to the ISP. I get around 850 megabits (!) for about 8 seconds if I go from almost idle, then the 50/50 throttle sets in. But this means I get around 100 megabyte in around 10 seconds. That is an increase of 3 million times in around 32 years. a doubling every 18 months. Moore's law revisted. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f6fe633-1030-4821-af50-d2e769359d77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160864 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:18:59 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > A local BBS had a Bell 103-style modem that could theoretically > be pushed as fast as 710 baud. Apparently 450 baud worked quite > well, although I wasn't willing to do the necessary hackery to > generate that speed. However, it was easy for me to set my serial > port to 600 baud. At that speed I'd get a garbled character every > line or so, but when reading text messages it was close enough, > and well worth the increase in speed. In Western Union Baudot teletype days, an error in text was usually understandable in context as you describe. Numbers in a message were often spelled out for accuracy. However, when they started sending card data via telegraph lines, they needed very high accuracy. By the late 1950s, error correction logic was developed and included in machines. I have no idea of the typical error rate on telegraph lines. I suppose it varied quite a bit, depending on the quality of the line itself and terminal circuits and equipment. I have no idea of how often electro-mechanical equipment will drop or add a bit. I know in early electronic computers they often ran a job twice to compare results. By the 1970s, the FCC was complaining to WU about far too many garbled telegrams, although WU said some of that was due to incompetent operators who couldn't spell; WU said it was losing money and couldn't afford better people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AJKdndPwEtFZT3nLnZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160916 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > By the 1970s, the FCC was complaining to WU about far too many garbled > telegrams, although WU said some of that was due to incompetent operators > who couldn't spell; WU said it was losing money and couldn't afford > better people. Yeah! You'd think the people at WU would have given out spelling guide for unusual words that might show up in telegrams. I got congratulations on my barmi-zwoh (bar mitzvah) and a few other comical messages, as well as one to joh-naton (Jonathan). I went around for a few days thinking I might be the new Pharoah of Egypt (instead of akh-naton). This was all in 1963. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e9a0eba-d4e0-4f79-99c3-598a25e858a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160918 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:39:02 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote: > > By the 1970s, the FCC was complaining to WU about far too many garbled > > telegrams, although WU said some of that was due to incompetent operators > > who couldn't spell; WU said it was losing money and couldn't afford > > better people. > Yeah! You'd think the people at WU would have given out spelling guide for > unusual words that might show up in telegrams. I got congratulations on my > barmi-zwoh (bar mitzvah) and a few other comical messages, as well as one to > joh-naton (Jonathan). I went around for a few days thinking I might be the > new Pharoah of Egypt (instead of akh-naton). This was all in 1963. I'm surprised there were screw-ups like that in 1963. Though declining by that point, telegrams were still their mainstay. If the operator didn't know how to spell bar-mitzvah, all they had to do was ask the sender. 'Jonathan' should've been obvious. Some of the problems were from old equipment and lousy lines. Because telegrams were an item of record, WU was liable if they screwed up the message. One article in the employee newsletter reports on WU losing big time in court on account of a screw-up, and urging employees to be careful. One time they planted a pole on private property that they thought was public ROW, and got nailed for that. When things got bad in the 1970s, the FCC said that maybe it was time to have competing telegraph companies so push WU to improve quality. (WU had a govt granted monopoly, just like the phoneco did in voice). That was kind of idiotic since by that point the telegram was obsolete and a money loser and no one else would be interested in providing them. The WU employee newsletter began to publish letters from customers, both good and bad. There were surprisingly a lot of complaints.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dkldscFtk0gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160921 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:39:02 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote: > > >> > By the 1970s, the FCC was complaining to WU about far too many garbled >> > telegrams, although WU said some of that was due to incompetent >> > operators >> > who couldn't spell; WU said it was losing money and couldn't afford >> > better people. >> Yeah! You'd think the people at WU would have given out spelling guide >> for >> unusual words that might show up in telegrams. I got congratulations on >> my >> barmi-zwoh (bar mitzvah) and a few other comical messages, as well as one >> to >> joh-naton (Jonathan). I went around for a few days thinking I might be >> the >> new Pharoah of Egypt (instead of akh-naton). This was all in 1963. > > I'm surprised there were screw-ups like that in 1963. Though declining > by that point, telegrams were still their mainstay. If the operator > didn't know how to spell bar-mitzvah, all they had to do was ask the > sender. 'Jonathan' should've been obvious. > > Some of the problems were from old equipment and lousy lines. > > Because telegrams were an item of record, WU was liable if they screwed > up the message. One article in the employee newsletter reports on > WU losing big time in court on account of a screw-up, and urging > employees to be careful. One time they planted a pole on private > property that they thought was public ROW, and got nailed for that. > > When things got bad in the 1970s, the FCC said that maybe it was time > to have competing telegraph companies so push WU to improve quality. > (WU had a govt granted monopoly, just like the phoneco did in voice). > That was kind of idiotic since by that point the telegram was obsolete > and a money loser and no one else would be interested in providing them. > > The WU employee newsletter began to publish letters from customers, > both good and bad. There were surprisingly a lot of complaint I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys on bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no preceding telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did it stop?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc49ik$mno$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160927 |
On 13-Mar-16 10:04, Osmium wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:39:02 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote: >>> I got congratulations on my barmi-zwoh (bar mitzvah) and a few >>> other comical messages, as well as one to joh-naton (Jonathan). >>> I went around for a few days thinking I might be the new Pharoah >>> of Egypt (instead of akh-naton). This was all in 1963. >> >> I'm surprised there were screw-ups like that in 1963. Though >> declining by that point, telegrams were still their mainstay. If >> the operator didn't know how to spell bar-mitzvah, all they had to >> do was ask the sender. 'Jonathan' should've been obvious. That depends on the sender's accent, I suppose. If it's just one or two unrecognized words, it's fine to ask, but beyond that, the sender may either be insulted or think you're an idiot. > I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys > on bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no > preceding telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did > it stop? What sticks in my head is a movie (Saving Private Ryan?) showing taxis delivering telegrams from the Army to notify next of kin of a soldier's death. According to the movie, it was so common during wartime that neighbors seeing a taxi stop at a house would just assume the relevant husband/son had died and come over to console the widow/mother. I got the sense that typical suburban families (a) rarely received telegrams and (b) rarely used taxis. I don't think I've ever seen a telegram; when I was a kid, we were expected to send letters to relatives for most things or, if it was urgent, a very short phone call. I taught my parents about email in my early teens, and it saved them so much on talking with my sisters (both at college) that they happily paid my ISP bill from then on. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd7d6fac-f0ba-468c-ab5c-4778b9a22797@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160929 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:58:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > What sticks in my head is a movie (Saving Private Ryan?) showing taxis > delivering telegrams from the Army to notify next of kin of a soldier's > death. According to the movie, it was so common during wartime that > neighbors seeing a taxi stop at a house would just assume the relevant > husband/son had died and come over to console the widow/mother. I got > the sense that typical suburban families (a) rarely received telegrams > and (b) rarely used taxis. In WW II, they still made good use of bicycle messengers, and WU had branch offices everywhere. Taxis would've been rather expensive on a routine basis, so I think they would've used a motor messenger if the person lived too far from the telegraph office. Back then, the suburbs weren't developed yet, and far more people lived in the city or small town. I don't know how rural folks were served. As mentioned, individuals didn't use telegrams too much, although more affluent people might have used them to announce a trip--at least from what I've seen in the movies. > I don't think I've ever seen a telegram; when I was a kid, we were > expected to send letters to relatives for most things or, if it was > urgent, a very short phone call. I taught my parents about email in my > early teens, and it saved them so much on talking with my sisters (both > at college) that they happily paid my ISP bill from then on. By the time you were young the telegram was obsolete. Also, the minimum time for a phone call was dropped to one minute (instead of three), so for a quick message an interstate phone call wasn't very expensive. Heck, a telegram was obsolete when I was a kid. In the distant past, telegrams were only used urgent matters, you only got 15 words; people wrote letters for everything else. Going way back, people wrote often. Indeed, I was told that in the city residents had delivery twice a day. In WW II, a letter was only 3c, and I think that was pretty cheap even when adjusted to real dollars. When I was in college extended phone calls were still expensive, but frankly, we were too lazy to write, and drove our parents crazy running up big phone bills. It got really bad if a college kid met a boyfriend/girlfriend from a distant city. (I think in more recent years long distance carriers offered reasonably priced personal inward WATS lines. Of course today it's a non-issue. Even kids who are overseas, which seems to be fairly common now, can call home cheaply.) I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think there's any comparable email. Also, even with modern post office problems, postal mail is pretty reliable, and IMHO, more so than email. For some unkown reason, sometimes perfectly legitimate messages from friends get dumped in the spam filters. Geez, in the business world 40 years ago, letter writing was a big part of the routine, even for trivial stuff and local communications. In school English class we studied how to write both personal and business letters. AT&T used to advertise for people to use the telephone instead of writing. Offices were filled with secretaries who typed and mailed letters, and companies had busy mail rooms to deliver the mail internally. Now, of course, mail volume has greatly dwindled. Our office in- basket once was filled with mail each day, now it's a trickle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1671215567.479684243.152144.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160956 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:58:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > >> What sticks in my head is a movie (Saving Private Ryan?) showing taxis >> delivering telegrams from the Army to notify next of kin of a soldier's >> death. According to the movie, it was so common during wartime that >> neighbors seeing a taxi stop at a house would just assume the relevant >> husband/son had died and come over to console the widow/mother. I got >> the sense that typical suburban families (a) rarely received telegrams >> and (b) rarely used taxis. > > In WW II, they still made good use of bicycle messengers, and WU > had branch offices everywhere. Taxis would've been rather expensive > on a routine basis, so I think they would've used a motor messenger > if the person lived too far from the telegraph office. Back then, > the suburbs weren't developed yet, and far more people lived in > the city or small town. I don't know how rural folks were served. > > As mentioned, individuals didn't use telegrams too much, although > more affluent people might have used them to announce a trip--at > least from what I've seen in the movies. > > > >> I don't think I've ever seen a telegram; when I was a kid, we were >> expected to send letters to relatives for most things or, if it was >> urgent, a very short phone call. I taught my parents about email in my >> early teens, and it saved them so much on talking with my sisters (both >> at college) that they happily paid my ISP bill from then on. > > By the time you were young the telegram was obsolete. Also, the > minimum time for a phone call was dropped to one minute (instead > of three), so for a quick message an interstate phone call wasn't > very expensive. Heck, a telegram was obsolete when I was a kid. > > In the distant past, telegrams were only used urgent matters, > you only got 15 words; people wrote letters for everything else. > Going way back, people wrote often. Indeed, I was told that > in the city residents had delivery twice a day. This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got mail in London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that things have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I think) fir far worse service. In WW II, > a letter was only 3c, and I think that was pretty cheap > even when adjusted to real dollars. See above. > > When I was in college extended phone calls were still expensive, > but frankly, we were too lazy to write, and drove our parents > crazy running up big phone bills. It got really bad if a college > kid met a boyfriend/girlfriend from a distant city. > > (I think in more recent years long distance carriers offered > reasonably priced personal inward WATS lines. Of course today > it's a non-issue. Even kids who are overseas, which seems to > be fairly common now, can call home cheaply.) > > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think > there's any comparable email. Is that even legal? They have to have a physical address somewhere, although finding it is often a problem. > > Also, even with modern post office problems, postal mail is > pretty reliable, and IMHO, more so than email. For some unkown > reason, sometimes perfectly legitimate messages from friends > get dumped in the spam filters. > > Geez, in the business world 40 years ago, letter writing was a > big part of the routine, even for trivial stuff and local > communications. In school English class we studied how to > write both personal and business letters. AT&T used to > advertise for people to use the telephone instead of writing. > Offices were filled with secretaries who typed and mailed letters, > and companies had busy mail rooms to deliver the mail internally. > Now, of course, mail volume has greatly dwindled. Our office in- > basket once was filled with mail each day, now it's a trickle. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iamdnUSzGbTX2HrLnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160972 |
Peter Flass wrote: > > This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got mail in > London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that things > have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I think) > fir far worse service. Yes, back before telephones were widely available, lots of places had pretty much guaranteed fast delivery, so social engagements could be set up on pretty short notice. So, you'd invite somebody to drop by with a letter perhaps written out the night before and dropped in the mail, it would be delivered the afternoon following, and they could be there in time for dinner. HA HA! Quite ludicrous to think of such a pace of delivery today. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc9grv02csu@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160976 |
On 2016-03-14, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: > >> This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got mail in >> London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that things >> have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I think) >> fir far worse service. > > Yes, back before telephones were widely available, lots of places had pretty > much guaranteed fast delivery, so social engagements could be set up on > pretty short notice. So, you'd invite somebody to drop by with a letter > perhaps written out the night before and dropped in the mail, it would be > delivered the afternoon following, and they could be there in time for > dinner. > > HA HA! Quite ludicrous to think of such a pace of delivery today. I once read a science fiction story where someone noticed that mail delivery across town was very slow, while the farther the letter went, the faster it got there. So as a joke he addressed a letter to "Galactic Council, Andromeda" and later that afternoon he received a reply inviting Earth to join the intergalactic federation. -- /~\ 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 | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ba5e2a0-30b6-4c5d-b667-cb7f9f19acab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160976 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:12:11 PM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote: > Yes, back before telephones were widely available, lots of places had pretty > much guaranteed fast delivery, so social engagements could be set up on > pretty short notice. So, you'd invite somebody to drop by with a letter > perhaps written out the night before and dropped in the mail, it would be > delivered the afternoon following, and they could be there in time for > dinner. > > HA HA! Quite ludicrous to think of such a pace of delivery today. I remember in the 1970s the post office promising same day delivery in the center city business district when mailed by a certain time at certain mailboxes. I think until a few years ago businesses would still get multiple deliveries in a single day, but I don't know if that's still true. What frustrated me was that years ago mail was delivered to post office boxes very early. They kept making the time later and later, while also increasing the box rental fee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f53ed715-240c-4b52-b434-25ca3a79f82b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160972 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got mail in > London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that things > have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I think) > fir far worse service. The quality of mail service has been declining for decades. The price has gone up while service went down. Back in the 1970s, the New York Times was full of articles about it, and the frustration of businesses that were still dependent on the mail. One problem was that city traffic got really bad, slowing down mail trucks. IIRC, under Nixon the Post Office, formerly a full government department, was reorganized to be an independent agency. However, I think in the past it was heavily subsidized but now runs on its own. The post office used to move a lot of mail on fast passenger trains until the late 1960s. Then it switched to air or fast freights. But this change accelerated the demise of the inter city passenger train. > > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer > > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a > > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website > > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified > > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think > > there's any comparable email. > > Is that even legal? They have to have a physical address somewhere, > although finding it is often a problem. Good question. But, as far as I've seen, a lot of corporate websites do not have any physical address. If they do, it's often buried. I think companies today _don't_ want to people to know their physical address--they're afraid for their security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkruorFk2tvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161038 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:f53ed715-240c-4b52-b434-25ca3a79f82b@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got mail in >> London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that >> things >> have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I >> think) >> fir far worse service. > > The quality of mail service has been declining for decades. > The price has gone up while service went down. The price has gone up because the volume of mail moved has gone down dramatically and that means that each item of mail has to cost more to produce the same revenue to pay for the cost of providing a mail service. Back in the 1970s, the New York > Times was full of articles about it, and the frustration of businesses > that were still dependent on the mail. > > One problem was that city traffic got really bad, slowing down > mail trucks. > > IIRC, under Nixon the Post Office, formerly a full government > department, was reorganized to be an independent agency. However, > I think in the past it was heavily subsidized but now runs on its > own. > > The post office used to move a lot of mail on fast passenger trains > until the late 1960s. Then it switched to air or fast freights. > But this change accelerated the demise of the inter city passenger train. No it did not. >> > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer >> > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a >> > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website >> > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified >> > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think >> > there's any comparable email. >> >> Is that even legal? They have to have a physical address somewhere, >> although finding it is often a problem. > > Good question. But, as far as I've seen, a lot of corporate websites > do not have any physical address. If they do, it's often buried. > > I think companies today _don't_ want to people to know their physical > address--they're afraid for their security. That isn't the reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncakot$gu1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161048 |
On 3/15/2016 9:29 PM, Jim Bank wrote: > > > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:f53ed715-240c-4b52-b434-25ca3a79f82b@googlegroups.com... >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got >>> mail in >>> London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that >>> things >>> have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I >>> think) >>> fir far worse service. >> >> The quality of mail service has been declining for decades. >> The price has gone up while service went down. > > The price has gone up because the volume of mail moved > has gone down dramatically and that means that each item > of mail has to cost more to produce the same revenue to pay > for the cost of providing a mail service. The price has also gone up because in 2006 a law was passed (by those in Congress intent on driving the government out of the postal business) requiring the USPO to pre-fund retiree health benefits, unlike any other branch of government or corporation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web