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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161147 > unrolled thread

enigma

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

Contents

  enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 13:46 +0000
    Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-17 14:07 +0000
      Re: enigma philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-03-17 10:00 -0500
      Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 15:29 +0000
      Re: enigma Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-17 22:23 +0000
        Re: enigma Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-17 21:12 -0500
        Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:39 +0000
          Re: enigma scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 13:15 +0000
            Re: enigma Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-18 13:30 +0000
              Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-18 15:39 +0000
          Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 08:26 -0600
            Re: enigma Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-18 18:26 +0000
            Re: enigma "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-18 19:00 -0400
              Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:19 -0700
                Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:27 -0700
              Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
                Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:04 -0500
                  Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 21:28 -0600
              Re: enigma hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-19 11:14 -0700
                Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-20 09:02 +0000
          Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
            Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:06 -0500
              Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-19 11:01 +0000
                Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:06 -0400
                  Re: enigma Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-19 16:17 +0100
                  Re: enigma greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:45 +0000
                    Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:00 -0400
                    Re: enigma sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-03-19 15:48 -0400
                Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-19 15:10 +0000
                Re: enigma Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-19 12:31 -0500
              Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 07:28 -0700
              Re: enigma cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-03-19 18:05 +0000
                Re: enigma Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-21 13:56 -0500
                  Re: enigma Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:47 +0000
    Re: enigma "capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek>" <peter.capek@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:16 -0700
      Re: enigma Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
        Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-21 12:07 -0500
          Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:51 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#161147 — enigma

t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
thing, Good book.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161149

On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:

>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>thing, Good book.

My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not
talk about the work. 

She was quite happy to tell me what a good time she had there.

Steve

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

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

#161151

On 03/17/2016 09:07 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
<snipped>

  most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing!


In other words, just a typical job

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

#161153

On 2016-03-17, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>thing, Good book.
>
> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not
> talk about the work. 
>
> She was quite happy to tell me what a good time she had there.
>
> Steve
>

There was in one of the books, the suggestion that one needed
to be 'someone' to be hired. England at that time, even that a
man called 'Flowers' was downplayed in some of the early histories
because he had a Cockney accent, in spite of him being able to make
 the machines.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

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

#161167

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> 
>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>thing, Good book.
> 
> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
> about the work.

I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and 
the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).

I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one 
item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one 
component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a 
'bombe'.

The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of 
said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being 
challenged, she said that she'd worked there!

Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me", 
he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".

"I worked here, too", he said.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#161171

Bob Eager wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> 
>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>thing, Good book.
>> 
>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>> about the work.
> 
> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and
> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
> 
> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one
> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one
> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a
> 'bombe'.
> 
> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of
> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being
> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
> 
> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me",
> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
> 
> "I worked here, too", he said.
Now, THAT's a story!

Jon

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

#161172

On 2016-03-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>thing, Good book.
>> 
>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>> about the work.
>
> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and 
> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>
> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one 
> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one 
> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a 
> 'bombe'.
>
> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of 
> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being 
> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>
> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me", 
                                              ^^^^ :) Babbage?   

> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
>
> "I worked here, too", he said.
>
>
>

I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

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

#161180

mausg@mail.com writes:

>I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>

OBSF:  _The Laundry Files_.

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

#161181

On 2016-03-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:
>
>>I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>>
>
> OBSF:  _The Laundry Files_.

The protagonist has a dispensation.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 4th day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#161184

On 18 Mar 2016 13:30:53 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-03-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > mausg@mail.com writes:
> >
> >>I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> >>place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> >>
> >
> > OBSF:  _The Laundry Files_.
> 
> The protagonist has a dispensation.

	Which can be overridden. I don't like their security enforcement -
at least I don't wish to be under it.

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

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

#161182

mausg@mail.com writes:
>
> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home

Absolutely true.  All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.

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

#161186

On 2016-03-18, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

> mausg@mail.com writes:
>
>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>
> Absolutely true.  All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.

"What can I say?  I'm a spy."  -- True Lies

-- 
/~\  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]

#161205

"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:

>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home

> Absolutely true.  All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.

Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
telephone into a listening device).

That restriction can be frustrating.  A good example of that comes from the 
early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was 
leaking from the US embassy in Moscow.  NSA swapped out every device that 
touched classified information, including everything from computers and 
radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for 
the bug they believed to be be there.  One of the NSA engineers, working by 
himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!) 
but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the 
investigation) about it until Monday morning.  (For details, Google "Project 
GUNMAN" and download the redacted report from the NSA website.) **

A few years back there was a directive to <appropriate people> to avoid 
discussing classified material when in an auto equipped with OnStar or a 
similar 2-way audio system.  The directive was issued when auto rental firms 
began to offer autos with OnStar.

I may have posted this previously - but several years ago I had the 
opportunity to discuss the work at Bletchley with one of the hut leaders. He 
noted that for years many of the people who had worked there got together 
from time to time to have dinner, but would never discuss Bletchley or the 
work there because the material was still classified somewhere north of Most 
Secret.

Eventually the Powers That Be decided that the cat was out of the bag and 
released the people from their oath of secrecy, but somehow missed the 
gentleman with whom I was discussing Bletchley.  At the next dinner all the 
other people at the table were talking about their work, but my aquaintance, 
who had never received the release letter, did not.  (His wife claimed that 
he turned green upon hearing material that he still considered to be highly 
classified.)

Joe

** For extra credit, download *both* the redacted report (with large areas 
blanked out) and the "clean" version that's been edited to avoid the rough 
spots left by redaction.  I find it very interesting to see which 
now-unclassified paragraphs of the original (very highly classified) report 
were clasified as "Unclassified," "Secret," or "Top Secret;" these marking 
are absent from the cleaned-up document. 

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

#161209

"Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> writes:
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
> telephone into a listening device).

we were walking down isle at supercomputer conference and coming up to a
booth and one of the people we were with, turned and went the other
direction.  later they said that their clearance required them to report
any reference to the site (hosting the booth) ... even though the site
had been declassified, their clearance hadn't been updated (and they
were still required to report any reference).

we were interested in the booth because they were one of the first IBM
supercomputer installations.

I've mentioned before working on cluster scale-up for ha/cmp
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
... both commercial and scientific/technical with national
labs. reference to commerical scale-up meeting in ellison's conference
room Jan1992
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13

within a month of the meeting, the scaleup work was transferred,
announced as IBM supercomputer for scientific and technical *ONLY* and
we were told we couldn't work on anything with more than four processors
(contributing to decision to leave IBM) ... some old cluster scaleup
email around that time
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa

and then 17feb1992, IBM press, announced for scientific and technical
*only*
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1
and 11may1992, national lab interest in cluster scaleup caught IBM by
*surprise*
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2

other trivia ... two of the Oracle people in the Ellison meeting, later
leave Oracle and show up at small client/server startup responsible for
something called "commerce server". We get brought in as consultants
because they want to do payment transactions on the server; the startup
had also invented this technology they call "SLL"; the result is
now frequently called "electronic commerce".

cryptologic museum has enigma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cryptologic_Museum

The NCM collection contains thousands of artifacts, including numerous
working World War II German Enigma machines (2 of them are available for
visitors to try out), and a Navy Bombe used to break it.

... snip ...

they also have an IBM Harvest display
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7950_Harvest
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HARVEST-tape.jpg


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#161210

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> had also invented this technology they call "SLL"; the result is

finger slip
had also invented this technology they call "SSL"; the result is

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#161214

Joe Morris <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
> 
>>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
> 
>> Absolutely true.  All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
>> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
>> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.
> 
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
> telephone into a listening device).
> 
> That restriction can be frustrating.  A good example of that comes from the 
> early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was 
> leaking from the US embassy in Moscow.  NSA swapped out every device that 
> touched classified information, including everything from computers and 
> radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for 
> the bug they believed to be be there.  One of the NSA engineers, working by 
> himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!) 
> but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the 
> investigation) about it until Monday morning.  

It would seem that he could have called someone and just said "you need to 
come  into work."

-- 
Pete

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

#161217

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:07 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Joe Morris <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>> 
>>>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>>>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>> 
>>> Absolutely true.  All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
>>> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
>>> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.
>> 
>> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
>> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
>> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
>> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
>> telephone into a listening device).
>> 
>> That restriction can be frustrating.  A good example of that comes from the 
>> early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was 
>> leaking from the US embassy in Moscow.  NSA swapped out every device that 
>> touched classified information, including everything from computers and 
>> radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for 
>> the bug they believed to be be there.  One of the NSA engineers, working by 
>> himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!) 
>> but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the 
>> investigation) about it until Monday morning.  
>
>It would seem that he could have called someone and just said "you need to 
>come  into work."

This time I'll agree with you. But likely the people involved didn't
think outside the box.

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

#161221

JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:07 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Joe Morris <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That restriction can be frustrating.  A good example of that comes from the 
>>> early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was 
>>> leaking from the US embassy in Moscow.  NSA swapped out every device that 
>>> touched classified information, including everything from computers and 
>>> radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for 
>>> the bug they believed to be be there.  One of the NSA engineers, working by 
>>> himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!) 
>>> but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the 
>>> investigation) about it until Monday morning.  
>>
>>It would seem that he could have called someone and just said "you need to 
>>come  into work."
>
> This time I'll agree with you. But likely the people involved didn't
> think outside the box.

Even that could be a hint...

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

#161238

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Joe Morris wrote:


> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
> telephone into a listening device).

During WW II, at Los Alamos, Gen. Groves planted microphones
in the residential quarters to ensure scientists weren't
discussing classified materials with their spouse.  This
monitoring was not appreciated.

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

#161245

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:14:29 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Joe Morris wrote:
>
>
>> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment 
>> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and* 
>> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion.  Most residential occupancies 
>> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your 
>> telephone into a listening device).
>
>During WW II, at Los Alamos, Gen. Groves planted microphones
>in the residential quarters to ensure scientists weren't
>discussing classified materials with their spouse.  This
>monitoring was not appreciated.

It could have been quite a turn on for him.

Steve

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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web