Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151227 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-10 12:59 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-29 15:17 +1000 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 65 participants
Thread has 1285 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1285 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-10 12:59 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 10:21 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-10 10:54 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 11:43 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-10 14:07 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-10 14:00 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 14:05 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-10 15:58 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-11 19:04 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-11 23:29 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-10 12:47 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-10 19:03 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "hqhy" <hqhy@nospam.com> - 2015-09-11 10:21 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 21:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-11 12:48 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:05 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 04:27 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-12 14:12 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-13 06:51 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-12 21:47 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-12 22:53 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-13 17:46 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-14 10:17 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-15 04:48 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-13 21:13 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-14 18:06 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-13 14:20 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-13 10:28 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 10:54 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-13 21:15 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-13 23:01 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-14 04:18 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-12 19:38 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 12:20 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:45 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-13 13:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 10:30 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-13 17:14 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-14 07:00 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:13 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-15 13:07 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 04:31 +1000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-14 16:35 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 07:58 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 08:14 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 13:16 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-15 10:12 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:51 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 16:03 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-15 16:01 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:29 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 20:13 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-15 20:12 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:39 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-16 11:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-15 13:07 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-15 06:14 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-15 14:55 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-15 16:05 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-16 12:54 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:27 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 14:49 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:12 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 11:21 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-16 15:02 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 08:08 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 11:04 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 10:45 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 18:02 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 12:50 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 07:33 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-16 10:11 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 13:53 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-16 18:08 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-16 21:34 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-16 21:15 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 19:17 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:30 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 15:36 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 19:51 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 16:27 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:25 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-17 07:11 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:58 -0400
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:35 +0200
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-18 13:19 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-18 09:58 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-18 10:25 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-19 16:29 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-18 19:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:36 -0500
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-19 03:24 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-19 10:06 +0100
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:14 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-16 13:40 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-16 16:43 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 10:52 -0700
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-18 11:46 +0000
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:54 +0000
Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 18:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-15 14:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-15 19:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions (was: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-16 08:00 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-16 11:06 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-16 18:38 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Scion <a.b@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-25 13:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-17 09:45 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-17 08:34 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-18 12:35 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:54 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-18 21:23 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-19 03:24 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-19 11:09 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-19 16:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-19 22:09 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 07:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 10:50 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-20 15:04 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 11:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-21 12:36 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:43 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 20:03 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-21 07:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:19 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 10:15 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-21 21:33 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-22 11:51 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 07:03 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 16:29 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:39 -0500
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 10:35 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 13:45 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 15:00 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-22 14:01 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 10:29 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-22 15:47 +0100
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 16:27 +0100
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-22 14:28 -0400
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 11:58 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 04:37 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 15:09 -0500
Re: power supplies Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-22 18:11 -0700
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-22 22:16 -0400
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 07:37 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 11:06 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-23 16:33 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:26 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 04:37 +0000
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-23 08:32 +0000
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:44 +0000
Re: power supplies "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:17 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 23:35 -0400
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 07:19 +0000
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 23:41 -0400
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-28 09:34 +0000
Re: power supplies Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:29 +0000
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-28 06:28 -0500
Re: power supplies Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:05 +0000
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:07 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 16:09 -0400
Re: power supplies Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-29 07:04 +0000
Re: power supplies Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-28 16:28 +0000
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-28 19:28 +0200
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 16:00 -0400
Re: power supplies rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-29 06:09 +0000
Re: power supplies Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 08:58 +0000
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:45 +0000
Re: power supplies "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:20 -0500
Re: power supplies Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-23 08:18 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 11:09 -0500
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-23 16:31 +0000
Re: power supplies Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-09-23 11:20 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:45 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:38 -0700
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:44 +0000
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-24 13:35 +0000
Re: power supplies sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-30 18:35 -0400
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-01 13:17 +0000
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-01 08:27 -0500
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-02 13:11 +0000
Re: power supplies scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-02 14:42 +0000
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-02 19:17 +0100
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-02 15:14 -0400
Re: power supplies JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 14:20 -0500
Re: power supplies Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-02 20:15 -0500
Re: power supplies Michele <havana9@bigmailbox.net> - 2015-10-04 23:41 +0200
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-01 13:27 +0000
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-04 14:22 +0000
Re: power supplies "Hanny Z" <hz@nospam.com> - 2015-10-05 03:46 +1100
Re: power supplies Michele <havana9@bigmailbox.net> - 2015-10-04 23:51 +0200
Re: power supplies jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 12:47 +0000
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:29 +0000
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 07:16 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-05 15:37 +0100
Re: power supplies Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:35 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-23 09:53 +0100
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-09-23 13:50 +0100
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 20:16 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:46 -0500
Re: power supplies Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-23 12:42 -0500
Re: power supplies Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-23 14:50 -0400
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:51 -0700
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 10:31 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-24 14:18 -0500
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 21:36 +0200
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-24 15:05 -0500
Re: power supplies lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 22:21 +0200
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 13:49 -0700
steam coold, too, was: power supplies danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-09-25 02:22 +0000
Re: steam coold, too, was: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-25 07:17 -0700
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 13:44 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 10:36 -0500
Re: power supplies "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-25 10:51 -0500
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 14:10 -0500
Re: power supplies hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-25 12:33 -0700
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-25 15:07 -0500
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-25 20:21 +0000
Re: power supplies Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-26 16:04 -0500
Re: power supplies Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-27 07:01 -0400
Re: power supplies Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 16:42 +0000
Re: power supplies sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-30 18:42 -0400
Re: power supplies Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:14 +0200
Re: power supplies Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 15:43 +0100
Re: power supplies Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2015-09-23 07:47 -0600
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 15:41 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-22 23:58 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 15:48 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2015-09-24 12:13 +0800
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 11:30 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 21:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 18:10 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 20:27 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 01:55 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:36 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-21 22:11 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-22 16:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-22 10:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-22 10:46 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-23 06:57 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 08:57 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-22 10:51 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 02:29 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 19:23 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 14:58 -0500
accurate watches, was: Decimal point character and billions danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-09-23 20:51 +0000
Re: accurate watches, was: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:49 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 19:01 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 07:47 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 12:14 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-25 09:07 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-23 14:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-23 16:13 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-24 00:46 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 07:19 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-24 17:50 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-23 02:30 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-22 22:12 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-23 06:58 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-22 19:22 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-23 10:14 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-23 10:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-24 07:43 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-23 12:46 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-23 18:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-24 04:05 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 22:31 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 15:49 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 11:05 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-24 16:30 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-24 08:12 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-24 16:02 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:28 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:17 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2015-09-22 11:41 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-23 17:12 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-23 10:45 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 23:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-21 22:09 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-22 08:25 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-22 07:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-20 18:26 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 19:34 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 22:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-21 09:16 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:33 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-09-20 15:39 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:31 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-20 16:26 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-20 21:28 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-21 09:23 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-20 10:22 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 16:48 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:01 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-20 22:27 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions mausg@mail.com - 2015-09-21 10:28 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 16:29 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions mausg@mail.com - 2015-09-21 20:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 21:49 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 17:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-21 18:03 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-09-22 00:45 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-20 12:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 15:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 01:20 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-21 18:07 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-20 16:20 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-20 19:23 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-21 10:08 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-21 14:11 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:50 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-28 05:43 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:08 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 10:03 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 10:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 12:36 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-28 09:54 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 13:20 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-28 19:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 15:12 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 17:01 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 17:15 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-28 20:49 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 07:32 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 18:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 03:07 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-29 10:38 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 12:53 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-29 18:15 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-29 12:14 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 20:26 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 12:16 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-01 10:32 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-29 17:32 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-09-29 07:47 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 07:36 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-29 13:35 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 17:15 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-30 22:54 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 09:02 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-30 21:59 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 14:49 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-09-30 20:09 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-01 05:47 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-01 15:13 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 05:40 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 14:34 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 13:45 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-30 11:59 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 14:56 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 16:08 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 17:12 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-29 13:55 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:02 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-28 21:22 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-29 07:52 +0200
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:52 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-02 16:41 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 18:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:10 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-05 16:20 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:05 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-06 17:17 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 08:27 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-07 15:22 -0500
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-07 21:42 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-07 18:01 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-08 12:02 +0100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:19 +0200
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-08 11:41 -0500
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-09 11:25 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-08 07:49 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-09 13:02 +0100
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:32 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 18:46 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:07 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-09 19:16 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-09 23:59 -0300
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-10 12:03 -0700
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-08 11:17 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:28 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:29 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-08 13:21 -0700
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-14 11:41 -0700
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 22:02 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-15 03:21 -0300
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-15 08:53 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 13:53 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 11:32 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 10:36 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 18:46 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:15 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-09 22:50 +0200
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:06 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 13:49 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-09 14:02 -0700
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 14:23 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 15:20 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:24 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 09:16 -0400
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-10 15:00 -0300
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-10 20:11 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:19 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 22:21 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-10 18:32 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-10 21:47 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-12 15:54 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-12 21:39 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 19:43 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-12 21:29 -0700
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 16:33 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 15:25 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 19:06 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 05:39 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 11:23 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 12:46 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 09:17 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 09:24 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 13:01 -0400
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-14 19:04 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 16:20 -0400
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 16:24 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:34 -0700
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-12 17:59 -0500
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-13 02:05 -0300
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:23 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-13 17:05 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 03:15 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:45 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-13 15:13 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 20:52 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 03:29 -0700
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-14 03:45 -0700
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 08:20 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 09:56 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 18:21 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 16:16 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 16:50 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 21:59 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:05 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 06:43 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 10:58 -0500
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-15 16:41 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-15 17:51 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 18:40 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-15 07:12 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 10:48 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 12:27 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-15 13:40 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 14:21 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:37 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 15:26 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-13 16:16 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-13 17:57 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 03:15 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-28 13:17 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 14:48 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 12:34 -0700
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 07:32 -0700
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-28 17:06 -0500
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 01:12 -0300
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 04:47 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 11:11 -0700
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 16:32 -0300
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:31 -0500
Re: rationality Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:48 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:35 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 21:51 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:30 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-30 11:40 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-30 23:17 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-31 01:16 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-31 12:07 -0700
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-31 15:16 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-31 21:27 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-01 15:04 +1100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 10:07 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-01 16:20 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:26 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-02 05:30 -0600
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-02 06:16 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:55 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 17:34 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-06 12:20 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 14:43 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 20:26 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 10:44 -0800
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:28 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 15:55 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:31 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:50 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 07:58 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 11:02 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-06 12:01 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 15:29 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 07:05 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 14:36 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 20:49 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 06:28 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 08:26 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-07 13:53 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 14:18 +0100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:44 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-11 19:12 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 13:31 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-11 17:05 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-12 00:44 +0100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-12 00:53 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 23:20 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:38 +0100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 06:27 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:03 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 14:00 +0000
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-05 14:41 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 12:46 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:52 -0600
Re: rationality Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-11-06 02:32 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:15 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:12 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 10:49 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 12:53 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 14:03 -0500
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 20:11 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:33 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-05 22:33 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:30 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 10:43 -0800
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 07:05 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 08:04 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:55 +1100
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 09:13 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2015-11-02 16:28 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 10:42 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:12 -0500
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:07 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 14:14 +0100
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 10:17 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 10:24 -0600
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:07 -0800
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-09 12:47 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 15:28 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 17:43 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 18:48 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 20:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 20:32 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 20:54 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:25 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-12 13:59 -0800
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-13 08:02 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 06:54 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-13 08:28 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-13 10:32 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 15:27 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-16 11:46 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-13 09:21 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 14:44 +1100
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-13 14:09 +0000
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-13 09:32 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 14:47 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-14 01:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-14 09:42 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 20:49 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-14 10:15 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-15 04:49 +1100
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:50 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-14 16:58 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:03 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-16 12:45 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-16 18:23 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 18:23 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-16 20:42 -0500
Re: rationality maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:42 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 08:01 -0500
Re: historicla archives hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 08:02 -0800
Re: historicla archives Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:49 -0500
Re: historicla archives hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 12:05 -0800
Re: historicla archives JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:44 -0600
Re: historicla archives Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 15:30 -0500
Re: historicla archives Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 22:55 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:48 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 11:21 -0800
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:37 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-17 16:27 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:49 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:41 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-17 11:53 -0800
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-17 12:17 -0800
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 22:59 -0500
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 17:18 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:35 +0000
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-19 14:26 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-19 10:00 -0800
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-20 08:04 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-20 10:16 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 19:41 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-17 14:46 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 12:30 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 09:40 -0600
Re: rationality Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-15 18:09 +0100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 19:06 +0000
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-15 19:35 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-15 20:34 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-15 16:31 -0600
Re: rationality Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-15 19:09 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-16 11:38 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:34 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 08:22 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-16 11:36 +1100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 08:21 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-15 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-13 14:19 +0000
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 14:20 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 18:03 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:09 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 19:54 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 21:27 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 23:34 -0600
Re: rationality - Y2K Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 10:03 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 14:13 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 08:38 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 02:55 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 10:09 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:11 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 12:57 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 12:38 -0600
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-10 03:03 -0600
Re: rationality "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:31 +1100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 13:15 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 17:24 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 18:25 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 19:26 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-10 10:30 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-10 11:48 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 11:25 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 11:05 +1100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:31 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 14:34 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-07 13:42 +1100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 23:34 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 00:32 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-07 11:47 +0000
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:03 -0800
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:55 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 15:39 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:42 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-11 11:22 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:48 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-11 17:24 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 09:38 -0500
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:54 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-11 13:53 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 14:13 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-06 21:31 +0100
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-07 13:45 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 11:50 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-07 19:11 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 20:37 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:40 +0000
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-08 11:37 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-07 18:46 -0800
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:44 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:36 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 12:18 +0100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-02 18:47 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 -0800
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 02:46 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 16:34 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 00:45 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 20:33 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 13:22 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 12:21 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 13:25 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 11:25 +1100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 10:51 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 17:56 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 18:07 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 13:18 +1100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 07:29 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 13:13 +1100
Re: rationality Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2015-11-02 21:16 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 07:29 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 16:04 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 16:19 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 16:56 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:22 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:12 +0100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:06 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 14:17 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 12:29 -0800
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:13 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 21:13 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-08 16:56 +1100
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-08 03:23 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 11:04 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-08 15:33 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 16:45 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-08 14:18 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 22:02 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 09:53 +1100
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 08:03 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 00:10 -0600
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 04:22 -0400
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 05:47 -0800
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 12:31 -0500
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-09 17:43 +0000
Re: rationality tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 10:13 -0800
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-09 17:13 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:45 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 15:08 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 11:09 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 01:19 +0100
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-10 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-15 15:48 +0100
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-15 16:28 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-16 14:23 -0600
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-16 12:37 -0800
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-16 15:49 -0600
Re: rationality cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-11-16 21:59 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-16 18:36 -0600
Re: rationality Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-17 07:55 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-16 21:07 +0000
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-09 12:55 -0800
Re: rationality "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-09 22:55 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 19:04 -0400
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 13:15 -0600
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-09 16:23 -0400
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 16:26 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 09:44 +1100
Re: rationality Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-11-09 23:19 +0000
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:50 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-10 00:50 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 20:14 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 14:19 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-12 13:56 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-12 16:53 -0600
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-13 00:41 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-13 19:11 +1100
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-13 09:39 -0800
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-13 18:17 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-14 20:46 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-14 20:35 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-15 10:29 +1100
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-13 17:50 +1100
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-09 14:41 +0000
Re: rationality "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-09 15:14 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-09 16:33 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-09 13:27 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-09 09:22 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 14:59 -0500
Re: rationality Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-09 13:42 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 18:11 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: rationality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-09 11:17 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 11:58 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 08:13 -0500
Re: rationality Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 06:44 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 13:37 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-08 16:52 +0100
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:46 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-10 10:59 +1100
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 16:42 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 13:31 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 23:52 +0000
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 14:41 +1100
Re: rationality Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:06 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:53 +1100
Overthrow Chinese Governmen (Was: Re: rationality) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 04:59 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 10:52 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:10 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 08:26 +1100
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-04 13:55 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 16:18 -0600
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 18:18 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-07 01:13 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 22:22 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-05 17:56 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-06 09:56 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 06:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 12:54 -0600
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-06 13:52 +1100
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-06 10:06 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:09 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:37 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 16:05 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-04 16:52 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 06:37 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:40 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 18:04 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 19:35 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 10:54 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 06:56 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 07:44 -0600
Re: rationality - bridge to somewhere Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-06 09:36 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 12:24 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 12:07 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 15:29 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-06 12:24 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:52 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 13:06 -0600
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 13:34 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 02:18 +0000
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 09:00 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-10 17:33 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-11 12:20 +1100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:41 -0500
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-10 22:49 -0800
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-11 07:46 -0800
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 10:01 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:46 -0500
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-05 12:27 -0800
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:42 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:48 -0600
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 13:07 -0500
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 10:44 +1100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 10:42 +0100
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 10:32 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-06 12:04 -0600
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-02 10:46 -0800
Re: rationality jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:54 +0000
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-03 10:00 -0600
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:37 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-03 19:43 +0000
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0800
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 13:08 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-03 15:24 -0600
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 22:38 +0100
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-03 17:04 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 10:33 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 13:09 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-05 12:22 -0600
Re: rationality Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-05 14:19 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-05 16:45 -0600
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:51 +0000
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 09:56 +0100
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 08:44 -0600
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:00 -0600
Re: rationality cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2015-11-04 16:13 -0600
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-03 19:32 +0000
Re: rationality "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:18 +1100
Re: rationality Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-11-01 13:59 -0800
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 11:32 -0600
Re: rationality JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:57 -0600
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 22:38 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:56 +0000
Re: rationality "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 +1100
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 11:48 -0500
Re: rationality "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 11:07 -0600
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-04 07:58 -0800
Re: rationality "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 13:18 +1100
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:15 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-29 13:45 -0500
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 20:01 +0000
Re: rationality Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-10-29 23:46 -0300
Re: rationality Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-30 04:56 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:39 +0000
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 20:43 +0000
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-29 21:02 -0500
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:27 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-30 09:42 -0500
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 10:41 -0500
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-04 19:56 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 11:13 +0000
Re: rationality David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-11-05 11:33 +0000
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-05 14:04 +0000
Re: rationality scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-05 16:13 +0000
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: rationality Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-14 15:52 -0400
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-13 12:21 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 12:00 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-14 18:21 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 13:54 -0500
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-15 17:51 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 17:02 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 10:38 -0400
Re: rationality Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-15 18:37 +0000
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 14:15 -0500
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:10 -0500
Re: rationality Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-14 21:00 -0500
Re: rationality simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-10-16 10:20 +0100
Re: rationality Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-19 13:28 -0500
Re: rationality Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 15:18 -0400
Re: rationality hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-20 11:27 -0700
Re: rationality Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-08 10:23 -0400
Re: rationality Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:55 +0200
Re: rationality Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: rationality "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:07 -0500
Re: rationality Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-09 12:02 +0100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 20:37 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:24 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:15 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 22:57 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 08:32 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-03 11:11 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 15:55 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:11 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-04 14:50 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 12:47 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:44 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:13 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-06 17:52 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Hanny Z" <hz@nospam.com> - 2015-10-06 09:26 +1100
Re: Decimal point character and billions Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 20:40 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-09 16:12 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:14 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 12:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-29 10:07 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:05 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 10:40 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-29 12:35 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-29 13:03 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 16:48 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:17 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 17:25 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:37 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:06 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-29 19:25 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-30 02:26 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-09-30 03:35 -0300
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 16:58 +1000
Re: Decimal point character and billions Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 06:25 -0400
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:00 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:36 -0500
Re: Decimal point character and billions Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:03 +0000
Re: Decimal point character and billions hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-28 13:26 -0700
Re: Decimal point character and billions "Sam Thatch" <st342@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:17 +1000
Page 35 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 33 34 [35] 36 37 … 50 Next page →
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 08:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <6gj8hc-eef.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #154265 |
In article <n1rike$kcl$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> Actually, "fiat" is not a non-emotional adjective. It has a >>>> meaning, and thus is a highly pejorative thing to say of a >>>> currency. It means that those pieces of paper are only supposed >>>> to be money because someone said so. And history has shown that >>>> even rulers with great coercive power at their disposal have been >>>> frustrated in their plans by the realities of economics. >>> >>> By the above definition, the US Dollar is a 'fiat currency'. The >>> government says so, and so far it is accepted. >>> >>> I believe the reason it is accepted is because the world sees the >>> US Government and US economy as basically strong and responsible. >>> They accept it is not perfect, but see it is the best game in town >>> compared to the others--all things considered. >>> >>> What worries me is the massive and ever-increasing amount of US >>> debt. What happens when creditors will no longer buy this debt? >>> Everyone will be in trouble. >> >> It's a fiat currency, what makes you think every dollar the US spends >> has to be borrowed from someone? > >It's not a fiat currency; it's monetized debt, just like every other >major currency has been since Breton Woods. > >Every dollar that _exists_ was borrowed from someone. Obviously, if the >US govt collects a dollar via taxes and then spends it, that dollar is >not _new_ debt, but it's still an existing debt. Duh, that is what a currency is. You issue a paper (OK, this has to be done by the FEDs, not by Congress per se, but that is a minor difference) and use it. You now have a debt to the one you handed it to. This is exactly what a fiat currency is. It has value because you say so. There are _no_ assets (not debt, the other side of the balance sheet) backing the dollar. No gold, no other currencies, no shares, only unsecured bonds, no raw materials. The bonds are just a bridge between the FED and Congress; which makes a thin veneer that this is a backed currency. And so are the vast majority of other currencies too, although some use the US currency as a collateral, still following Bretton Woods 40+ years after it broke. Issuing currency this way is a very lucrative business. You get interest free loans from everybody, and can place that money into interest bearing or revenue generating instruments. >>> Another worry is the return of inflation. We had 20% inflation >>> before, and there's no reaosn it won't happen again. Senior >>> citizens really suffered since they're dependent on bank savings >>> and fixed pensions and aren't in a position to increase their >>> wealth. >> >> With the US being the worlds reserve currency, extreme inflation >> seems unlikely, if not impossible. This behaves like a rubber band. If you have trust, you can issue more, just like if the band holds you can stretch it longer. But the moment that trust breaks it will unravel very suddenly. >It's impossible as long as OPEC keeps trading oil in dollars; that >creates in _enormous_ overseas demand for dollars, which limits domestic >inflation despite our massive trade imbalance. The Saudi family is the US most important financial ally, yes. They enforce this trading in dollars. >>> Unfortunately, BOTH political parties are simply too weak to come >>> to terms iwth excess debt. The Republicans talk, but then want >>> massive increases in defense, which is very expensive. the >>> Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. >> >> Both parties should understand that attempting to balance the >> budget will bring on permanent slow growth or a recession. >> That's not something anyone wants. > >We did it a couple of decades ago, and the economy boomed. That was reaganomics. It has some quite limited operational limits, and will not work nearly as well in todays environment. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 02:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1sb9i$iks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154275 |
On 10-Nov-15 01:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Both parties should understand that attempting to balance >>> the budget will bring on permanent slow growth or a >>> recession. That's not something anyone wants. >> >> We did it a couple of decades ago, and the economy boomed. > > That was reaganomics. What? Neither Reagan, Bush nor Dubya ever had a surplus; the core of Reaganomics is massive tax cuts for the rich plus massive defense spending, which inevitably results in massive deficits. Clinton had the _only_ surplus in the last 40 years, and it was mostly by doing the _opposite_ of Reaganomics: big tax hikes for the rich and flat (before inflation) defense spending. > It has some quite limited operational limits, and will not work > nearly as well in todays environment. Obama reversed Dubya's tax cuts, taking us back to Clinton's rates, and cut defense spending; the deficit shrank and the economy recovered, so it seems like Clintonomics still works just fine--unlike Reaganomics. Of course, Dubya left Obama a bigger mess than Reagan and Bush left to Clinton, so it's taking longer, but the record so far is quite clear. 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 | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1t16r$1je$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154277 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 10-Nov-15 01:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> Both parties should understand that attempting to balance >>>> the budget will bring on permanent slow growth or a >>>> recession. That's not something anyone wants. >>> >>> We did it a couple of decades ago, and the economy boomed. >> >> That was reaganomics. > > What? Neither Reagan, Bush nor Dubya ever had a surplus; the core of > Reaganomics is massive tax cuts for the rich plus massive defense > spending, which inevitably results in massive deficits. > > Clinton had the _only_ surplus in the last 40 years, and it was mostly > by doing the _opposite_ of Reaganomics: big tax hikes for the rich and > flat (before inflation) defense spending. > >> It has some quite limited operational limits, and will not work >> nearly as well in todays environment. > > Obama reversed Dubya's tax cuts, taking us back to Clinton's rates, and > cut defense spending; the deficit shrank and the economy recovered, so > it seems like Clintonomics still works just fine--unlike Reaganomics. > Of course, Dubya left Obama a bigger mess than Reagan and Bush left to > Clinton, so it's taking longer, but the record so far is quite clear. Obama only _partially_ reversed GWBs tax cuts. The GWB rates remain in effect for individuals earning 2K, families earning 2.5K. The Repubs reluctantly went along with this but assured us that the end of the world was upon us. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1t8ba$4a1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154291 |
On 10-Nov-15 09:09, Dan Espen wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 10-Nov-15 01:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> [Clintonomics] has some quite limited operational limits, and will >>> not work nearly as well in todays environment. >> >> Obama reversed Dubya's tax cuts, taking us back to Clinton's rates, >> and cut defense spending; the deficit shrank and the economy >> recovered, so it seems like Clintonomics still works just >> fine--unlike Reaganomics. Of course, Dubya left Obama a bigger mess >> than Reagan and Bush left to Clinton, so it's taking longer, but >> the record so far is quite clear. > > Obama only _partially_ reversed GWBs tax cuts. He reinstated the 39.6% bracket for ordinary income and linked 20% bracket for LTCG/QD income. That Dubya's most important change. > The GWB rates remain in effect for individuals earning 2K, families > earning 2.5K. There is no such tax bracket. If you're referring to some credit or deduction, that's a slightly different matter, but taxing individuals earning so little has a negligible effect on total revenues. Cutting taxes on the poor, unlike cutting taxes on the rich, _does_ stimulate the economy, so it would not make sense to raise their taxes anyway. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1tb1n$ekb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154298 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 10-Nov-15 09:09, Dan Espen wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> On 10-Nov-15 01:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> [Clintonomics] has some quite limited operational limits, and will >>>> not work nearly as well in todays environment. >>> >>> Obama reversed Dubya's tax cuts, taking us back to Clinton's rates, >>> and cut defense spending; the deficit shrank and the economy >>> recovered, so it seems like Clintonomics still works just >>> fine--unlike Reaganomics. Of course, Dubya left Obama a bigger mess >>> than Reagan and Bush left to Clinton, so it's taking longer, but >>> the record so far is quite clear. >> >> Obama only _partially_ reversed GWBs tax cuts. > > He reinstated the 39.6% bracket for ordinary income and linked 20% > bracket for LTCG/QD income. That Dubya's most important change. > >> The GWB rates remain in effect for individuals earning 2K, families >> earning 2.5K. > > There is no such tax bracket. If you're referring to some credit or > deduction, that's a slightly different matter, but taxing individuals > earning so little has a negligible effect on total revenues. Cutting > taxes on the poor, unlike cutting taxes on the rich, _does_ stimulate > the economy, so it would not make sense to raise their taxes anyway. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-compromise-extend-bush-tax-cuts-wealthy-reaction/story?id=12331470 -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1tdev$pjh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154307 |
On 10-Nov-15 11:57, Dan Espen wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 10-Nov-15 09:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Obama only _partially_ reversed GWBs tax cuts. >> >> He reinstated the 39.6% bracket for ordinary income and linked 20% >> bracket for LTCG/QD income. That Dubya's most important change. >> >>> The GWB rates remain in effect for individuals earning 2K, >>> families earning 2.5K. >> >> There is no such tax bracket. ... > > http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-compromise-extend-bush-tax-cuts-wealthy-reaction/story?id=12331470 That's the 39.6% bracket mentioned above, which is for people making far, far more than $2K/$2.5K. Clinton had the 39.6% bracket at $288K/$288K. Dubya got rid of that bracket entirely, so they dropped into the 36% bracket. Obama tried to bring it back at $200K/$250K, but the GOP wanted it at $1M/$1M; they eventually compromised at $400K/$400K. The 20% bracket for LTCG/QD income came back at the same time, for the same people. So, yes, Obama didn't reverse Dubya's tax cut for a few people between $288K and $400K, but did for the millions of people over $400K, which have far more income now subject to the higher rates anyway. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 03:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1sbot$khd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154275 |
On 11/10/2015 1:38 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <n1rike$kcl$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> Actually, "fiat" is not a non-emotional adjective. It has a >>>>> meaning, and thus is a highly pejorative thing to say of a >>>>> currency. It means that those pieces of paper are only supposed >>>>> to be money because someone said so. And history has shown that >>>>> even rulers with great coercive power at their disposal have been >>>>> frustrated in their plans by the realities of economics. >>>> >>>> By the above definition, the US Dollar is a 'fiat currency'. The >>>> government says so, and so far it is accepted. >>>> >>>> I believe the reason it is accepted is because the world sees the >>>> US Government and US economy as basically strong and responsible. >>>> They accept it is not perfect, but see it is the best game in town >>>> compared to the others--all things considered. >>>> >>>> What worries me is the massive and ever-increasing amount of US >>>> debt. What happens when creditors will no longer buy this debt? >>>> Everyone will be in trouble. >>> >>> It's a fiat currency, what makes you think every dollar the US spends >>> has to be borrowed from someone? >> >> It's not a fiat currency; it's monetized debt, just like every other >> major currency has been since Breton Woods. >> >> Every dollar that _exists_ was borrowed from someone. Obviously, if the >> US govt collects a dollar via taxes and then spends it, that dollar is >> not _new_ debt, but it's still an existing debt. > > Duh, that is what a currency is. You issue a paper (OK, this has to > be done by the FEDs, not by Congress per se, but that is a minor > difference) and use it. You now have a debt to the one you handed > it to. This is exactly what a fiat currency is. It has value because > you say so. > > There are _no_ assets (not debt, the other side of the balance > sheet) backing the dollar. No gold, no other currencies, no shares, > only unsecured bonds, no raw materials. The bonds are just a bridge > between the FED and Congress; which makes a thin veneer that this > is a backed currency. > > And so are the vast majority of other currencies too, although some > use the US currency as a collateral, still following Bretton Woods > 40+ years after it broke. > > Issuing currency this way is a very lucrative business. You get > interest free loans from everybody, and can place that money into > interest bearing or revenue generating instruments. > >>>> Another worry is the return of inflation. We had 20% inflation >>>> before, and there's no reaosn it won't happen again. Senior >>>> citizens really suffered since they're dependent on bank savings >>>> and fixed pensions and aren't in a position to increase their >>>> wealth. >>> >>> With the US being the worlds reserve currency, extreme inflation >>> seems unlikely, if not impossible. > > This behaves like a rubber band. If you have trust, you can issue > more, just like if the band holds you can stretch it longer. But the > moment that trust breaks it will unravel very suddenly. > >> It's impossible as long as OPEC keeps trading oil in dollars; that >> creates in _enormous_ overseas demand for dollars, which limits domestic >> inflation despite our massive trade imbalance. > > The Saudi family is the US most important financial ally, yes. They > enforce this trading in dollars. Which explains why the US doesn't make much noise about the Saudis having financed 9-11 and the spread of militant Islam. Why we let the Saudi relatives slip out of the country when they are accused of crimes. And why though we scream when ISIS beheads a few people, we say nothing when the Saudis behead even more. As the aphorism attributed to LBJ goes, "when they've got you by the balls, your heart and mind will follow".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 20:31 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <dadrrnF94p5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154278 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n1sbot$khd$1@dont-email.me... > On 11/10/2015 1:38 AM, Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <n1rike$kcl$1@dont-email.me>, >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>> Actually, "fiat" is not a non-emotional adjective. It has a >>>>>> meaning, and thus is a highly pejorative thing to say of a >>>>>> currency. It means that those pieces of paper are only supposed >>>>>> to be money because someone said so. And history has shown that >>>>>> even rulers with great coercive power at their disposal have been >>>>>> frustrated in their plans by the realities of economics. >>>>> >>>>> By the above definition, the US Dollar is a 'fiat currency'. The >>>>> government says so, and so far it is accepted. >>>>> >>>>> I believe the reason it is accepted is because the world sees the >>>>> US Government and US economy as basically strong and responsible. >>>>> They accept it is not perfect, but see it is the best game in town >>>>> compared to the others--all things considered. >>>>> >>>>> What worries me is the massive and ever-increasing amount of US >>>>> debt. What happens when creditors will no longer buy this debt? >>>>> Everyone will be in trouble. >>>> >>>> It's a fiat currency, what makes you think every dollar the US spends >>>> has to be borrowed from someone? >>> >>> It's not a fiat currency; it's monetized debt, just like every other >>> major currency has been since Breton Woods. >>> >>> Every dollar that _exists_ was borrowed from someone. Obviously, if the >>> US govt collects a dollar via taxes and then spends it, that dollar is >>> not _new_ debt, but it's still an existing debt. >> >> Duh, that is what a currency is. You issue a paper (OK, this has to >> be done by the FEDs, not by Congress per se, but that is a minor >> difference) and use it. You now have a debt to the one you handed >> it to. This is exactly what a fiat currency is. It has value because >> you say so. >> >> There are _no_ assets (not debt, the other side of the balance >> sheet) backing the dollar. No gold, no other currencies, no shares, >> only unsecured bonds, no raw materials. The bonds are just a bridge >> between the FED and Congress; which makes a thin veneer that this >> is a backed currency. >> >> And so are the vast majority of other currencies too, although some >> use the US currency as a collateral, still following Bretton Woods >> 40+ years after it broke. >> >> Issuing currency this way is a very lucrative business. You get >> interest free loans from everybody, and can place that money into >> interest bearing or revenue generating instruments. >> >>>>> Another worry is the return of inflation. We had 20% inflation >>>>> before, and there's no reaosn it won't happen again. Senior >>>>> citizens really suffered since they're dependent on bank savings >>>>> and fixed pensions and aren't in a position to increase their >>>>> wealth. >>>> >>>> With the US being the worlds reserve currency, extreme inflation >>>> seems unlikely, if not impossible. >> >> This behaves like a rubber band. If you have trust, you can issue >> more, just like if the band holds you can stretch it longer. But the >> moment that trust breaks it will unravel very suddenly. >> >>> It's impossible as long as OPEC keeps trading oil in dollars; that >>> creates in _enormous_ overseas demand for dollars, which limits domestic >>> inflation despite our massive trade imbalance. >> >> The Saudi family is the US most important financial ally, yes. They >> enforce this trading in dollars. > Which explains why the US doesn't make much > noise about the Saudis having financed 9-11 That particular Saudi family did nothing of the sort. Bin Laden did. > and the spread of militant Islam. That particular Saudi family did nothing of the sort. Bin Laden and others did. > Why we let the Saudi relatives slip out of the > country when they are accused of crimes. Very likely. > And why though we scream when ISIS beheads a few people, > we say nothing when the Saudis behead even more. We scream because of who is beheaded. > As the aphorism attributed to LBJ goes, "when they've > got you by the balls, your heart and mind will follow". That isn't what its about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 13:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1tfkl$3c8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154275 |
On 10-Nov-15 01:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <n1rike$kcl$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 09-Nov-15 17:09, Dan Espen wrote: >>> [The dollar is] a fiat currency, what makes you think every >>> dollar the US spends has to be borrowed from someone? >> >> It's not a fiat currency; it's monetized debt, just like every >> other major currency has been since Breton Woods. > > Duh, that is what a currency is. You issue a paper (OK, this has to > be done by the FEDs, not by Congress per se, but that is a minor > difference) and use it. You now have a debt to the one you handed it > to. This is exactly what a fiat currency is. It has value because you > say so. I was trying to be technically accurate. A fiat currency would be if the Treasury printed dollars with nothing backing them. Monetized debt is when the Treasury prints T-bills and the Federal Reserve prints dollars to buy them. The first practical difference is that the Federal Reserve (or whoever they sell those T-bills on to) is charging the Treasury interest on the outstanding debt. The second is that the Federal Reserve is now allowed to monetize _other_ countries' debt, not just the US's, which is what allowed the dollar to become the world's main reserve currency. If a non-reserve currency did this, it would almost certainly cause hyperinflation. > And so are the vast majority of other currencies too, although some > use the US currency as a collateral, still following Bretton Woods > 40+ years after it broke. Breton Woods, i.e. using reserve currencies (rather than gold) to back your own, was the solution to the gold standard breaking. All major currencies, and most minor ones, are monetized debt. There are a handful of minor currencies that are pegged to reserve currencies, rather than being monetized debt in their own right, but that is just national pride; there is no practical difference vs them putting the underlying reserve currency in circulation. AFAIK, the only true fiat currency is Cuba's non-convertible peso, and that is the very _reason_ it's non-convertible. Cuba's convertible peso _is_ backed by reserve currencies under Breton Woods. 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 | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1r9qv$qrm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154237 |
On 09-Nov-15 14:47, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Unfortunately, BOTH political parties are simply too weak to come to > terms iwth excess debt. The Republicans talk, but then want massive > increases in defense, which is very expensive. They also love to cut taxes, and they are mystified when increased spending plus lower tax revenue equals budget deficits and more debt. > the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. Even if you don't agree with everything they spend money on, at least they're willing to raise taxes to pay for it, which is at least more fiscally responsible than the alternative. Also, the combined cost of all on-budget social programs is a drop in the bucket compared to what we could save by eliminating defense waste that the _Pentagon_ wants to cut but is forced by Congress to keep. 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 | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <dacrsaF2293U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154252 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > On 09-Nov-15 14:47, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. > > Even if you don't agree with everything they spend money on, at least > they're willing to raise taxes to pay for it, which is at least more > fiscally responsible than the alternative. > > Also, the combined cost of all on-budget social programs is a drop in > the bucket compared to what we could save by eliminating defense waste > that the _Pentagon_ wants to cut but is forced by Congress to keep. Do we know how big the drop for Obamacare is? I assume millions have been added to the Medicaid rolls for life and millions more have subsidized health care, a great many of them also for life. The insurance rates charged by Blue Cross, Blue Shield in my state just went up 50% this fall, so even more will get subsidized care. Seems like that might be a pretty substantial drop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 19:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1rgva$gc4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154259 |
On 09-Nov-15 18:25, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> On 09-Nov-15 14:47, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. >> >> Even if you don't agree with everything they spend money on, at >> least they're willing to raise taxes to pay for it, which is at >> least more fiscally responsible than the alternative. >> >> Also, the combined cost of all on-budget social programs is a drop >> in the bucket compared to what we could save by eliminating defense >> waste that the _Pentagon_ wants to cut but is forced by Congress to >> keep. > > Do we know how big the drop for Obamacare is? CBO says Obamacare is a net savings for the federal govt, and the GOP implicitly admitted that by waiving the PAYGO rules every time they've tried to repeal it. 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 | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <daekdrFf9faU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154263 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > On 09-Nov-15 18:25, Osmium wrote: >> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> On 09-Nov-15 14:47, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. >>> >>> Even if you don't agree with everything they spend money on, at >>> least they're willing to raise taxes to pay for it, which is at >>> least more fiscally responsible than the alternative. >>> >>> Also, the combined cost of all on-budget social programs is a drop >>> in the bucket compared to what we could save by eliminating defense >>> waste that the _Pentagon_ wants to cut but is forced by Congress to >>> keep. >> >> Do we know how big the drop for Obamacare is? > > CBO says Obamacare is a net savings for the federal govt, and the GOP > implicitly admitted that by waiving the PAYGO rules every time they've > tried to repeal it. I hadn't heard about PAYGO before your post. I looked it up on Wiki and it would take me a couple days to figure out what it said and whether it was even applicable. I assume the ACA is in the same category as Social Security, it goes on forever as an entitlement. A quick glance tells me this might be a class of things not subject to PAYGO. And I don't have two days to spend on this. This leaves me in the same position I was before the mention of PAYGO, it sounds like real voodoo economics! Say the government writes a check to one of the smaller insurance companies for $100,00,000 for some minor service. What is the bookkeeping entry that neutralizes that? In the paygo thing I note that Bush's idiotic Part D thing, has an estimated cost of $44B per year. And that program has to be miniscule compared to the ACA. And it was exempted from PAYGO by some hand waving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1t71f$sbe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154294 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> On 09-Nov-15 18:25, Osmium wrote: >>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>> On 09-Nov-15 14:47, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> the Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. >>>> >>>> Even if you don't agree with everything they spend money on, at >>>> least they're willing to raise taxes to pay for it, which is at >>>> least more fiscally responsible than the alternative. >>>> >>>> Also, the combined cost of all on-budget social programs is a drop >>>> in the bucket compared to what we could save by eliminating defense >>>> waste that the _Pentagon_ wants to cut but is forced by Congress to >>>> keep. >>> >>> Do we know how big the drop for Obamacare is? >> >> CBO says Obamacare is a net savings for the federal govt, and the GOP >> implicitly admitted that by waiving the PAYGO rules every time they've >> tried to repeal it. > > I hadn't heard about PAYGO before your post. I looked it up on Wiki > and it would take me a couple days to figure out what it said and > whether it was even applicable. I assume the ACA is in the same > category as Social Security, it goes on forever as an entitlement. A > quick glance tells me this might be a class of things not subject to > PAYGO. And I don't have two days to spend on this. > > This leaves me in the same position I was before the mention of PAYGO, > it sounds like real voodoo economics! Say the government writes a > check to one of the smaller insurance companies for $100,00,000 for > some minor service. What is the bookkeeping entry that neutralizes > that? > > In the paygo thing I note that Bush's idiotic Part D thing, has an > estimated cost of $44B per year. And that program has to be miniscule > compared to the ACA. And it was exempted from PAYGO by some hand > waving. PAYGO is simple enough. You simply don't pass new legislation that costs the government money unless you raise revenue to cover the costs. As stated, Part D was enacted without any attempt to pay for the expanded coverage, Those costs are: About $26 billion is spent for the about 10 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries... About $20 billion is premium support that allows about 10 million middle-income Medicare beneficiaries and the rest of the people on Part C... About $13 billion of the Part D budget covers re-insurance for catastrophic drug costs as described above. So, a quick look gives us $59 billion in new deficit spending. As you should know, the ACA does not increase the deficit. Provisions of the ACA include new revenue generating taxes. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1t959$7o8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154294 |
On 10-Nov-15 10:30, Osmium wrote: > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> On 09-Nov-15 18:25, Osmium wrote: >>> Do we know how big the [cost] for Obamacare is? >> >> CBO says Obamacare is a net savings for the federal govt, and the >> GOP implicitly admitted that by waiving the PAYGO rules every time >> they've tried to repeal it. > > I hadn't heard about PAYGO before your post. I looked it up on Wiki > and it would take me a couple days to figure out what it said and > whether it was even applicable. ... It's quite simple. In a nutshell, Congress cannot pass a bill that raises spending without raising taxes to pay for it, i.e. deficit spending. However, since PAYGO is a mere "rule", not part of the Constitution, Congress can (and does) waive it via a simple vote whenever they want. > A quick glance tells me [Obamacare] might be a class of things not > subject to PAYGO. If so, then why does Congress have to vote to waive PAYGO every time they try to repeal it? > This leaves me in the same position I was before the mention of > PAYGO, it sounds like real voodoo economics! Say the government > writes a check to one of the smaller insurance companies for > $100,00,000 for some minor service. What is the bookkeeping entry > that neutralizes that? ACA includes several new taxes and reduces other spending, such as reimbursing hospitals for uninsured patients' unpaid medical bills, and according to CBO, the net effect of those changes is more than enough to offset the new entitlement's costs. That is why Congress _didn't_ need to waive PAYGO to pass the ACA. > In the paygo thing I note that Bush's idiotic Part D thing, has an > estimated cost of $44B per year. And that program has to be > miniscule compared to the ACA. And it was exempted from PAYGO by > some hand waving. Congress voted to waive PAYGO in that case, as often happens; it's mostly a symbolic measure, but it does allow outsiders to instantly determine whether a particular bill increases the deficit or not. 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 | "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:05 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <dacqm1F1pkdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154237 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:5adb0528-715b-4aff-86d4-3f6973cdf0fe@googlegroups.com... > On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> Actually, "fiat" is not a non-emotional adjective. It has a meaning, and >> thus is >> a highly pejorative thing to say of a currency. It means that those >> pieces of >> paper are only supposed to be money because someone said so. >> And history has shown that even rulers with great coercive power at their >> disposal have been frustrated in their plans by the realities of >> economics. > > By the above definition, the US Dollar is a 'fiat currency'. The > government says so, and so far it is accepted. > > I believe the reason it is accepted is because the world sees the > US Government and US economy as basically strong and responsible. > They accept it is not perfect, but see it is the best game in town > compared to the others--all things considered. > > What worries me is the massive and ever-increasing amount of US > debt. What happens when creditors will no longer buy this debt? That isn't going to happen, for the same reason you stated. > Everyone will be in trouble. Nope, just those in the US. > Another worry is the return of inflation. What we have actually seen is a significant level of DEFLATION, particularly in the price of houses. > We had 20% inflation before, and there's > no reaosn it won't happen again. There are in fact some reasons why it might not happen at that level again. > Senior citizens really suffered since they're dependent on bank savings Very few have much in the way of bank savings anymore. > and fixed pensions And there are very few of those anymore either. > and aren't in a position to increase their wealth. Senior citizens aren't about wealth creation, they are about using what wealth they have previously created. And clearly people like Barb do live quite well. > Unfortunately, BOTH political parties are simply too weak to > come to terms iwth excess debt. The Republicans talk, but then > want massive increases in defense, which is very expensive. the > Democrats have never seen a social program they didn't like. And the system works a lot better than it did in say the 1930s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 12:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1irhi$2s8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154083 |
On 06-Nov-15 09:17, Dan Espen wrote: > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >> It would be pretty simple to make a raw materials based currency. >> Just take a basket of the 30 most traded raw materials and >> securitise it. I have participated in a team that did this with a >> stock market and made a foundation for a furtures and fowards >> market. It is not rocket science. You can make papers that you can >> exchange for delivery of so many liters of oil, so many bushels of >> wheat etc, all of which have utilisation value in their own right. >> >> This is a practical alternative to metal standards. The problem >> with those is that they use commodities that are a tiny bit of the >> economy, and have a very limited supply, thus inflating the >> underlying metals well beyond their utility value. If you on the >> other hand make a basket of the most traded commodites reaching out >> to more than a third of the total economy you will solve the supply >> problem. > > Morten, you always have such interesting stories. > > Notice in your example, that this scheme relies on someone to agree > to a price of the raw material. Actually the reverse, but yes. That is how any non-fiat money works; perhaps you are so used to fiat money that you've forgotten (or never understood) how real money works? > If you fix the price of the raw material and supply or technology > changes the cost of the raw material something has to give. That is one of the reasons why precious metals are preferred: the cost of extracting them has been essentially unchanged over thousands of years of civilization. Also, precious metals are not "consumed" in any real sense, unlike various proposals to use oil, crops, etc. The world has the same amount of gold (and silver) as it did 10,000 years ago. The usual argument is that there's not enough gold (or silver) to go around, but one could just as easily base a currency on something much more common, e.g. copper or iron. Heck, you could even use water; that is more valuable than oil in many places. > If you then adjust the value of the raw material, you end up with > the same "fiat" nature in the currency. That is why the gold standard collapsed: politicians tinkered with the price of gold to allow themselves to inflate the money supply beyond the actual supply of gold backing it. 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 | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 14:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <n1iv8s$i0p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154097 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 06-Nov-15 09:17, Dan Espen wrote: >> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >>> It would be pretty simple to make a raw materials based currency. >>> Just take a basket of the 30 most traded raw materials and >>> securitise it. I have participated in a team that did this with a >>> stock market and made a foundation for a furtures and fowards >>> market. It is not rocket science. You can make papers that you can >>> exchange for delivery of so many liters of oil, so many bushels of >>> wheat etc, all of which have utilisation value in their own right. >>> >>> This is a practical alternative to metal standards. The problem >>> with those is that they use commodities that are a tiny bit of the >>> economy, and have a very limited supply, thus inflating the >>> underlying metals well beyond their utility value. If you on the >>> other hand make a basket of the most traded commodites reaching out >>> to more than a third of the total economy you will solve the supply >>> problem. >> >> Morten, you always have such interesting stories. >> >> Notice in your example, that this scheme relies on someone to agree >> to a price of the raw material. > > Actually the reverse, but yes. That is how any non-fiat money works; > perhaps you are so used to fiat money that you've forgotten (or never > understood) how real money works? Perhaps not. The opposite of fiat money is not real money. The opposite for fiat money is just another monetary scheme that won't work. I don't think I'll belabor the rest of your points. We won't get anywhere. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 13:42 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <da56o4F3ne2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154097 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n1irhi$2s8$1@dont-email.me... > On 06-Nov-15 09:17, Dan Espen wrote: >> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >>> It would be pretty simple to make a raw materials based currency. >>> Just take a basket of the 30 most traded raw materials and >>> securitise it. I have participated in a team that did this with a >>> stock market and made a foundation for a furtures and fowards >>> market. It is not rocket science. You can make papers that you can >>> exchange for delivery of so many liters of oil, so many bushels of >>> wheat etc, all of which have utilisation value in their own right. >>> >>> This is a practical alternative to metal standards. The problem >>> with those is that they use commodities that are a tiny bit of the >>> economy, and have a very limited supply, thus inflating the >>> underlying metals well beyond their utility value. If you on the >>> other hand make a basket of the most traded commodites reaching out >>> to more than a third of the total economy you will solve the supply >>> problem. >> >> Morten, you always have such interesting stories. >> >> Notice in your example, that this scheme relies on someone to agree >> to a price of the raw material. > > Actually the reverse, but yes. That is how any non-fiat money works; > perhaps you are so used to fiat money that you've forgotten (or never > understood) how real money works? > >> If you fix the price of the raw material and supply or technology >> changes the cost of the raw material something has to give. > > That is one of the reasons why precious metals are preferred: the cost > of extracting them has been essentially unchanged over thousands of > years of civilization. That is just plain wrong, most obviously with gold alone. > Also, precious metals are not "consumed" in any real sense, unlike > various proposals to use oil, crops, etc. The world has the same amount > of gold (and silver) as it did 10,000 years ago. > > The usual argument is that there's not enough gold (or silver) to go > around, but one could just as easily base a currency on something much > more common, e.g. copper or iron. But then it would be so common that it wouldn’t be a viable basis for any currency with something like iron. > Heck, you could even use water; No, because it's too hard to store in a way that doesn’t see it evaporate. > that is more valuable than oil in many places. Very few places in fact. >> If you then adjust the value of the raw material, you end up with >> the same "fiat" nature in the currency. > > That is why the gold standard collapsed: No, the real problem was that there wasn’t enough of it to provide enough money for viable economies. politicians tinkered with the > price of gold to allow themselves to inflate the money supply beyond the > actual supply of gold backing it. That isn't what happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 23:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: rationality |
| Message-ID | <da5grfF5sf9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154119 |
"John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> wrote in message news:da56o4F3ne2U1@mid.individual.net... >> Heck, you could even use water; >> that is more valuable than oil in many places. What kind of work do these people who pay $50 for a barrel of water do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 35 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 33 34 [35] 36 37 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web