Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #363808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-25 17:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 311 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
[ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-25 17:50 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-07-25 22:51 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-26 04:16 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-26 09:36 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-26 13:02 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-26 14:32 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-07-26 16:38 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-26 17:37 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-26 19:52 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-27 05:29 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-30 14:30 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-07-26 19:28 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-26 19:54 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:15 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-26 08:24 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:36 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 06:58 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:16 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:13 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-07-26 09:41 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-07-26 10:00 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 13:44 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 07:00 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:11 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 06:59 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:12 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:39 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 11:50 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-26 18:54 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 13:29 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:19 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:15 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-26 13:10 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:20 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:21 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 07:03 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:14 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 18:50 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 08:46 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 09:33 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 10:06 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 10:34 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "1 eyed chicken" <chicken@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 18:07 +0200
It seems you need to see a doctor for your burned butt. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-07-27 22:12 -0600
Re: It seems you need to see a doctor for your burned butt. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-28 03:52 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:06 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 07:23 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-29 08:41 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-07-29 11:31 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 13:48 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-07-30 04:26 -0700
OH? Remember when you were showing your imaginary degree? You inadvertently took a pic of your dark pink shoes. LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-07-29 11:30 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:33 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 09:22 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-02 08:31 -0700
Speaking of chicken shits... did you preen your feathers yet today? LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-02 10:55 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:13 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 06:45 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-04 06:02 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 19:03 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 12:10 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 12:17 -0500
Still suffering from PMS? Try sucking on the end of a shotgun. That'll cure PMS. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-04 11:30 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 20:30 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-05 13:20 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-04 13:35 -0700
We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-04 19:25 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-05 13:22 -0600
Re: Income inequality is _not_ a problem, never ever. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-05 19:20 -0700
Re: Income inequality is _not_ a problem, never ever. Old Friend <old.friend@cheerful.com> - 2016-08-06 09:22 -0400
Re: Income inequality is _not_ a problem, never ever. John Taylor <taylorjohng@europe.com> - 2016-08-06 13:54 +0000
Re: Income inequality is _not_ a problem, never ever. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-06 10:31 -0700
Income inequality is _not_ a problem, never ever. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-05 19:34 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:21 -0700
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-05 13:21 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 17:22 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-08 16:16 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 20:06 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-09 03:42 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:21 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-09 09:48 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:18 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 11:03 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 13:55 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-12 15:07 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 15:58 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 15:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 17:20 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 18:24 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 18:30 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 18:55 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 19:27 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:18 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 20:44 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 21:50 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-13 04:19 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 07:01 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:54 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 20:21 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 21:13 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-13 04:19 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:24 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:27 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-12 20:02 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-13 04:19 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:56 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:18 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:20 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:23 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:38 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-13 19:26 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 19:42 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-14 05:06 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 09:45 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-14 10:08 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:09 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-14 16:30 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 17:05 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 17:14 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 17:31 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 20:38 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-14 17:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 21:06 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-14 18:15 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 18:18 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 21:28 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-14 18:41 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 18:56 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 22:30 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-14 19:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 20:23 -0700
Re: DooFu$ is a diabetic, fat, spoiled brat. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-15 11:44 +0100
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-15 09:07 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 07:57 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 05:19 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:21 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 07:24 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:30 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 07:44 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:54 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 07:58 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:12 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 08:34 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:04 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. John Taylor <taylorjohng@europe.com> - 2016-08-15 16:30 +0000
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 09:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 09:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 09:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:02 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 10:06 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:11 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 14:32 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 12:09 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:52 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 14:49 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 13:08 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:48 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 17:08 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-15 21:28 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 18:39 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:41 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 07:54 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 08:16 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 21:58 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 21:53 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 18:56 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:49 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 19:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:55 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 20:00 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 23:01 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 07:16 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-16 07:08 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:19 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-16 15:06 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:28 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 08:09 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 13:30 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:05 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:05 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 08:53 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:15 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 11:26 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 21:48 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 21:18 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 12:42 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:00 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-16 13:48 +0100
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 08:13 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:23 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 08:46 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 11:02 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:07 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:07 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 13:39 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 14:07 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 21:12 +0000
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 14:22 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 14:37 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 14:56 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-16 14:30 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 14:53 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-16 22:17 +0100
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 14:33 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-16 14:22 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:40 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-16 05:01 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:10 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:09 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 21:57 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-17 11:51 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:24 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:23 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 12:07 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-17 23:48 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 15:01 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-18 00:13 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 15:30 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 15:41 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-18 00:44 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 21:56 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 21:57 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-18 08:41 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 12:44 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-18 20:51 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 16:46 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 21:53 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 21:42 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 12:51 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-15 06:31 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:00 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 07:10 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:19 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 07:21 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 06:54 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 07:59 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-14 17:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-14 17:38 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 20:40 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-14 17:43 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 08:29 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-15 09:40 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 09:55 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 07:48 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:51 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 07:57 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 10:27 -0500
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-16 00:09 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-16 02:58 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:12 -0600
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 09:54 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 17:12 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-14 17:51 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 18:26 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:34 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-15 08:42 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:10 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-13 07:52 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:11 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-13 10:32 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-13 10:33 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:23 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:05 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-13 08:58 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:03 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 17:53 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. "Henry" <henry@alpha.org> - 2016-08-21 07:24 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 09:35 -0400
Re: Wives cost a _ton_ more; same for programmers. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:02 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-13 19:22 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 19:15 -0400
Re: Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 19:17 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-10 01:17 +0200
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-08-09 20:10 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 22:39 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-10 07:38 -0500
The ( SpinFree ) context. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-08-10 07:04 -0700
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 20:41 -0400
Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 20:56 -0400
Re: Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-11 21:12 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-04 19:40 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 19:46 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-05 13:23 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 19:52 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 18:52 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-04 11:31 -0600
Says the POS known as Turdv. Guffaw!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-04 11:29 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-06 11:54 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:05 -0400
Re: It seems you need to see a doctor for your burned butt. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-07-28 17:05 -0600
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 18:02 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-27 18:51 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 06:53 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:06 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-28 18:02 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:06 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-28 18:02 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-07-28 20:47 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 21:04 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 06:53 -0500
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-07-29 21:46 -0400
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-07-30 09:20 -0400
re: [ot] Bose QC 35 "KLH" <klh_man@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 18:42 +0200
Re: [ot] Bose QC 35 nhp.bus@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 04:01 -0700
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 07:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <9d10f3c7-c5f3-4c2a-9d69-c412c837f9c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365357 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:26:38 PM UTC-6, DFS wrote: > On 8/13/2016 9:38 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > You agree with hh's suggestion that people who create FOSS aren't putting bread on their tables? > > > He's right, in general. But he can't prove it. > Maybe tiny numbers of FOSS developers make > money writing code, but it's not many. For instance, MongoDB only > provides source for it's 'Community Server' product. They can't survive > on that - most of their products are commercial and closed-source. They use a different business model. So what? I pointed to them to show there are billion dollar companies growing from FOSS, (some of them very quickly). Elsewhere... all over the landscape, in fact... people who are deserving of the title and who *want* to make a living 'creating' FOSS are doing so. > The few FOSS companies out there make money by supporting the code, not > by selling it. Who cares how? The real issue here is how you define the word "create". When someone "modifies" code, they are 'creating' something that didn't previously exist for their own specific purpose. Writing code is iterative, that you achieved a specific end goal that didn't previously exist and was brought about by a subsequent iteration is the point. It's very similar to music 'creation' in certain ways. Here's another question to ask in this conversation, one that is more pertinent: How many people who began as CS students earn a living writing code? Is the number 100%? Of course not, it's somewhere in between 0 and 100, just like it is for people who don't have a degree. Is it larger for those with a degree? Possibly, but good luck finding data that actually supports it. Hugh can make unsubstantiated claims all day, just like I can... but I've at least shown some support for the point I took issue with about "negligible incentives". I don't buy that argument and that you haven't seen how open source contributions factor into the hiring process isn't relevant when it wasn't specifically asked for in an ad. Look around the net, you'll see lots of employers talking about it. Given what it provides it's way beyond ridiculous to believe they wouldn't want to see how you code, how up you are with modern tooling, how well you work collaboratively, how well you follow directions, etc. It's like there is a time warp here in COLA ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 08:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <nosdcp$d27$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #365384 |
On 8/14/2016 10:34 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:26:38 PM UTC-6, DFS wrote: >> On 8/13/2016 9:38 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> >>> You agree with hh's suggestion that people who create FOSS aren't >>> putting bread on their tables? >> >> >> He's right, in general. > > But he can't prove it. > >> Maybe tiny numbers of FOSS developers make money writing code, but >> it's not many. For instance, MongoDB only provides source for it's >> 'Community Server' product. They can't survive on that - most of >> their products are commercial and closed-source. > > They use a different business model. So what? I pointed to them to > show there are billion dollar companies growing from FOSS, (some of > them very quickly). Elsewhere... all over the landscape, in fact... > people who are deserving of the title and who *want* to make a living > 'creating' FOSS are doing so. > >> The few FOSS companies out there make money by supporting the code, >> not by selling it. > > Who cares how? The real issue here is how you define the word > "create". When someone "modifies" code, they are 'creating' > something that didn't previously exist for their own specific > purpose. Writing code is iterative, that you achieved a specific end > goal that didn't previously exist and was brought about by a > subsequent iteration is the point. It's very similar to music > 'creation' in certain ways. > > Here's another question to ask in this conversation, one that is more > pertinent: How many people who began as CS students earn a living > writing code? Is the number 100%? Of course not, it's somewhere in > between 0 and 100, just like it is for people who don't have a > degree. Is it larger for those with a degree? Possibly, but good luck > finding data that actually supports it. Hugh can make > unsubstantiated claims all day, just like I can... but I've at least > shown some support for the point I took issue with about "negligible > incentives". I don't buy that argument and that you haven't seen how > open source contributions factor into the hiring process isn't > relevant when it wasn't specifically asked for in an ad. Look around > the net, you'll see lots of employers talking about it. > > Given what it > provides it's way beyond ridiculous to believe they wouldn't want to > see how you code, how up you are with modern tooling, how well you > work collaboratively, how well you follow directions, etc. > > It's like there is a time warp here in COLA ;) It's more like you're huffing glue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <02169a6f-4ac9-4d42-87db-66147514eccb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365469 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:43:07 AM UTC-6, DFS wrote: > On 8/14/2016 10:34 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:26:38 PM UTC-6, DFS wrote: > >> On 8/13/2016 9:38 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> > >>> You agree with hh's suggestion that people who create FOSS aren't > >>> putting bread on their tables? > >> > >> > >> He's right, in general. > > > > But he can't prove it. > > > >> Maybe tiny numbers of FOSS developers make money writing code, but > >> it's not many. For instance, MongoDB only provides source for it's > >> 'Community Server' product. They can't survive on that - most of > >> their products are commercial and closed-source. > > > > They use a different business model. So what? I pointed to them to > > show there are billion dollar companies growing from FOSS, (some of > > them very quickly). Elsewhere... all over the landscape, in fact... > > people who are deserving of the title and who *want* to make a living > > 'creating' FOSS are doing so. > > > >> The few FOSS companies out there make money by supporting the code, > >> not by selling it. > > > > Who cares how? The real issue here is how you define the word > > "create". When someone "modifies" code, they are 'creating' > > something that didn't previously exist for their own specific > > purpose. Writing code is iterative, that you achieved a specific end > > goal that didn't previously exist and was brought about by a > > subsequent iteration is the point. It's very similar to music > > 'creation' in certain ways. > > > > Here's another question to ask in this conversation, one that is more > > pertinent: How many people who began as CS students earn a living > > writing code? Is the number 100%? Of course not, it's somewhere in > > between 0 and 100, just like it is for people who don't have a > > degree. Is it larger for those with a degree? Possibly, but good luck > > finding data that actually supports it. Hugh can make > > unsubstantiated claims all day, just like I can... but I've at least > > shown some support for the point I took issue with about "negligible > > incentives". I don't buy that argument and that you haven't seen how > > open source contributions factor into the hiring process isn't > > relevant when it wasn't specifically asked for in an ad. Look around > > the net, you'll see lots of employers talking about it. > > > > Given what it > > provides it's way beyond ridiculous to believe they wouldn't want to > > see how you code, how up you are with modern tooling, how well you > > work collaboratively, how well you follow directions, etc. > > > > It's like there is a time warp here in COLA ;) > > > It's more like you're huffing glue. LOL! It's only the white stuff and I never actually inhale ;) How is the Python stuff going? I really want to start messing with it but I got stuck trying to load pip on OS X and gave up. I've been working with Angular v2 and pokemon data (remember those cards I made awhile back?). As I'm not really a gamer I don't play it but it does have a large amount of data associated with it so it's useful to me. If you're interested in such things, this is the best API resource I've found: <https://pokeapi.co> Warning: It can be pretty slow, probably thanks to the Pokemon Go craze (talk about stupid sh*t!).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 07:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <a505db79-86e8-4af3-bdab-a15fd00626f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365319 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:18:59 AM UTC-4, flatfish+++ wrote: > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:56:06 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Incorrect: the question was what incentives there are for being involved in > >>> FOSS without it being one's paid job. That does not predicate an IT degree. > >>> ... > >>> Reminder: people aren't as stupid as you need them to be. > >>> ... > >>>>> Yet it still invariably requires resources ... so just where are they for this? > >>>> > >>>> Irrelevant. > >>> > >>> LOL. We're done here. > >> > >> Carroll is sounding a lot like snit these days. Particularly in how strongly the idea that an unemployed druggie can DIY bootstrap himself up with FOSS to get off of welfare is being promoted. Quite frankly, I'm not going to believe its really a plausible path until Snit gets a real IT job pulling in over $75K. > > LOL! Sure, Flatty ;) > > > > Hugh's problem is that he doesn't grasp the concepts of PaaS or SaaS. Oh, look: another distraction attempt and goal post move. So then, do try to make your point, "Steve", with the Linux software company that's copied Adobe's business model for Photoshop CC. You know, merely a PC consumer app that's I've mentioned as a case study just a few million times on COLA. /S > To hear him tell it, the companies involved in it aren't eating. Nice straw man you got there, Michael....er, "Steve". Too bad I've already pointed out repeatedly Enterprises can & do employ Linux in-house via a classical "Make or Buy" business decision. And I've also made it clear that programmers being paid in their job is not the incentives that I was asking about. > At least my head is up my own ass. > Your head is up snit's ass. > Ha! The fact remains that the Linux software business model for the PC market simply doesn't have all that much in terms of incentives for developers to try to compete with the current COTS products. The best that "Steve" has offered is that some people may find incentive in it being an aid to their CV.. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 08:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <6487029d-5d76-4934-9398-e3c5556f28ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365335 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 8:52:29 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:18:59 AM UTC-4, flatfish+++ wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:56:06 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: > > >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Incorrect: the question was what incentives there are for being involved in > > >>> FOSS without it being one's paid job. That does not predicate an IT degree. > > >>> ... > > >>> Reminder: people aren't as stupid as you need them to be. > > >>> ... > > >>>>> Yet it still invariably requires resources ... so just where are they for this? > > >>>> > > >>>> Irrelevant. > > >>> > > >>> LOL. We're done here. > > >> > > >> Carroll is sounding a lot like snit these days. > > Particularly in how strongly the idea that an unemployed druggie can DIY > bootstrap himself up with FOSS to get off of welfare is being promoted. > Quite frankly, I'm not going to believe its really a plausible path until > Snit gets a real IT job pulling in over $75K. > > > > LOL! Sure, Flatty ;) > > > > > > Hugh's problem is that he doesn't grasp the concepts of PaaS or SaaS. > > Oh, look: another distraction attempt and goal post move. LOL! Those things are the basis for eating while creating FOSS, fool (you know, your initial bitch?). > So then, do try to make your point, "Steve", with the Linux software > company that's copied Adobe's business model for Photoshop CC. Irrelevant. > You know, merely a PC consumer app that's I've mentioned as a case > study just a few million times on COLA. /S > > > To hear him tell it, the companies involved in it aren't eating. > > Nice straw man you got there, No straw man. You asked (yes, your initial point was a question) about how they eat... you've been schooled. > > At least my head is up my own ass. > > Your head is up snit's ass. > > Ha! > > The fact remains that the Linux software business model for the PC > market simply doesn't have all that much in terms of incentives for > developers to try to compete with the current COTS products. Yet, there are billion dollar companies arising based on FOSS. > The best that "Steve" has offered is that some people may find incentive > in it being an aid to their CV.. And eating... well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 10:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <D3D4A7AC.79326%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365335 |
On 8/13/16, 7:52 AM, in article a505db79-86e8-4af3-bdab-a15fd00626f3@googlegroups.com, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:18:59 AM UTC-4, flatfish+++ wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:56:06 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: >>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Incorrect: the question was what incentives there are for being involved >>>>> in >>>>> FOSS without it being one's paid job. That does not predicate an IT >>>>> degree. >>>>> ... >>>>> Reminder: people aren't as stupid as you need them to be. >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Yet it still invariably requires resources ... so just where are they >>>>>>> for this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> LOL. We're done here. >>>> >>>> Carroll is sounding a lot like snit these days. > > Particularly in how strongly the idea that an unemployed druggie can DIY > bootstrap himself up with FOSS to get off of welfare is being promoted. > Quite frankly, I'm not going to believe its really a plausible path until > Snit gets a real IT job pulling in over $75K. Ah, random insults... how classy! ... -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 10:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <D3D4A7EE.79327%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365314 |
On 8/13/16, 5:56 AM, in article 1ss6erfvr3svl$.o1b8y40u2t1a.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++" <flatfish4real@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The traditional approach doesn't address the origin point, which >>>>>> was how FOSS gets advanced when it isn't literally one's paid job. >>>>> >>>>> Lots of things in the world "advance" ... " when it isn't literally one's >>>>> paid job". Go figure. >>>> >>>> Yet it still invariably requires resources ... so just where are they for >>>> this? >>> >>> Irrelevant. >> >> LOL. We're done here. > > Carroll is sounding a lot like snit these days. Carroll *is* what he and many others who troll accuses me of... where I am not. This is why it is so very, very hard to find me lying 1/10th as much as anyone who accuses me of lying. With Carroll on any give day of his active posting you can find him lying more than you can find me lying in all the years I have been posting. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 06:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <44190f33-eacb-4273-a4ab-a1521c285490@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365311 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:19:33 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:51:14 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:02:45 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > How many programming jobs could you get 30 years ago without a degree? > > > > > > > > > > I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew > > > > > and/or worked with back then had never finished college. > > > > > > > > What you'd "say" or "knew" is quite irrelevant here, do you agree? > > > > > > No, because you specifically asked "... what [ I ] could get 30 years ago...", > > > > I see... > > And now that's not good enough for you, even though I also pointed out > that there just weren't that many programmers back then: Nah, even your low number from yesteryear will do for the purpose of providing an incentive. When it comes to topics like PaaS and SaaS, you know so little about modern tech that you don't realize how little you know. Google give away Angular... however do they eat? LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 08:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <1ec76061-a1a1-4abb-ac78-c8834b3e02a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365311 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:19:33 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:51:14 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:02:45 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > How many programming jobs could you get 30 years ago without a degree? > > > > > > > > > > I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew > > > > > and/or worked with back then had never finished college. > > > > > > > > What you'd "say" or "knew" is quite irrelevant here, do you agree? > > > > > > No, because you specifically asked "... what [ I ] could get 30 years ago...", > > > > I see... > > And now that's not good enough for you, even though I also pointed out > that there just weren't that many programmers back then: > > > > > > Historically, only ~0.1% of BA/BS graduates in 1980 Nationally > > > > > were CompSci (10K out of ~950K), as it was still a quite young > > > > > field: the first Comp Sci *department* didn't even exist until 1962. > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > Really? Just how, pray tell, can you have employees with IT degrees > > > before IT degrees effectively existed? > > Golly gee ... no response ... from a point supported with cited data. Why would I respond to your red herring, Snit? > > > Except for the inconvenient fact that the cornerstone of your claim > > > are these guys using FOSS in lieu of getting a [IT] degree. > > > > I meant: As we are specifically talking about programming and incentives > > to be involved in FOSS without having a degree, speaking about IT degrees > > isn't relevant. > > Incorrect: the question was what incentives there are for being involved in > FOSS without it being one's paid job. That does not predicate an IT degree. > > You raised the point that said involvement could have been done as an alternate > career development path in lieu of getting a traditional IT degree. I agreed, but > with the caveat that how significant this alternate path is (isn't) overall is a question. > > You provided some cites which you believed showed that it was significant, > but these same cites showed that 66% of interviewers don't pull that lever, Great... but that would still mean ~1/3 do! That's not an insignificant number no matter how you slice it. Even so, I missed this part so can you quote it? All I've seen is you saying: -- "In any case, it then cites this link: <http://business.stackoverflow.com/blog/dont-judge-a-developer-on-their-cv-alone-heres-why> Which says: "In fact, when asked what they want to see more of in interviews, 33% of developers said they wanted to see live code." Hint: when 33% do, it also means 66% do not. So right off the bat, two thirds of these interviewers claim that this factor isn't high on their list. In any case, it then continues, saying:" -- You appear to be conflating developers (who are being interviewed) with those conducting their interviews here. Even if you can point to such a data in the article, it still doesn't dismiss the significant ~33%. > Doesn't matter how many times you try to "drag" something back when it has > it failed to dispute the original point. It only failed for *you*. There are a *bunch* of articles that use the SO data you're dismissing. > > > > > > The context I'm addressing is that of incentive. > > > > > > > > > > Good & I'm still waiting for more substance than the one straw. > > > > > > > > You've been given them. > > > > > > Where they illustrated that said solo straw was very thin. > > > > That's your take, anyway. > > I gave you the opportunity to show that your incentive example wasn't > just essentially a hypothetical. And I gave you the opportunity to evidence your point, you finally admitted it couldn't be done (a thing I was already aware of). > Your first attempt at substantiating it > as significant had cites which failed to do so - - it actually supported > my doubt: 66% of interviewers don't look at candidate code, etc. But the rest do so I fail to see how it "supported" anything with respect to negligible incentives. That as many as 33% look is a pretty big incentive to get off that garbage truck. > > > > > > > Oh, I'm not pooh-poohing it at all: I'm simply pointing out > > > > > > > that the traditional approach isn't dead, > > > > > > > > > > > > Who said it was? > > > > > > > > > > The traditional approach doesn't address the origin point, which > > > > > was how FOSS gets advanced when it isn't literally one's paid job. > > > > > > > > Lots of things in the world "advance" ... " when it isn't literally one's paid job". Go figure. > > > > > > Yet it still invariably requires resources ... so just where are they for this? > > > > Irrelevant. > > LOL. We're done here. You were done before you got started, you finally admitted that ;) > > > > > That's why you offered the thin straw to grasp that DIY bootstrappers > > > > > can employ FOSS as a means to market themselves for a paid job. > > > > > > > > No thin straw, in fact, not a straw at all, it's a reality. These people > > > > (along with companies that pay degreed CSer's) are busy 'advancing' > > > > FOSS all day long, every day. > > > > > > But if that's the case, then where's the end products which kick ass over > > > commercial products like MS-Office, iTunes and Adobe Photoshop? > > > > How FOSS advances compare, or not, is completely irrelevant to the fact that they do occur. > > LOL. Yeah, comparisons utterly ignored by the other 98% of the PC market. > > > > Yes, they keep on falling short in the desktop arena...why? > > > > Irrelevant. > > LOL. Except that that's been the whole point all along: they suck because > there's inadequate incentives to make them not suck. Bull. That hasn't been the whole point all along, your point wasn't limited to the desktop. > > > The obvious > > > conclusion is a lack of resources, which boils back down to inadequate > > > incentives. Ye old cliché: you can't get blood from a stone. > > > > Again... irrelevant. > > LOL. Keep trying. > > > > > > > > > And to that end, I've duly acknowledged your point that > > > > > > > contributing to FOSS under the incentive of improving one's > > > > > > > CV as a job candidate is a valid point, even though it is > > > > > > > a quite small one: > > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck convincing anyone of that... it actually may be > > > > > > one of the *only* ones available to those without a degree. > > > > > > > > > > And those who go the degree route don't need this > > > > > > > > Irrelevant as they are not the target audience... > > > > > > Targeted audience ... for what? > > > > > > Is your audience those DIY'ers with less education, which make them > > > more susceptible in being suckered into writing for FOSS without > > > compensation, under the hopes that it may help their resume 33% > > > of the time such that they might get lucky and land an IT job? > > > > Of course. > > Then you've picked the wrong audience: the target audience was always > been the consumer of the software product, as that's what drives adoption. > > FOSS could have a billion developers, but when they don't have meaningful > incentives to make the FOSS products for the general PC consumer any better, > then they're never going to have a "better mousetrap" FOSS product which > will motivate the consumer to adopt their product. You're blind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 08:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <d055b3a8-cc53-4886-ac00-ae3067682b8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365336 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:19:33 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > FOSS could have a billion developers, but when they don't have meaningful > > incentives to make the FOSS products for the general PC consumer any better, > > then they're never going to have a "better mousetrap" FOSS product which > > will motivate the consumer to adopt their product. > > You're blind. And yet you can't produce the examples of those FOSS products which successfully compete in the marketplace with the likes of Adobe's. Why is that? Oh right: because I'm wrong. "Check". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 09:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <8ac950ad-2133-4524-af25-552c75c705e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365339 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:19:33 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > > > > FOSS could have a billion developers, but when they don't have meaningful > > > incentives to make the FOSS products for the general PC consumer any better, > > > then they're never going to have a "better mousetrap" FOSS product which > > > will motivate the consumer to adopt their product. > > > > You're blind. > > And yet you can't produce the examples of those FOSS products which > successfully compete in the marketplace with the likes of Adobe's. Why would I limit the discussion of FOSS to such niche products when FOSS is *so* much bigger than that? So you can pretend you've made a 'point'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 17:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <21a0786c-d66c-4840-89a6-2c47a62df338@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365295 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 9:02:45 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 10:27:04 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > How many programming jobs could you get 30 years ago without a degree? > > > > > > I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew > > > and/or worked with back then had never finished college. > > > > What you'd "say" or "knew" is quite irrelevant here, do you agree? > > No, because you specifically asked "... what [ I ] could get 30 years ago...", > which means you were soliciting personal experience. Why, then, did you answer the way you did? It's still up there but I'll quote it: "I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew and/or worked with back then had never finished college." You claim I was speaking about what *you* could "get"... yet, your reply referenced "20% of the full time working programmers...". What does this group have to do with *you*? Your answer here makes no sense. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to quote the thing from the article that you claimed multiple times about 66% of the interviewers don't ask for a open source contributions. From a pervious post of yours: -- In any case, it then cites this link: <http://business.stackoverflow.com/blog/dont-judge-a-developer-on-their-cv-alone-heres-why> Which says: "In fact, when asked what they want to see more of in interviews, 33% of developers said they wanted to see live code." Hint: when 33% do, it also means 66% do not. So right off the bat, two thirds of these interviewers claim that this factor isn't high on their list. In any case, it then continues, saying: " This can be done using “whiteboard programming”, which is where the candidate is given a problem to solve and asked to write an application to solve the problem on the board. This allows the candidate to explain their thought process while being evaluated by the hiring manager." <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/rDC92wlEiQ0/gE6pSs55BgAJ> -- I subsequently asked you to point me to the part of the article I cited that allegedly backed your repeated claim about the 66% of interviewers, etc. You'll se it directly above this statement of mine: "You appear to be conflating developers (who are being interviewed) with those conducting their interviews here. Even if you can point to such a data in the article, it still doesn't dismiss the significant ~33%. " <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/rDC92wlEiQ0/7bEYXBaqBgAJ> Look, if you're just trolling, at least man up and admit it. I realize you probably believe what you're pushing (despite your being unable to prove it) but I say this because it *looks* like your trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Henry" <henry@alpha.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 07:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <35b0fcdb7b311ea3fd209e7e50d3fcd6@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #365439 |
Steve Carroll writes: > -hh wrote: >>> I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew= =20 >>> and/or worked with back then had never finished college. =20 > >=20 >>> What you'd "say" or "knew" is quite irrelevant here, do you agree? >=20 > No, because you specifically asked "... what [ I ] could get 30 years ago= ...", >> which means you were soliciting personal experience. =20 > > Why, then, did you answer the way you did? It's still > up there but I'll quote it: > "I'd say easily 20% of the full time working programmers that I knew > and/or worked with back then had never finished college." > By the way, I'm still waiting for you to quote the thing from the article t= > hat you claimed multiple times about 66% of the interviewers don't ask for = > a open source contributions. From a pervious post of yours: Don't know or care what articles you guys are talking about. I have no idea what the statistics are but I do know exactly how we hire. I'm not going to argue, debate or to search for web articles. I'll just tell you how things work at a major software company that's very picky with hires and also a very desirable place to work. We look at what skills you have that we need. We don't care if your experience is with FOSS or commercial software. We're mainly interested in your skills and experience. FOSS isn't a negative or a positive. It's simply experience. It wouldn't matter if you learned programming at Stanford or from the back of a cereal box. If you're smart and can do the job then we want you. Many people have advanced graduate degrees from literally the top universities in the world. The guy sitting next to them doing the same job may be a high-school graduate. Demonstrate that you have the right skills and we're interested. Fitting in and getting along with the group is super important. A tight group can get a lot done. Can't define a personality fit but you know it when you see it. Working well with people is an absolute must. Zero interest in the worlds smartest a-hole. This is just my many years experience at one company in the programming world. This works very well for us and I don't ever see us changing our culture. - H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 09:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <npcao5$al6$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366157 |
On 8/21/2016 1:24 AM, Henry wrote: > Fitting in and getting along with the group is super important. A > tight group can get a lot done. Can't define a personality fit but > you know it when you see it. Working well with people is an absolute > must. +1000
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 12:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Wives cost a _ton_ more; same for programmers. |
| Message-ID | <57AA28A9.2077@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #364882 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > You don't have to pay an Asian programmer $5/hour, > plenty of Americans will do it for free. > > Are you looking for a hooker or a wife ? > Wives cost a _ton_ more; same for programmers. > Rape is free. A hooker cost ten bucks more.. A wife cost dinner ($40.00) a house ($500,000,00.00) and a car a littel brat (how much cost the brat?).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 19:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <nooa4g$3o2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #364874 |
On 8/8/2016 11:06 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > A fairly common hiring criteria in the last 10 years or so is based on > a developer showing their open source contributions. By doing so, > perspective employers can assess their work, see how they function in > a team and be confident that they're capable of using modern > tooling... in one fell swoop. perspective = prospective I don't think there's enough relevant open source out there for job seekers to use it as a reference... but I haven't been in the job market for a long time, so I don't have anything personal to refute this. What's your source/evidence for this claim? When I've reviewed job requirements, I don't ever recall seeing the words 'open source developer' or 'contributor to open source projects'. Note: I recently looked at a bunch of IT job listings at Google, IBM, Walmart, Amazon, Oracle, Netflix, Reddit, NASDAQ, and the London Stock Exchange. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/Xe7Un8SszVI/TQwzinRaAQAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <5tgjqb19cbh344b94agl83ecr8066vk8r2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364851 |
Michael J. Strickland wrote: >On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:03:52 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 19:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <bvokqbprnumgvplmuu512lqkk3qj5jmn0a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364885 |
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 06:51:14 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Michael J. Strickland wrote: > >>On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:03:52 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: > >*plonk* What does *plonk* mean? Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 19:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <q4epylpz2wcb$.q7p2mfoewdlw$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #364971 |
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:15:32 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 06:51:14 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >>Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:03:52 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: >> >>*plonk* > > What does *plonk* mean? > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------- > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > --------------------------------------------------- It's the mating call of a Linux "advocate". -- flatfish+++ Often imitated. Never duplicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 01:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: We're fat, spoiled brats. |
| Message-ID | <20160810011754.684fb54f@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #364971 |
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:15:32 -0400 Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 06:51:14 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >Michael J. Strickland wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:03:52 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> > >>wrote: > > > >*plonk* > > What does *plonk* mean? It means you entered his filter. chrisv does this every time someone replies to Jeff-Relf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web