Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 01:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:30 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:39 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 19:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-20 19:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:53 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 14:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:37 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:09 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:48 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:29 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:39 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:46 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:25 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 11:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:36 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:27 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:58 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 00:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 07:12 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 07:18 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:55 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366255 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me on >>> the defensive. >> >> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect liberals, >> but I never said anything about being cruel. > > As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your > nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as > you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put > others on the defensive when this is pointed out. > A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about me giving you what you want?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E06EA2.79CF7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366256 |
On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me on >>>> the defensive. >>> >>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect liberals, >>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >> >> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. > > A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not > consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about > me giving you what you want? Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of yours. This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right groups are controlled by their own fear. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366257 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me on >>>>> the defensive. >>>> >>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect liberals, >>>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >>> >>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. >> >> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not >> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about >> me giving you what you want? > > Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to > general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of > yours. This is what conservatives tend to do Epic self-nuke. LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E07C44.79D0A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366259 |
On 8/22/16, 9:00 AM, in article f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me >>>>>> on >>>>>> the defensive. >>>>> >>>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect >>>>> liberals, >>>>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >>>> >>>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >>>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >>>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >>>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. >>> >>> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not >>> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about >>> me giving you what you want? >> >> Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to >> general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of yours. >> This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack >> people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done >> wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi >> Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right >> groups are controlled by their own fear. > > Epic self-nuke. LOL. You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not doing as you are. In other words you have given up on being honest. Assuming you ever cared at all. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjdadfu93.ag30i3@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366265 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 9:00 AM, in article f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the defensive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect >>>>>> liberals, >>>>>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >>>>> >>>>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >>>>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >>>>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >>>>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. >>>> >>>> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not >>>> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about >>>> me giving you what you want? >>> >>> Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to >>> general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of yours. >>> This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack >>> people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done >>> wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi >>> Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right >>> groups are controlled by their own fear. >> >> Epic self-nuke. LOL. > > You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not > doing as you are. > Nice Epic self-nuke. Again LOL. You just added text to my post. > In other words you have given up on being honest. Assuming you ever cared at > all. > More lies from Lyin Ted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E08339.79D12%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366268 |
On 8/22/16, 10:16 AM, in article fhjdadfu93.ag30i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 9:00 AM, in article f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the defensive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect >>>>>>> liberals, >>>>>>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >>>>>> >>>>>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >>>>>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >>>>>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >>>>>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. >>>>> >>>>> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not >>>>> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about >>>>> me giving you what you want? >>>> >>>> Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to >>>> general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of >>>> yours. >>>> This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack >>>> people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done >>>> wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi >>>> Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right >>>> groups are controlled by their own fear. >>> >>> Epic self-nuke. LOL. >> >> You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not >> doing as you are. >> > > Nice Epic self-nuke. Again LOL. You just added text to my post. > > >> In other words you have given up on being honest. Assuming you ever cared at >> all. >> > > More lies from Lyin Ted. > More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at all. But you have shown you piss on the rule of law based on people merely disagreeing with you -- the the level of calling for murder. To try to defend this horrific view of yours you group all liberals as being violent, which is, literally, insane. Meanwhile the slogan of a major conservative group in the US is "Stand and Fight." This shows the violent tendency... but even that does not suggest ALL conservatives push fights, nor would it excuse calls for violence against them. Your call for violence WAS a self-nuke. Absolutely. You claim others are violent so you call for violence. Insane. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366269 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 10:16 AM, in article fhjdadfu93.ag30i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian > W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 9:00 AM, in article f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the defensive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect >>>>>>>> liberals, >>>>>>>> but I never said anything about being cruel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your >>>>>>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as >>>>>>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put >>>>>>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out. >>>>>> >>>>>> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not >>>>>> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about >>>>>> me giving you what you want? >>>>> >>>>> Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to >>>>> general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of >>>>> yours. >>>>> This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack >>>>> people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done >>>>> wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi >>>>> Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right >>>>> groups are controlled by their own fear. >>>> >>>> Epic self-nuke. LOL. >>> >>> You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not >>> doing as you are. >>> >> >> Nice Epic self-nuke. Again LOL. You just added text to my post. >> >> >>> In other words you have given up on being honest. Assuming you ever cared at >>> all. >>> >> >> More lies from Lyin Ted. >> > More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at > all. Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. That's not only a self-nuke, but it is extremely dishonest. Par for the course with you though. Right, Lyin Ted?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E08803.79D16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366270 |
On 8/22/16, 10:36 AM, in article hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: ... >>> More lies from Lyin Ted. >>> >> More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at >> all. > > Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by > "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. I added BACK what you snipped! I returned context... you know, the think you removed as you lied about me self-nuking and tried to turn your BS into a meta-debate and insults and accusations. ANYTHING you can do to move goal posts. So what are you trying to change the the topic from? You have shown you piss on the rule of law based on people merely disagreeing with you -- the the level of calling for murder. To try to defend this horrific view of yours you group all liberals as being violent, which is, literally, insane. Meanwhile the slogan of a major conservative group in the US is "Stand and Fight." This shows the violent tendency... but even that does not suggest ALL conservatives push fights, nor would it excuse calls for violence against them. Your call for violence WAS a self-nuke. Absolutely. You claim others are violent so you call for violence. Insane. Why don't you just do the right thing and admit your call for violence was completely and utterly misguided? > That's not only a self-nuke, but it is extremely dishonest. Par for the > course with you though. Right, Lyin Ted? -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjvioaa.efu@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366271 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 10:36 AM, in article hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid, "Octavian > W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>> More lies from Lyin Ted. >>>> >>> More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at >>> all. >> >> Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by >> "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. > > I added BACK what you snipped! The way to do that is to say, "Hey, you snipped this:" And then quote it yourself. What you did was insert it into the section of my post where I quoted the post I was replying to, as if to imply that that reinserted text was part of what I was replying to. That is extremely dishonest and is definitely a self-nuke in a post where you are whining about a post-edit. Watch my next post to see an example of this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E08A37.79D1B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366272 |
On 8/22/16, 10:50 AM, in article fhjvioaa.efu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 10:36 AM, in article hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid, "Octavian >> W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> More lies from Lyin Ted. >>>>> >>>> More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at >>>> all. >>> >>> Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by >>> "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. >> >> I added BACK what you snipped! > > The way to do that is to say, "Hey, you snipped this:" And then quote > it yourself. What you did was insert it into the section of my post > where I quoted the post I was replying to, as if to imply that that > reinserted text was part of what I was replying to. That is extremely > dishonest and is definitely a self-nuke in a post where you are whining > about a post-edit. > > Watch my next post to see an example of this. > I noted your dishonest snipping of context and returned it, only to have you focus on THAT and not on the actual topic. ANYTHING you can do to move goal posts. So what are you trying to change the the topic from? You have shown you piss on the rule of law based on people merely disagreeing with you -- the the level of calling for murder. To try to defend this horrific view of yours you group all liberals as being violent, which is, literally, insane. Meanwhile the slogan of a major conservative group in the US is "Stand and Fight." This shows the violent tendency... but even that does not suggest ALL conservatives push fights, nor would it excuse calls for violence against them. Your call for violence WAS a self-nuke. Absolutely. You claim others are violent so you call for violence. Insane. Why don't you just do the right thing and admit your call for violence was completely and utterly misguided? -- * 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 | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npmohl$jrb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366272 |
On 2016-08-22 1:50 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 10:36 AM, in article hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid, "Octavian >> W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> More lies from Lyin Ted. >>>>> >>>> More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at >>>> all. >>> >>> Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by >>> "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. >> >> I added BACK what you snipped! > > The way to do that is to say, "Hey, you snipped this:" And then quote > it yourself. What you did was insert it into the section of my post > where I quoted the post I was replying to, as if to imply that that > reinserted text was part of what I was replying to. That is extremely > dishonest and is definitely a self-nuke in a post where you are whining > about a post-edit. > > Watch my next post to see an example of this. I have to say that you have a lot of patience to deal with him in the manner that you do. While I truly believe that Snit and I would be good friends if we saw each other in real life, he is quite exhausting here. I came back today and already had to filter him not because he's a bad person but because he just posts so damned much and nitpicks on the most inconsequential of things. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E469A3.7A12C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366641 |
On 8/25/16, 5:32 AM, in article npmohl$jrb$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2016-08-22 1:50 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 10:36 AM, in article hgjdue97trqt.juag@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>> W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> More lies from Lyin Ted. >>>>>> >>>>> More of you working to turn things around. No self-nuke on my part. Not at >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. In the same post where you whine about me editing your post by >>>> "snipping", you edited my post by *adding* text to it. >>> >>> I added BACK what you snipped! >> >> The way to do that is to say, "Hey, you snipped this:" And then quote >> it yourself. What you did was insert it into the section of my post >> where I quoted the post I was replying to, as if to imply that that >> reinserted text was part of what I was replying to. That is extremely >> dishonest and is definitely a self-nuke in a post where you are whining >> about a post-edit. >> >> Watch my next post to see an example of this. > > I have to say that you have a lot of patience to deal with him in the > manner that you do. While I truly believe that Snit and I would be good > friends if we saw each other in real life, he is quite exhausting here. > I came back today and already had to filter him not because he's a bad > person but because he just posts so damned much and nitpicks on the most > inconsequential of things. > I do not think it is a nitpick to note that Owl is calling me a racist but cannot quite ANY example of it, nor that Owl is saying that a support for equality (which is all I backed) showed racism against him. He has repeatedly demonstrated how he feels entitled to privileges others do not have -- and he does so as he whines about how he is the victim of "reverse racism." But, sure, the "debate" is going nowhere... to me it is just interesting to see Owl crumble. And he is. Maybe that does not speak well of me. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgia030.agedgru43@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366265 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/16, 9:00 AM, in article f83arawor.ki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/16, 8:51 AM, in article hgvbmd.lo9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/22/16, 8:14 AM, in article ghjdsv.bmjd82@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of facing that reality you try to turn things around and put me
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the defensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laws are for humans. I suppose animal cruelty laws might protect
>>>>>> liberals,
>>>>>> but I never said anything about being cruel.
>>>>>
>>>>> As noted: you have no respect for the rule of law and try to excuse your
>>>>> nonsense in the most absurd ways possible. You piss on the rule of law as
>>>>> you claim to care about it. Then you work to turn things around and put
>>>>> others on the defensive when this is pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> A multitude of videos will show that you liberals yourselves do not
>>>> consider the rule of law to apply to you, so why are you whining about
>>>> me giving you what you want?
>>>
>>> Ah, and when faced with your tendency to generalize specific situations to
>>> general classes of people you double down on this irrational stance of yours.
>>> This is what conservatives tend to do -- look at how many (not all!) attack
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> people of other religions because SOME people of that religion have done
>>> wrong. In the US it is generally Muslims which are the target, in Nazi
>>> Germany it was the Jews. Same story told over and over and over. Far right
>>> groups are controlled by their own fear.
>>
>> Epic self-nuke. LOL.
>
> You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not
> doing as you are.
>
What the hell are you talking about, liar. The "not all" is right
there. Just look up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E08B68.79D1E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366273 |
On 8/22/16, 10:52 AM, in article hgia030.agedgru43@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> Epic self-nuke. LOL. >> >> You dishonestly snipped out my "not all!" and then pretended you are not >> doing as you are. >> > > What the hell are you talking about, liar. The "not all" is right > there. Just look up. I am noting your actions: your dishonest snipping of context and returned it, only to have you focus on THAT and other attempts to put me on the defensive and not on the actual topic. ANYTHING you can do to move goal posts. So what are you trying to change the the topic from? You have shown you piss on the rule of law based on people merely disagreeing with you -- the the level of calling for murder. To try to defend this horrific view of yours you group all liberals as being violent, which is, literally, insane. Meanwhile the slogan of a major conservative group in the US is "Stand and Fight." This shows the violent tendency... but even that does not suggest ALL conservatives push fights, nor would it excuse calls for violence against them. Your call for violence WAS a self-nuke. Absolutely. You claim others are violent so you call for violence. Insane. Why don't you just do the right thing and admit your call for violence was completely and utterly misguided? -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdsiv938.yfa@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366168 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:29:20 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Octavian wrote: >> >> -hh wrote: > > >> > It's obvious that you have too many travel options to choose from and >> > not enough resources and you're living that which you derided. Ironic. >> >> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because he >> cannot afford a 911. > > Oh, look, a lame lash-out. > "Oh look, a soccer mom." That's what other people at the stoplight say when you pull up in that thing. I'm just calling it like I see it. A smart douchebag wannabe would have searched around a bit and found that he could get a fairly recent 911 for about the same price as a new Macan. Hell, you could do that and still have 15k or so left over for repairs. Then you might be turning heads instead of noses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b53e598-112b-4ebc-ad14-798b792524ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365922 |
Snit wrote: > "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > Snit wrote: > >> > >> People have done similar experiments where they try to > >> hand out $100 bills. Many people do not take them - either > >> thinking in terms of trickery or WANTING to actually > >> earn what they get. > > > > But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, > > and a fear of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. > > I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... > without doing research I assume a lot more. :) And yet even though their worth relative to the $1K was pointed out previously as a gap (& risk), Octavian still chose to avoid making an unambiguous declaration of their worth. But even if he had done so, there's still other variable factors present. For example, the Diamond industry is known to be a monopoly with price manipulations such that even if one had a bag supposedly worth $1500, the actual price you would get as an outsider to that monopoly could easily be much less; see the history of 'blood diamonds' for an example. And even if that's not a factor (eg, "no trickery at all"), there is still the relative worth of one's time. Starting with a baseline of 0 hours to just take the $1000 cash and the aforementioned bag of diamonds worth $1500, if it takes an average of 10 minutes to search a room for the bag, the average time until one finds the bag distributed randomly within 700 rooms would be (700/2)*(10/60) = 58.3 hours. At that point, the question then becomes if a reward of $500 for 58.3 hours of your time is worth bothering with. Simplistically, that works out to $8.57/hour, so if that's less than your current day job's pay, then its probably not an adequate ROI. Overall, it depends on one's personal situation & priorities, preexisting time commitments, etc. For example, even if the time was 10x faster such that one could be done in just 5.8 hours (= $86/hr), if that time block conflicts with picking up the kids from daycare, and no one else can cover that...then a responsible parent will be obligated to take the zero-time cash. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjg39ag.aji@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365933 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > Snit wrote: >> "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> > Snit wrote: >> >> >> >> People have done similar experiments where they try to >> >> hand out $100 bills. Many people do not take them - either >> >> thinking in terms of trickery or WANTING to actually >> >> earn what they get. >> > >> > But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, >> > and a fear of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >> >> I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... >> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) > > And yet even though their worth relative to the $1K was pointed > out previously as a gap (& risk), Octavian still chose to avoid > making an unambiguous declaration of their worth. > > But even if he had done so, there's still other variable factors > present. For example, the Diamond industry is known to be a > monopoly with price manipulations such that even if one had a > bag supposedly worth $1500, the actual price you would get as > an outsider to that monopoly could easily be much less; see > the history of 'blood diamonds' for an example. > A one gallon bag filled to bursting with master-cut flawless diamonds each with a minimum 5-carat weight and you estimate its value at $1500. *facepalm* Here's a 5-ct loose diamond: https://wonderjewelers.com/diamonds/fancy/2851020-5.00+carat+Baguette++color+VVS2+clarity+None+cut+GIA+2161002333+certified+loose+diamond?welcome=true&keyword=&gclid=COG2sODBy84CFcZbhgodrUcBYA <quote> REGULAR PRICE: $96,450.00 </quote> > And even if that's not a factor (eg, "no trickery at all"), > there is still the relative worth of one's time. Starting with > a baseline of 0 hours to just take the $1000 cash and the > aforementioned bag of diamonds worth $1500, if it takes an average > of 10 minutes to search a room for the bag, the average time > until one finds the bag distributed randomly within 700 rooms > would be (700/2)*(10/60) = 58.3 hours. > > At that point, the question then becomes if a reward of $500 > for 58.3 hours of your time is worth bothering with. Simplistically, > that works out to $8.57/hour, so if that's less than your current > day job's pay, then its probably not an adequate ROI. Overall, > it depends on one's personal situation & priorities, preexisting > time commitments, etc. For example, even if the time was 10x > faster such that one could be done in just 5.8 hours (= $86/hr), > if that time block conflicts with picking up the kids from daycare, > and no one else can cover that...then a responsible parent will > be obligated to take the zero-time cash. > We can make it a couple pallets of gold bars if you like, and throw in the forklift and armored car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB4450.798C5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365938 |
On 8/18/16, 10:44 AM, in article fhjg39ag.aji@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> Snit wrote: >>> "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> People have done similar experiments where they try to >>>>> hand out $100 bills. Many people do not take them - either >>>>> thinking in terms of trickery or WANTING to actually >>>>> earn what they get. >>>> >>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, >>>> and a fear of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>> >>> I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... >>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >> >> And yet even though their worth relative to the $1K was pointed >> out previously as a gap (& risk), Octavian still chose to avoid >> making an unambiguous declaration of their worth. >> >> But even if he had done so, there's still other variable factors >> present. For example, the Diamond industry is known to be a >> monopoly with price manipulations such that even if one had a >> bag supposedly worth $1500, the actual price you would get as >> an outsider to that monopoly could easily be much less; see >> the history of 'blood diamonds' for an example. >> > > A one gallon bag filled to bursting with master-cut flawless diamonds > each with a minimum 5-carat weight and you estimate its value at $1500. > *facepalm* Before you said natural. Now they are master cut. Your module is poorly written. Did you make it yourself? > Here's a 5-ct loose diamond: > https://wonderjewelers.com/diamonds/fancy/2851020-5.00+carat+Baguette++color+V > VS2+clarity+None+cut+GIA+2161002333+certified+loose+diamond?welcome=true&keywo > rd=&gclid=COG2sODBy84CFcZbhgodrUcBYA > <quote> > REGULAR PRICE: $96,450.00 > </quote> > > >> And even if that's not a factor (eg, "no trickery at all"), >> there is still the relative worth of one's time. Starting with >> a baseline of 0 hours to just take the $1000 cash and the >> aforementioned bag of diamonds worth $1500, if it takes an average >> of 10 minutes to search a room for the bag, the average time >> until one finds the bag distributed randomly within 700 rooms >> would be (700/2)*(10/60) = 58.3 hours. >> >> At that point, the question then becomes if a reward of $500 >> for 58.3 hours of your time is worth bothering with. Simplistically, >> that works out to $8.57/hour, so if that's less than your current >> day job's pay, then its probably not an adequate ROI. Overall, >> it depends on one's personal situation & priorities, preexisting >> time commitments, etc. For example, even if the time was 10x >> faster such that one could be done in just 5.8 hours (= $86/hr), >> if that time block conflicts with picking up the kids from daycare, >> and no one else can cover that...then a responsible parent will >> be obligated to take the zero-time cash. >> > > We can make it a couple pallets of gold bars if you like, and throw in > the forklift and armored car. Now THAT sounds like fun. I search the first room. Hopefully this works out better than your first attempt at writing this adventure. -- * 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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhakv93.pa@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365941 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/18/16, 10:44 AM, in article fhjg39ag.aji@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> Snit wrote: >>>> "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> People have done similar experiments where they try to >>>>>> hand out $100 bills. Many people do not take them - either >>>>>> thinking in terms of trickery or WANTING to actually >>>>>> earn what they get. >>>>> >>>>> But in this case, the "earning" would be searching the rooms, >>>>> and a fear of trickery would lead to taking the $1000 dollars. >>>> >>>> I assume the value is likely more than the $1000... >>>> without doing research I assume a lot more. :) >>> >>> And yet even though their worth relative to the $1K was pointed >>> out previously as a gap (& risk), Octavian still chose to avoid >>> making an unambiguous declaration of their worth. >>> >>> But even if he had done so, there's still other variable factors >>> present. For example, the Diamond industry is known to be a >>> monopoly with price manipulations such that even if one had a >>> bag supposedly worth $1500, the actual price you would get as >>> an outsider to that monopoly could easily be much less; see >>> the history of 'blood diamonds' for an example. >>> >> >> A one gallon bag filled to bursting with master-cut flawless diamonds >> each with a minimum 5-carat weight and you estimate its value at $1500. >> *facepalm* > > Before you said natural. Now they are master cut. Your module is poorly > written. Did you make it yourself? > They are natural, master-cut diamonds. Not man-made diamonds, master-cut diamonds. >> Here's a 5-ct loose diamond: >> https://wonderjewelers.com/diamonds/fancy/2851020-5.00+carat+Baguette++color+V >> VS2+clarity+None+cut+GIA+2161002333+certified+loose+diamond?welcome=true&keywo >> rd=&gclid=COG2sODBy84CFcZbhgodrUcBYA >> <quote> >> REGULAR PRICE: $96,450.00 >> </quote> >> >> >>> And even if that's not a factor (eg, "no trickery at all"), >>> there is still the relative worth of one's time. Starting with >>> a baseline of 0 hours to just take the $1000 cash and the >>> aforementioned bag of diamonds worth $1500, if it takes an average >>> of 10 minutes to search a room for the bag, the average time >>> until one finds the bag distributed randomly within 700 rooms >>> would be (700/2)*(10/60) = 58.3 hours. >>> >>> At that point, the question then becomes if a reward of $500 >>> for 58.3 hours of your time is worth bothering with. Simplistically, >>> that works out to $8.57/hour, so if that's less than your current >>> day job's pay, then its probably not an adequate ROI. Overall, >>> it depends on one's personal situation & priorities, preexisting >>> time commitments, etc. For example, even if the time was 10x >>> faster such that one could be done in just 5.8 hours (= $86/hr), >>> if that time block conflicts with picking up the kids from daycare, >>> and no one else can cover that...then a responsible parent will >>> be obligated to take the zero-time cash. >>> >> >> We can make it a couple pallets of gold bars if you like, and throw in >> the forklift and armored car. > > Now THAT sounds like fun. I search the first room. Hopefully this works out > better than your first attempt at writing this adventure. > > What did you find in the first room?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DB4C83.798CE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365942 |
On 8/18/16, 11:23 AM, in article fhakv93.pa@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: ... >>> A one gallon bag filled to bursting with master-cut flawless diamonds >>> each with a minimum 5-carat weight and you estimate its value at $1500. >>> *facepalm* >> >> Before you said natural. Now they are master cut. Your module is poorly >> written. Did you make it yourself? > > They are natural, master-cut diamonds. Not man-made diamonds, master-cut > diamonds. Oh, would have to look back in the thread but before I think you said otherwise. Whatever. You seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about the treasure but so far no time thinking of the dungeon itself. You have not even told me the result of my perception check in room 1! ... >>> We can make it a couple pallets of gold bars if you like, and throw in >>> the forklift and armored car. >> >> Now THAT sounds like fun. I search the first room. Hopefully this works out >> better than your first attempt at writing this adventure. >> >> > What did you find in the first room? The diamonds. Or gold. Or whatever. Done! -- * 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]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web