Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #73031 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> - 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 19:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:42 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 09:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 04:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:16 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:51 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:54 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 08:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 08:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:36 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:49 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 08:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:02 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 15:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:30 +0000
PCI cards and cables "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 22:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-06 07:53 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 09:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 13:02 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 19:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 01:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-09 14:48 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:44 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:52 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:55 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 03:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:55 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:15 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 10:57 +0000
UFO [Was: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 13:25 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:07 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:50 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:04 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 21:09 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 18:35 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:04 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 04:09 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 00:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:02 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:29 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:02 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 06:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 00:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 13:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-11 10:25 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:00 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 00:38 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:35 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:22 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 15:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 13:06 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 17:24 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:08 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:34 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2025-09-07 15:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 16:48 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 14:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-07 11:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 05:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:01 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-02 18:58 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:38 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:06 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 03:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 05:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:52 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:36 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:33 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:03 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:37 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 15:16 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:21 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:44 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 17:24 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 21:23 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:53 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:19 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-06 19:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:41 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:39 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:43 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 07:29 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 19:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 09:44 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 04:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 03:32 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 07:06 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:37 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 21:46 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-12 17:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-12 10:05 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 20:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:18 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 05:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 18:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 07:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:32 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 05:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:13 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-14 08:48 +1000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 21:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 23:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 10:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 01:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 08:11 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:12 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 08:32 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 22:56 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:56 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-10 19:10 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 12:16 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 15:55 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 10:57 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 23:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:11 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:38 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:43 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 14:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 09:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 18:16 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:59 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:30 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:05 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 14:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:15 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-15 17:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:22 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-04 11:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-05 14:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-05 15:03 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 20:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:17 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:36 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:28 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 06:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 07:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 23:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:05 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Øyvind Røtvold <orotvold@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 09:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 07:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mihvveF993hU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73936 |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:32:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 12/09/2025 05:32, rbowman wrote: >> The book was written before Thatcher was born but he nailed her to a >> tee. > > So how come you know so much about Thatcher and the UK? Is it by reading > books *exactly like this*? > > Britain isn't what you think it is. Let's leave it there So you liked Reagan in drag? Fearsome lady' he probably should have said "May I?" before invading Grenada.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10a0i4s$39n3u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73943 |
On 12/09/2025 08:21, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:32:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2025 05:32, rbowman wrote:
>>> The book was written before Thatcher was born but he nailed her to a
>>> tee.
>>
>> So how come you know so much about Thatcher and the UK? Is it by reading
>> books *exactly like this*?
>>
>> Britain isn't what you think it is. Let's leave it there
>
> So you liked Reagan in drag? Fearsome lady' he probably should have said
> "May I?" before invading Grenada.
Liking doesn't come into it. I wasn't going to fuck her.
She did what had to be done, made a few mistakes, got a lot right.
Overall a good thing.
Reagan did surprisingly well for a pre dementia Hollywood cowboy.
--
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have
forgotten your aim."
George Santayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mijgkqFh503U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73944 |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:29:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 12/09/2025 08:21, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:32:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 12/09/2025 05:32, rbowman wrote: >>>> The book was written before Thatcher was born but he nailed her to a >>>> tee. >>> >>> So how come you know so much about Thatcher and the UK? Is it by >>> reading books *exactly like this*? >>> >>> Britain isn't what you think it is. Let's leave it there >> >> So you liked Reagan in drag? Fearsome lady' he probably should have >> said "May I?" before invading Grenada. > > Liking doesn't come into it. I wasn't going to fuck her. > > She did what had to be done, made a few mistakes, got a lot right. > Overall a good thing. Is Britain better off these days? I realize there was a lot of water over the dam after Thatcher. > Reagan did surprisingly well for a pre dementia Hollywood cowboy. Reagan had a unique quality for a politician -- he realized he wasn't expert in every field under the sun but could find people who were for the most part. He probably hated Volcker but Volcker made the tough choices. Sometimes he wasn't watching the hen house closely enough. I'm not sure how much he knew about Bush's little Iran-Contra project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 08:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10a35b0$7bv3$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73988 |
On 12/09/2025 22:11, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:29:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2025 08:21, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:32:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2025 05:32, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> The book was written before Thatcher was born but he nailed her to a
>>>>> tee.
>>>>
>>>> So how come you know so much about Thatcher and the UK? Is it by
>>>> reading books *exactly like this*?
>>>>
>>>> Britain isn't what you think it is. Let's leave it there
>>>
>>> So you liked Reagan in drag? Fearsome lady' he probably should have
>>> said "May I?" before invading Grenada.
>>
>> Liking doesn't come into it. I wasn't going to fuck her.
>>
>> She did what had to be done, made a few mistakes, got a lot right.
>> Overall a good thing.
>
> Is Britain better off these days? I realize there was a lot of water over
> the dam after Thatcher.
>
No. The globalist got control and destroyed most of what she did.
>
>> Reagan did surprisingly well for a pre dementia Hollywood cowboy.
>
> Reagan had a unique quality for a politician -- he realized he wasn't
> expert in every field under the sun but could find people who were for the
> most part. He probably hated Volcker but Volcker made the tough choices.
>
> Sometimes he wasn't watching the hen house closely enough. I'm not sure
> how much he knew about Bush's little Iran-Contra project.
>
Sounds about right.
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a4pmj$obcm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74010 |
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:09:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Is Britain better off these days? I realize there was a lot of water >> over the dam after Thatcher. >> > No. The globalist got control and destroyed most of what she did. She *was* a globalist, wasn’t she? Just like all the other free- marketeers, tearing down barriers to international trade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 02:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tsqcnaEczf8pXV71nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73910 |
On 9/11/25 6:27 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 10:59:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 11/09/2025 05:09, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>> And that was the problem with the '80s: moderation was removed. >>> "Nothing succeeds like excess." >> >> Yiou think the 1980s? > > Reaganomics (and its equivalent in other countries): “Greed is good”. Well ... "greed" is PRETTY good - highly motivational. > It had never quite been stated in such a bare-faced form before. Ronnie himself never said it - but the popular media/culture did. Want to get people to do huge/great/risky new things - then GREED is the best motivator. FUCK the hippie-dippies. They'll rarely do SHIT. Want weird 'art' ... then go hippie-dippy. Want REAL/significant stuff - DON'T go hippie-dippy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2OadnURSYZ3IC171nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73886 |
On 9/11/25 5:59 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/09/2025 05:09, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> I used to think that the good thing about capitalism was >> that it harnessed greed for the common good. No more... >> > That isn't technically capitalism. That is more a sort of corporatism. > > Were the original ARM developers motivated by greed? Hardly. > > But by the time an ARM chips is ensconced in 'shiny new thing make > everything better' it is absolutely greed. > > >>> Like with most things, TOO much can be TOO much - but >>> in sane moderation ...... >> And that was the problem with the '80s: moderation was removed. >> "Nothing succeeds like excess." > > Yiou think the 1980s? Hmm. > I'd say 1950s. > Before if you had money, it was hard earned and you didn't piss it away > on fripperies. > Post war people had more money than sense, and supplying them with every > means possible to spend it was a corporations dream. Well ... works OK, keeps most people happy most of the time. Or would you pref cold grey dismal USSR 'communism' ? Have fun standing in line half the day for your food ration .......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 07:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10a0eim$38b71$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73913 |
On 12/09/2025 04:41, c186282 wrote: >> Yiou think the 1980s? Hmm. >> I'd say 1950s. >> Before if you had money, it was hard earned and you didn't piss it >> away on fripperies. >> Post war people had more money than sense, and supplying them with >> every means possible to spend it was a corporations dream. > > > Well ... works OK, keeps most people happy most > of the time. > So long as you don't run out of land or other resources... > Or would you pref cold grey dismal USSR 'communism' ? > Have fun standing in line half the day for your > food ration ....... I remember food rationing. In the cold grey dismal post-war UK -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 06:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a0fje$38rtv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73935 |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:28:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I remember food rationing. In the cold grey dismal post-war UK As a result of having to fight a genocidal nutcase dictator who arose out of the chaos of a powerful country messed up by the determination of the empires of that same UK, and France, to ensure that no new competitor could arise to stand up to them ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 07:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mihvq7F993hU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73939 |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 06:46:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 07:28:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> I remember food rationing. In the cold grey dismal post-war UK > > As a result of having to fight a genocidal nutcase dictator who arose > out of the chaos of a powerful country messed up by the determination of > the empires of that same UK, and France, to ensure that no new > competitor could arise to stand up to them ... https://www.gingkoedizioni.it/the-starving-of-germany-in-1919/ Karma is a bitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109t4fu$25qlc$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73839 |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the > Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts > to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it has to be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 21:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <X6KdnTcMxqWAul_1nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73865 |
On 9/10/25 8:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. > > Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized > religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are > somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. > > Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it has to > be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. Yep, looks kind of the same everywhere. Seems to be "wired-in". Hmmm ... are religions just the inherent worship and deference to the alpha male with some human-level intelligence thrown in ? Gods the "uber-alpha" - intellectualizing the wired instinct ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109u6qt$2ga9g$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73871 |
On 11/09/2025 02:34, c186282 wrote: > On 9/10/25 8:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >>> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >> >> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized >> religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are >> somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. >> >> Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it has to >> be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. > > Yep, looks kind of the same everywhere. Seems > to be "wired-in". > Take enough psychedelics and its origins are writ large and clear. It's a parable about how the mind works > Hmmm ... are religions just the inherent worship > and deference to the alpha male with some human-level > intelligence thrown in ? Gods the "uber-alpha" - > intellectualizing the wired instinct ? Shamanism isn't worship of anything. Worship comes with political hierarchy. -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 23:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kSWdnXd_n-U3Cl71nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73888 |
On 9/11/25 6:04 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/09/2025 02:34, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/10/25 8:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >>> >>>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >>>> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >>> >>> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized >>> religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are >>> somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. >>> >>> Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it >>> has to >>> be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. >> >> Yep, looks kind of the same everywhere. Seems >> to be "wired-in". >> > Take enough psychedelics and its origins are writ large and clear. It's > a parable about how the mind works > >> Hmmm ... are religions just the inherent worship >> and deference to the alpha male with some human-level >> intelligence thrown in ? Gods the "uber-alpha" - >> intellectualizing the wired instinct ? > > Shamanism isn't worship of anything. Worship comes with political > hierarchy. Which, as I was suggesting, is "hard wired". The alpha/beta/delta/gamma thing is not at all unique to humans - you see it in maybe half the planet's species. My question is whether human IQ added a meta dimension to this instinct - a "beyond-alpha".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109uhhu$2k2op$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73871 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 9/10/25 8:18 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which >>> amounts to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >> >> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, >> organized religion which says that those who do not believe in your >> “true god” are somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. >> >> Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it >> has to be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every >> human culture. > > Yep, looks kind of the same everywhere. Seems to be "wired-in". > > Hmmm ... are religions just the inherent worship and deference to > the alpha male with some human-level intelligence thrown in ? Gods > the "uber-alpha" - intellectualizing the wired instinct ? "religions" are what occur when feeble human minds desperately need a way to explain otherwise random events as having some meaning. Most of the tribe wasn't killed by a random lightning strike, instead it was god that killed the tribe.... Plus, once "relegious leaders" realize that they can use "god" to control the behavior of others it rapidly grows into an entire set of rules for everyone to obey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 11:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <cufaplxl86.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73865 |
On 2025-09-11 02:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. > > Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized > religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are > somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. If it were only respect. Some think they don't deserve to be alive, and actively kill the others. > > Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it has to > be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109v0ml$2q5pi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73882 |
On 9/11/25 02:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-11 02:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >>> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >> >> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized >> religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are >> somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. Nescience leads directly to vaccine denial and resistance to medical advice. > > If it were only respect. Some think they don't deserve to be alive, and > actively kill the others. > >> >> Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it has to >> be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. Yes it does do that. But Ancestor Worship is there as well and most religions can be traced back to the Ancestral practicies. Possibly the best thing about modern religions is that they have given up the practice of human sacrifice. But the modern religions require the sacrifice of human critical thought, sexuality and a few other matters. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 04:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mihk6iF7e9pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73899 |
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 10:25:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > Nescience leads directly to vaccine denial and resistance to medical > advice. Fortunately my PCP's advice boils down to 'keep on doing whatever it is you're doing.' She's mandated to mention stuff during my Free Medicare Wellness Visit but the discussion goes along the lines of 'cardiologists think everybody should be on statins. Your cholesterol is excellent but if you really want me to I can prescribe them. No? Okay next question. Have you gotten a covid vaccine? No? Check. Moving right along...' She is not some sort of alternative practitioner but seems to have slept through 'Pill Pushing 101' in med school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 00:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vLucnQGXka9bPl71nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73899 |
On 9/11/25 1:25 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > > > On 9/11/25 02:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-09-11 02:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >>> >>>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >>>> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >>> >>> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized >>> religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” are >>> somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. > > Nescience leads directly to vaccine denial and resistance to > medical advice. "The Science" has become TOO "political" of late. This breeds resistance/denial. "The Science" used to be some stuffy stiff white-coats who were most concerned about maintaining a solid rep. That CHANGED - for the worse. NOW you have to be very concerned about partisan spin in every speck of "science". >> If it were only respect. Some think they don't deserve to be alive, >> and actively kill the others. >> >>> >>> Fun fact: if there is anything close to a “universal religion”, it >>> has to >>> be shamanism. It pops up in some form in just about every human culture. > > Yes it does do that. But Ancestor Worship is there as well and most > religions > can be traced back to the Ancestral practicies. Possibly the best > thing about modern > religions is that they have given up the practice of human sacrifice. > But the modern religions require the sacrifice of human critical > thought, > sexuality and a few other matters. Well ... nothing's perfect ....... My interest is in religions and similar being "intellectualizations" of pre-existing base evolutionary wiring. Oh, NOT sure "human sacrifice" is entirely part of the past world-wide. "IS"/"ISIS" liked to burn or high-drop "sinners" ... is that not "human sacrifice" ... offerings/demos to God/The-Gods ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-11 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109vial$2vup8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73882 |
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:04:44 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-11 02:18, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:44:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> Sadly this is where a lot of nescience and mysticism entered the >>> Ameican mind. The dawning of the Age of Acquarius etc. which amounts >>> to the totally unfounded superstition of astrology. >> >> Still, that kind of stuff is harmless, isn’t it. Unlike, say, organized >> religion which says that those who do not believe in your “true god” >> are somehow lesser beings not deserving of respect. > > If it were only respect. Some think they don't deserve to be alive, and > actively kill the others. Absolutely a slippery slope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web