Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50890 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-27 09:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-02-09 17:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 55 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-16 15:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-27 13:01 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 12:36 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 14:41 -0500
Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 19:58 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 15:05 -0500
Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 20:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-10-28 10:23 +1100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-29 10:09 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-27 19:57 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 13:20 -0700
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-27 14:04 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 16:10 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 14:35 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 16:39 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 01:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-27 22:10 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 21:59 -0500
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-27 20:37 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-27 21:16 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 17:38 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 18:59 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 00:28 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 22:03 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 00:49 -0400
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 19:01 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 02:59 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 00:50 -0700
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 04:16 -0400
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 22:03 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 12:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 17:34 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 00:49 -0400
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 19:04 +1300
Re: Newsreaders gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-27 19:18 -0700
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-27 20:34 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 03:48 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-27 21:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 16:57 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 16:04 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-27 23:24 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 12:41 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-28 15:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 05:28 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:55 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 17:01 -0700
Re: Newsreaders gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:21 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 10:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 19:24 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-27 23:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 20:09 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 00:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 13:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 09:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:09 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-29 09:53 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:27 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 04:50 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 22:01 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-10-30 12:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 13:27 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 08:56 +1300
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-11-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-29 09:56 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 01:26 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 21:04 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 02:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 22:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 03:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 17:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:17 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:16 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 13:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-27 20:30 -0500
Re: Newsreaders AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 11:02 -0400
Re: Newsreaders TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-10-27 21:07 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-27 21:29 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 00:48 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-28 16:01 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:31 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 08:57 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 05:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:22 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 13:29 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 01:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 18:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 01:33 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:37 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 19:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 07:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 04:07 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 09:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:24 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 21:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 16:28 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 13:33 +1300
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 21:43 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 09:31 +1300
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 08:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 19:36 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:29 +1300
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-10-30 16:44 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 23:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-28 21:37 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 14:17 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-28 22:20 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 23:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-28 21:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-28 22:41 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-29 00:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-10-29 10:10 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-29 08:36 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 05:00 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 22:01 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 13:14 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-30 13:42 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 14:49 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 09:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-30 22:32 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 07:00 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-31 13:56 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-31 19:19 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 21:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-31 17:37 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-31 23:00 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-31 18:36 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-01 01:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-01 10:39 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-02 10:00 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-01 16:43 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 11:02 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 16:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 10:41 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 17:09 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-31 11:02 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 21:34 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-31 15:13 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-01 10:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-31 15:14 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-01 14:08 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-01 01:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-01 19:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 21:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-10-31 19:06 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-30 07:45 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 14:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-30 15:05 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 09:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 09:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 13:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 09:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 23:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 13:18 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 07:09 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 20:51 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 09:29 +0100
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 22:07 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-10-31 12:07 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 11:17 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-31 11:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-31 16:12 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! billy@MIX.COM - 2013-10-31 16:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders =?UTF-8?Q?=21=C2=A1=21?= Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡!? Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 11:55 -0500
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-11-02 13:22 +1100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-02 05:41 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-11-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-11-02 16:25 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-02 10:58 -0500
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-02 16:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-02 20:49 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-02 22:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-02 13:21 -0500
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-02 19:31 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 11:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 12:12 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-02 16:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 12:47 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-02 22:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-02 23:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-02 23:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 19:27 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-03 03:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 23:43 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 21:03 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 07:33 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 18:16 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 13:28 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 14:54 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 21:19 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-04 12:20 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-03 08:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 04:39 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:49 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:02 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 19:13 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 03:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 00:53 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-03 08:14 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-08 16:28 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-09 04:13 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-10 08:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !�! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-11 09:02 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !�! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-11 00:52 -0800
Re: Newsreaders !�! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-11 00:56 -0800
Re: Re: Newsreaders !�! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-12 09:00 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !�! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 20:54 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !�! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-13 09:21 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !�! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !�! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 20:29 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !�! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-13 06:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-13 22:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !�! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 20:52 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !�! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-12 14:27 -0800
Re: Newsreaders !�! Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-12 17:04 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 05:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-13 06:45 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 10:15 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-14 10:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-14 12:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-15 07:38 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-15 11:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-13 22:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 12:41 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-14 10:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-14 10:02 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-11-17 20:00 -0500
Re: Newsreaders !?! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-17 17:14 -0800
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-11 22:37 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 13:50 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-13 03:59 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 19:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-13 22:37 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-12 21:47 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-13 16:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 10:37 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-14 09:24 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-14 17:23 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 13:18 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-15 06:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-15 22:34 -0600
Re: Newsreaders - not for €, Tim’s only Martin Trautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 05:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders - not for €, Tim’s only Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-16 11:07 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-17 08:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 19:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 00:15 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-17 13:36 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-13 22:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 12:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-14 02:59 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 21:11 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-14 11:49 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-14 02:03 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-14 17:30 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-15 05:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-15 18:23 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-15 22:36 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-15 11:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-15 17:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-15 18:03 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-15 18:23 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-15 18:34 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-15 21:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 04:15 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-16 04:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 13:47 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 00:45 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 04:19 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 04:48 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 07:55 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-16 17:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-15 12:21 -0800
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-15 14:32 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 00:47 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-15 14:30 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-15 13:26 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-15 22:09 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 00:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-16 01:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 03:57 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-16 07:59 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-16 01:54 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-16 20:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 10:21 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-16 04:17 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 14:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 02:09 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-16 20:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !?! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-17 12:09 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !?! David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2013-11-16 13:33 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !?! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 01:47 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-15 07:59 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-15 11:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-15 18:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-16 19:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 01:49 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-18 06:52 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-15 17:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-16 07:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-16 19:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-17 11:10 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-15 17:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-11-15 22:50 -0600
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 02:14 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-17 17:48 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 06:40 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-18 05:37 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-17 15:15 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 16:51 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-18 06:16 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-18 06:09 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 20:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¬°! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-18 09:27 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¬°! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-18 15:44 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¬°! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-17 18:02 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¬°! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-17 06:45 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 11:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 19:27 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 15:55 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 23:43 -0400
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 18:54 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-03 08:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-02 16:59 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-02 20:53 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !?! Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-02 14:02 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-02 21:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-02 21:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 11:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-03 00:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 01:55 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:07 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:23 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 01:07 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jim Gibson <JimSGibson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 18:31 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 15:55 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:10 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:50 -0700
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 15:55 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 16:12 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-03 03:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 05:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:13 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 01:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 15:55 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-11-03 03:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 05:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-03 18:54 +1300
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Matt <hfrarg@thelostplatypus.org.invalid> - 2013-11-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 16:37 -0800
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:05 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-04 02:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 01:05 +0000
Re: Newsreaders !¡! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-04 01:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-01 10:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 10:12 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-13 21:15 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-11-14 10:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 20:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-08 00:49 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-07 18:42 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:05 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-08 16:12 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 15:21 -0600
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-08 18:09 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 21:48 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 20:51 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-02-28 12:19 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-09 01:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 21:50 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-09 19:26 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 17:31 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-09 23:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 23:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-10 02:01 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-10 10:00 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 13:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-11 09:51 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 18:55 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-11 23:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-09 19:40 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 04:34 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-08 03:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-08 06:28 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-08 16:57 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 12:54 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-08 19:02 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Newsreaders dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-02-09 12:50 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-08 23:06 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 02:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-08 18:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-08 23:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-09 22:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-09 23:46 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 23:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-09 19:33 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-09 17:46 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 00:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-09 20:45 -0500
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-09 20:45 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-09 19:09 -0700
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-09 22:03 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-10 14:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 16:48 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-10 15:10 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 16:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-10 13:43 -0500
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-11 00:29 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-10 20:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders MartinC <noreply@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 20:05 +0100
Re: Newsreaders dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-02-14 12:20 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 18:40 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-13 23:45 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-14 17:16 +0100
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-14 12:11 -0500
Re: Newsreaders android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-09 09:50 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Newsreaders android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-09 09:53 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-09 10:22 +0100
Re: Newsreaders android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-09 10:27 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 15:24 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 19:21 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-09 11:22 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-09 22:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 23:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-09 19:37 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-10 09:59 -0500
Re: Newsreaders dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-02-11 06:40 +1100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 19:01 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 19:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-10 23:23 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-11 19:40 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-11 22:45 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 22:07 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-10 23:38 -0600
Re: Newsreaders dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-02-11 16:58 +1100
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-11 23:06 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 17:02 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-11 16:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-11 23:30 -0600
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-12 17:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-12 18:25 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-12 18:25 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-12 18:30 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-13 04:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-12 23:38 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-13 15:15 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-13 13:52 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 13:44 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 13:33 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-16 08:23 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 12:58 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-16 15:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-11 23:40 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-12 18:32 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-13 05:02 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 13:44 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 19:46 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-11 20:29 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-10 11:30 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 19:08 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-10 13:32 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 21:00 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-11 11:35 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-11 13:19 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 12:20 -0700
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-14 12:16 -0800
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-13 15:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 12:46 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-14 00:52 +0000
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-14 11:57 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-15 01:41 +0000
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-15 11:36 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-15 20:23 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-16 11:05 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-19 19:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-15 13:33 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-16 11:51 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-16 12:28 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-17 11:33 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-17 17:42 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-15 20:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-16 12:01 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-17 02:59 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-17 11:38 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-19 19:26 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-14 12:14 -0800
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-14 17:04 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-11 16:55 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-12 12:19 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 12:19 -0700
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-12 20:29 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 12:26 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-13 22:33 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 19:51 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 12:23 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 13:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-11 11:41 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-11 19:37 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-12 12:38 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-12 20:24 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 12:11 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-11 11:27 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-11 16:53 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-12 12:11 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 20:04 -0500
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 12:05 -0600
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 11:32 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Newsreaders + Thunderbird first impressions Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-16 12:18 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-10 12:41 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 19:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-10 21:55 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-11 11:58 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-11 19:47 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-12 02:05 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-12 18:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-12 11:39 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-12 19:02 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-13 11:31 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-13 19:11 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-14 00:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-02-14 11:32 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-14 17:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 19:10 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-25 09:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-25 21:08 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Michael Breslau <mbreslau@speakeasy.org> - 2014-02-26 08:03 -0800
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-26 20:12 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-09 17:41 -0700
Page 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-11 23:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfm0a1.umk.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56391 |
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:58:00 +1100, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote: > In article <slrnlfjdpu.shg.timmcn@sugaree.local>, > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> It was never a game I was able to find interesting. Those who do >> clearly find it fascinating and it is of course superb training for >> strategic thinking. > > What is the evidence for this - you did say "of course"? I did beg the question, didn't I? At the time of my writing it was an assumption on based on face validity: chess is a game of strategy with developmental levels of mastery as the player progresses in skill. From there I jumped to the conclusion that chess is a good activity for training players to think strategically. But does that really generalize? As chess players learn the game and become more successful against opponents, it seems fairly reasonable to say that their strategic thinking about chess improves. But does their strategic thinking about other situations also improve? Scrounging around the web looking for literature, I found research correlating learning chess skills with improved academic performance, e.g.: Smith, J. P. and Cage, B. N. (2000). The effects of chess instruction on the mathematics achievements of southern, rural, black secondary students. Research in the Schools, 7, 19-26. I did not find hard evidence linking chess skill development with more generalized strategic thinking, although I ran across a lot of opinion that this is indeed the case. Some of that opinion alluded to research findings to support this but did not actually provide the references. If I spent more time doing a literature search it's quite possible I could turn up some reasonably good science to support or disprove my notion, but frankly I am too lazy to pursue it. ;-) At this point I must retract the "of course" and will water that down with "may be." Although I cannot claim any such benefit in my case, since I can't even claim to have rudimentary chess skills. I tried to learn to play go a few years ago and was terrible at that. I think I am deficient in the urge to compete, in general, so games and sports based on winning and losing tend not to hold my interest. I used to like playing cribbage and backgammon quite a bit because of the element of more-or-less random chance creating situations requiring response as well as the actions of the other player. I prefer collaborative activities such as playing jazz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uZCdnVJZBbgUcmbPnZ2dnUVZ_skAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56425 |
On 2014.02.12, 00:06 , Tim McNamara wrote:
> Although I cannot claim any such benefit in my case, since I can't even
> claim to have rudimentary chess skills. I tried to learn to play go a
> few years ago and was terrible at that. I think I am deficient in the
> urge to compete, in general, so games and sports based on winning and
> losing tend not to hold my interest. I used to like playing cribbage
> and backgammon quite a bit because of the element of more-or-less random
> chance creating situations requiring response as well as the actions of
> the other player. I prefer collaborative activities such as playing
> jazz.
Playing music and games are both stimulating activities - they don't
suit everyone. Musicians often have strong math skills (formal or not).
I like chess, but not enough to become very proficient at it. I despise
most card games - though I enjoy Texas Hold 'em.
I would agree that specializing in one kind of game, such as chess,
might have narrower life application than someone who plays a lot of
different games, esp. those that involve strategy coupled to chance.
--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-11 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <blv1cnFdcj8U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56390 |
On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the > perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very funny. > In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. You can even > end up spelling "fish" as "photi." Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at your silly statements. You should try to know something about a topic before forming opinions about it. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-11 23:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfm1ni.umk.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56399 |
On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. You >> can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." > > Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at > your silly statements. You should try to know something about a topic > before forming opinions about it. Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ldgagu$ure$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56426 |
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. If you want a non-phonetic language, try Mandarin. Its writing system gives you no indication at all of how the word is pronounced. It tells you what the word is; you are expected to recognize it by means of having seen it before and remembering it, and/or piecing together the component parts of the symbol which will give you a clue as to what it may mean. All languages that use the Latin alphabet are phonetic, and that includes English. English may be rife with exceptions that break the phonetic rules, but that does not make it non-phonetic. Claiming so is nonsense. > The proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that > methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. When I was in grade 1 in 1980, the teaching methodology was all phonics, phonics, phonics. It worked for me; I became a very good reader very quickly. But it didn't work so well for others. By 1990, phonics had fallen out of favour and sight word recognition was the teaching trend of the day. It lifted up the kids who struggled under phonics but the kids who did do well with phonics started to fall behind, producing no net benefit. I remember my mother and my aunt (a teacher) having a fierce argument at that time about the methodology. Nowadays most teachers agree that a combination of phonics and sight word recognition in the right balance produces the best results. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bm1p4cFlfiU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56429 |
On 2014-02-12, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. > > If you want a non-phonetic language, try Mandarin. Its writing system > gives you no indication at all of how the word is pronounced. It tells > you what the word is; you are expected to recognize it by means of > having seen it before and remembering it, and/or piecing together the > component parts of the symbol which will give you a clue as to what it > may mean. > > All languages that use the Latin alphabet are phonetic, and that > includes English. English may be rife with exceptions that break the > phonetic rules, but that does not make it non-phonetic. Claiming so is > nonsense. > >> The proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that >> methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. > > When I was in grade 1 in 1980, the teaching methodology was all phonics, > phonics, phonics. It worked for me; I became a very good reader very > quickly. But it didn't work so well for others. By 1990, phonics had > fallen out of favour and sight word recognition was the teaching trend > of the day. It lifted up the kids who struggled under phonics but the > kids who did do well with phonics started to fall behind, producing no > net benefit. I remember my mother and my aunt (a teacher) having a > fierce argument at that time about the methodology. > > Nowadays most teachers agree that a combination of phonics and sight > word recognition in the right balance produces the best results. Yup. The world isn't black & white. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 18:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfo48l.10rb.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56432 |
On 12 Feb 2014 17:25:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-12, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: >> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. >> >> If you want a non-phonetic language, try Mandarin. Its writing system >> gives you no indication at all of how the word is pronounced. It >> tells you what the word is; you are expected to recognize it by means >> of having seen it before and remembering it, and/or piecing together >> the component parts of the symbol which will give you a clue as to >> what it may mean. >> >> All languages that use the Latin alphabet are phonetic, and that >> includes English. English may be rife with exceptions that break the >> phonetic rules, but that does not make it non-phonetic. Claiming so >> is nonsense. >> >>> The proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that >>> methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >> >> When I was in grade 1 in 1980, the teaching methodology was all >> phonics, phonics, phonics. It worked for me; I became a very good >> reader very quickly. But it didn't work so well for others. By 1990, >> phonics had fallen out of favour and sight word recognition was the >> teaching trend of the day. It lifted up the kids who struggled under >> phonics but the kids who did do well with phonics started to fall >> behind, producing no net benefit. I remember my mother and my aunt (a >> teacher) having a fierce argument at that time about the methodology. >> >> Nowadays most teachers agree that a combination of phonics and sight >> word recognition in the right balance produces the best results. > > Yup. The world isn't black & white. Thankfully.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 18:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfo471.10rb.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56429 |
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:20:30 +0000 (UTC), Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. > > If you want a non-phonetic language, try Mandarin. Its writing system > gives you no indication at all of how the word is pronounced. It tells > you what the word is; you are expected to recognize it by means of > having seen it before and remembering it, and/or piecing together the > component parts of the symbol which will give you a clue as to what it > may mean. > > All languages that use the Latin alphabet are phonetic, and that > includes English. English may be rife with exceptions that break the > phonetic rules, but that does not make it non-phonetic. Claiming so is > nonsense. It would have been better for me to have written that English is an imperfectly phonetic language. I stand corrected. Although "phonetics" remains an entertaining exception... ;-) >> The proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that >> methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. > > When I was in grade 1 in 1980, the teaching methodology was all > phonics, phonics, phonics. It worked for me; I became a very good > reader very quickly. But it didn't work so well for others. By 1990, > phonics had fallen out of favour and sight word recognition was the > teaching trend of the day. It lifted up the kids who struggled under > phonics but the kids who did do well with phonics started to fall > behind, producing no net benefit. I remember my mother and my aunt (a > teacher) having a fierce argument at that time about the methodology. First grade for me was in 1964. A round of phonics to teach reading swept through when I was in grade school. I found it silly at the time, since sight recognition reading came quite naturally to me. I am not sure why that was the case, other than that my parents taught me to read long before I entered kindergarten. I consistently read 1-2 grade levels above most of my classmates thanks to my parents. By college that distinction was much less pronounced, I noticed; I think that was due to different types of selection that occurred along the way. Many of my friends were more proficient readers than I by the time I was in graduate school. > Nowadays most teachers agree that a combination of phonics and sight > word recognition in the right balance produces the best results. Given the tendency of trends to sweep through education, often driven by political party agendas to try to bias students towards thinking in particular ways by the time they reach voting age, no doubt something else will come along eventually. There has a perennial argument that different people have different learning styles, but school policies tend to be "one size fits all" and inevitably leave some students behind while advancing others. That's not taking aptitude and intelligence into consideration, despite the importance of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bm1or0FlfiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56426 |
On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> >>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. You >>> can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >> >> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a topic >> before forming opinions about it. > > Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology are > not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of phonics > claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the opponents of > phonics claim that it doesn't. Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be a useful tool when combined with other methods. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 18:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfo4hq.10rb.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56430 |
On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>> >>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>> topic before forming opinions about it. >> >> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology >> are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of >> phonics claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the >> opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. > > Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be > a useful tool when combined with other methods. Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as I wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for some than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed since my last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being treated like an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 04:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bm30t7F8qe9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56469 |
On 2014-02-13, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>> >>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>>> topic before forming opinions about it. >>> >>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology >>> are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of >>> phonics claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the >>> opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >> >> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be >> a useful tool when combined with other methods. > > Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as I > wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different > learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for some > than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed since my > last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being treated like > an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics. I was taught using a combination of methods, and found phonics to be a natural fit along with all the others. Perhaps that's because I'm one of the lucky ones, or it could be the private school I attended had just the right mix. *shrug* -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 23:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfomi8.11ch.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56478 |
On 13 Feb 2014 04:44:24 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-13, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >> wrote: >>> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>>> >>>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>>>> topic before forming opinions about it. >>>> >>>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching >>>> methodology are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The >>>> proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that >>>> methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >>> >>> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can >>> be a useful tool when combined with other methods. >> >> Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as >> I wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different >> learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for >> some than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed >> since my last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being >> treated like an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics. > > I was taught using a combination of methods, and found phonics to be a > natural fit along with all the others. Perhaps that's because I'm one > of the lucky ones, or it could be the private school I attended had > just the right mix. *shrug* And there is no way to live your life again and try it a different way to see if that works better. There are times I wish I could do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfpoc2.1kub.g.kreme@oswin.local> |
| In reply to | #56469 |
In message <slrnlfo4hq.10rb.timmcn@sugaree.local> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>> >>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>>> topic before forming opinions about it. >>> >>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology >>> are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of >>> phonics claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the >>> opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >> >> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be >> a useful tool when combined with other methods. > Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as I > wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different > learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for some > than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed since my > last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being treated like > an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics. If you already knew how to read when you started school then any method designed to teach you to read would have felt like you were being treated like an idiot. -- No taxation without misrepresentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 13:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlfq8j0.12ns.timmcn@sugaree.local> |
| In reply to | #56490 |
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:15:22 +0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <slrnlfo4hq.10rb.timmcn@sugaree.local> > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >> wrote: >>> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>>> >>>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>>>> topic before forming opinions about it. >>>> >>>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching >>>> methodology are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The >>>> proponents of phonics claim the research clearly supports that >>>> methodology; the opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >>> >>> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can >>> be a useful tool when combined with other methods. > >> Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as >> I wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different >> learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for >> some than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed >> since my last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being >> treated like an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics. > > If you already knew how to read when you started school then any > method designed to teach you to read would have felt like you were > being treated like an idiot. That is a fair point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-16 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ido6ta-m0h2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #56490 |
On 2014-02-13, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > If you already knew how to read when you started school then any method > designed to teach you to read would have felt like you were being > treated like an idiot. I had a taste of that at university. My school had taken us quite a way beyond the standard syllabus and a lot of the ground covered early on in the courses was repetition for me. The better lecturers had seen this before and would throw in bits to maintain our interest while the others caught up. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-16 13:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lqn6ta-m0h2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #56469 |
On 2014-02-13, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2014 17:20:32 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. >>>>> You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>> >>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a >>>> topic before forming opinions about it. >>> >>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology >>> are not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of >>> phonics claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the >>> opponents of phonics claim that it doesn't. >> >> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be >> a useful tool when combined with other methods. > > Perhaps. I found it silly when it was imposed on me in the 1960s, as I > wrote in reply to Alan. However, different children have different > learning styles and perhaps the phonics approach works better for some > than for others. And perhaps the teaching method has changed since my > last exposure to it. I remember feeling like I was being treated like > an idiot during the lessons utilizing phonics. That last sentence strikes a chord with me. When I first came to Switzerland I bought various books on both High German and Swiss German. Most of those books insisted on using English phonetics throughout and it drove me completely nuts. I had done German at school and the pronunciation had stuck over the intervening years. The same books without the phonetics-in-English would have been fine. Something else kicks in here BTW. I have always found it difficult to learn a foreign language by sound alone, but give me the written version and I am cooking on gas. In contrast other folks I know can pick up a foreign language just by listening to it, no written aids required. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-16 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <160220140823177604%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #56588 |
In article <lqn6ta-m0h2.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > Something else kicks in here BTW. I have always found it difficult to > learn a foreign language by sound alone, but give me the written version > and I am cooking on gas. Have you tried that with Chinese? Or with Kanji in Japanese or Hanja in Korean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-16 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5ol6ta-f4d2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #56430 |
On 2014-02-12, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the
>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very
>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. You
>>>> can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi."
>>>
>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at
>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a topic
>>> before forming opinions about it.
>>
>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology are
>> not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of phonics
>> claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the opponents of
>> phonics claim that it doesn't.
>
> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be a
> useful tool when combined with other methods.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think that's the key. In my earlier post I was referring to folks who
were taught the phonic method exclusively and therefore had little or no
knowledge of the mainstream system.
--
Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-16 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bmc5ajF71g0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56587 |
On 2014-02-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-02-12, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-12, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> On 11 Feb 2014 16:28:07 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2014-02-11, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> English, of course, is not a phoenetic language. Which makes the >>>>> perennial movement to try to teach reading through "phonics" very >>>>> funny. In English you can't even spell "phonetic" phonetically. You >>>>> can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." >>>> >>>> Those of us who actually learned English phonetics are laughing at >>>> your silly statements. You should try to know something about a topic >>>> before forming opinions about it. >>> >>> Phonetics as a branch of study and phonics as a teaching methodology are >>> not identical; I was referring to the latter. The proponents of phonics >>> claim the research clearly supports that methodology; the opponents of >>> phonics claim that it doesn't. >> >> Seems like you have a black & white view on it though. Phonics can be a >> useful tool when combined with other methods. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I think that's the key. In my earlier post I was referring to folks who > were taught the phonic method exclusively and therefore had little or no > knowledge of the mainstream system. I haven't ever heard of anyone exclusively using that method. Do you know of anyone personally? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-11 23:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <110220142340389101%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #56390 |
In article <slrnlfjdpu.shg.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > You can even end up spelling "fish" as "photi." Or even "ghoti".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web