Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.sinclair > #1598 > unrolled thread

Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.sinclair

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk - 2012-11-16 15:59 -0800
    Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-11-21 08:43 +0000
      Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology Duncan Snowden <duncan_s@talktalk.net> - 2012-11-21 15:21 +0000
        Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology "Chris Young" <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> - 2012-11-21 19:01 +0000
          Usenet Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 12:13 +0700
            Re: Usenet "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-11-22 05:20 +0000
              Re: Usenet Andrew Owen <aowen10@mail.bbk.ac.uk> - 2012-11-22 09:49 +0000
                Re: Usenet SamTek <rogerjowett@gmail.com> - 2012-11-24 01:50 -0800
                  Re: Usenet jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2012-11-25 09:16 -0800
                    Re: Usenet SamTek <rogerjowett@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 08:23 -0800
                  Re: Usenet Wayne Weedon <wayne@fdos-design.com> - 2012-11-26 18:00 +0000
              Re: Usenet Wayne Weedon <wayne@fdos-design.com> - 2012-11-22 13:36 +0000
          Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology Duncan Snowden <duncan_s@talktalk.net> - 2012-11-22 11:23 +0000
        Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2012-11-21 23:05 +0000
        Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-11-22 05:18 +0000
          Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedetelo@ask.me> - 2012-11-22 08:10 +0100
        Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk - 2012-11-23 07:46 -0800
          Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2012-11-24 03:59 +0000
            Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology big-go@bluewin.ch (biggo) - 2012-12-02 18:22 +0100
              Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology deKay <andyk@lofi-gaming.org.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-04 09:29 +0000
                Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology korax1214@gmail.com - 2012-12-04 13:27 -0800
                  Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology hp <ferd@farkel.net> - 2012-12-07 13:27 -0500
    Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology SamTek <rogerjowett@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 08:20 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1598 — Re: Sir Clive Sinclair and the Church of Scientology

On Wednesday, 14 February 1996 08:00:00 UTC, ti...@lsl.co.uk  wrote:
> In article <4fsv9u$3nl@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u5a77@cc.keele.ac.uk (A Halliwell) writes:
> > Dharkhig (dharkhig@aol.com) wrote:
> > : In article <4fobk0$m0p@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > : manson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Manson) writes:
> > 
> > : >more than a bit saner than that of the Spectrum...and we won't even
> > : >mention the poor ZX80--"slow" and "fast" modes? Come on.)
> > : >	
> > 
> > : The ZX81 was the one with SLOW & FAST.
> > : The poor ZX80 was permanently stuck in FAST, so you couldn't write
> > : any games with moving graphics :(
> > 
> > I think someone *did* manage to write a GAME with a stable moving screen.
> > I don't know how he did it. He obviously bypassed the ROM routines.
> > --
> I think pause 1 would do it in basic (wait a frame while doing the screen?) -
> however there was very little you could do before having to pause again for 
> the next frame.
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the manufacturer who realises that they can produce a
> complete computer with just a few chips - a P166, memory and a buffer chip 
> should be able to produce a moderate resolution picture relatively cheaply; and
> then we could write all those neat routines to bugger around with the image in
> real time again.... things like sprites... 
> 

In 2012 there is a machine called the Raspberry PI. It can run a Sinclair Dialect Basic... ~~~~

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1603

Well that must have floored everyone, nobody knows what to say now!

Brian

-- 
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is  active
<usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:2198f8da-d139-4eb2-8bf8-fdd712f5f8b2@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, 14 February 1996 08:00:00 UTC, ti...@lsl.co.uk  wrote:
>> In article <4fsv9u$3nl@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u5a77@cc.keele.ac.uk (A 
>> Halliwell) writes:
>> > Dharkhig (dharkhig@aol.com) wrote:
>> > : In article <4fobk0$m0p@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> > : manson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Manson) writes:
>> >
>> > : >more than a bit saner than that of the Spectrum...and we won't even
>> > : >mention the poor ZX80--"slow" and "fast" modes? Come on.)
>> > : >
>> >
>> > : The ZX81 was the one with SLOW & FAST.
>> > : The poor ZX80 was permanently stuck in FAST, so you couldn't write
>> > : any games with moving graphics :(
>> >
>> > I think someone *did* manage to write a GAME with a stable moving 
>> > screen.
>> > I don't know how he did it. He obviously bypassed the ROM routines.
>> > --
>> I think pause 1 would do it in basic (wait a frame while doing the 
>> screen?) -
>> however there was very little you could do before having to pause again 
>> for
>> the next frame.
>>
>> Actually I am waiting for the manufacturer who realises that they can 
>> produce a
>> complete computer with just a few chips - a P166, memory and a buffer 
>> chip
>> should be able to produce a moderate resolution picture relatively 
>> cheaply; and
>> then we could write all those neat routines to bugger around with the 
>> image in
>> real time again.... things like sprites...
>>
>
> In 2012 there is a machine called the Raspberry PI. It can run a Sinclair 
> Dialect Basic... ~~~~
>
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1604

Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
started lurking in 1996.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:43:03 -0000
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Well that must have floored everyone, nobody knows what to say now!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1605

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:21:34 +0000 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were rappin'
to MC Duncan Snowden:

> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
> started lurking in 1996.

I didn't even have Internet access in 1996!

Chris


-- 
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
|  http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk  |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration              |
+- http://www.yoursinclair.co.uk -----------+

DISCLAIMER: I may be making all this stuff up again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1607 — Usenet

>>>>> Chris Young <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> writes:
>>>>> On 21 Nov 2012 da kidz rappin' to MC Duncan Snowden:

	[Cross-posting to news:news.misc.]

 >> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't
 >> even started lurking in 1996.

 > I didn't even have Internet access in 1996!

	Neither had I, but I personally knew those who had limited UUCP
	Usenet access at around that time, and had access to their
	archives, albeit for only a short time.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1609 — Re: Usenet

I was using Dos when I started. I seem to think it was around 92.
Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Ivan Shmakov" <oneingray@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:86r4nm6wz1.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net...
>>>>>> Chris Young <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 21 Nov 2012 da kidz rappin' to MC Duncan Snowden:
>
> [Cross-posting to news:news.misc.]
>
> >> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't
> >> even started lurking in 1996.
>
> > I didn't even have Internet access in 1996!
>
> Neither had I, but I personally knew those who had limited UUCP
> Usenet access at around that time, and had access to their
> archives, albeit for only a short time.
>
> -- 
> FSF associate member #7257 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1611 — Re: Usenet

I briefly had Internet access in 1994 while I was visiting LIU in New 
York. That was also my first introduction to VMS. It was another 5 years 
before I got dial-up at home.

On 22/11/2012 05:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I was using Dos when I started. I seem to think it was around 92.
> Brian
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1616 — Re: Usenet

On Thursday, 22 November 2012 09:49:07 UTC, Andrew Owen  wrote:
> I briefly had Internet access in 1994 while I was visiting LIU in New 
> 
> York. That was also my first introduction to VMS. It was another 5 years 
> 
> before I got dial-up at home.
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/11/2012 05:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
> 
> > I was using Dos when I started. I seem to think it was around 92.
> 
> > Brian
> 
> >

dialled prestel/micronet800 from ballykelly in 87! vtx5000 a pair now with mcg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1618 — Re: Usenet

I first accessed the Internet in 1987 at University via Janet, a bit
of off-site
email and reading info.cpm.

JGH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1679 — Re: Usenet

On Sunday, 25 November 2012 17:16:14 UTC, jgharston  wrote:
> I first accessed the Internet in 1987 at University via Janet, a bit
> 
> of off-site
> 
> email and reading info.cpm.
> 
> 
> 
> JGH

wasn't allowed to use janet in 89 on beebs on top floor of accommodation south woodford
still not allowed to sue computers in college-unless typing someone else's assignments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1620 — Re: Usenet

On 24/11/2012 09:50, SamTek wrote:

>>
>> On 22/11/2012 05:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> I was using Dos when I started. I seem to think it was around 92.
>>
>>> Brian
>>
>>>
>
> dialled prestel/micronet800 from ballykelly in 87! vtx5000 a pair now with mcg
>

Then you should know Brian was one of the crew who edited the Spectrum 
pages back in the Micronet days.

However in this instance he's talking about the Internet not Micronet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1613 — Re: Usenet

On 22/11/2012 05:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I was using Dos when I started. I seem to think it was around 92.
> Brian
>

KA9Q on demon.   Oh how things have changed!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1612

On 21 Nov 2012 19:01:19 +0000
"Chris Young" <chris.usenet@mail-filter.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:21:34 +0000 da kidz on comp.sys.sinclair were
> rappin' to MC Duncan Snowden:
> 
> > Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't
> > even started lurking in 1996.
> 
> I didn't even have Internet access in 1996!

Y'know, I don't think I did either. 1997, maybe. Or '98. I'm not sure.
Whenever it was, it really doesn't seem all that long ago, yet when my
broadband goes down it's like returning to the Dark Ages.

-- 
Duncan Snowden.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1606

Clearly I was around then (as I'm in that thread)... started in about
october '95 here. (I'm u5a77@keele.ac.uk in that)


And verily, didst Duncan Snowden <duncan_s@talktalk.net> hastily babble thusly:
> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
> started lurking in 1996.
> 
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:43:03 -0000
> "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Well that must have floored everyone, nobody knows what to say now!
> 

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1608

No its not a record, there are those who do this often. I do notice however 
that  according to Google  posts of this age and older  are optionally 
archived, shall we say.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Duncan Snowden" <duncan_s@talktalk.net> wrote in message 
news:20121121152134.6d6676e8@talktalk.net...
> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
> started lurking in 1996.
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:43:03 -0000
> "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well that must have floored everyone, nobody knows what to say now!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1610

Il 22/11/2012 06:18, Brian Gaff ha scritto:
> No its not a record, there are those who do this often. I do notice however
> that  according to Google  posts of this age and older  are optionally
> archived, shall we say.

yea, some years ago the very first USENET post gets a flood when was 
noticed in google groups.... and being an test post, the poor early 1980 
post became a major thread, with constant replies about the test being 
so successful that USENET still works well into 2000s (and perhaps also 
2010s ?) thanks and like.

I guess we have here a similiar incident......

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1614

On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 15:21:35 UTC, Duncan Snowden  wrote:
> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
> 
> started lurking in 1996.
> 

There is hyper-posting , micro-posting and now 'Necro-posting!'

Hmm... Wonder whose still here from 2002?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615

And verily, didst usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk hastily babble thusly:
> On Wednesday, 21 November 2012 15:21:35 UTC, Duncan Snowden  wrote:
>> Bumping a 16-year-old thread must be some kind of record. I hadn't even
>> 
>> started lurking in 1996.
>> 
> 
> There is hyper-posting , micro-posting and now 'Necro-posting!'
> 
> Hmm... Wonder whose still here from 2002?
> 

Most of the people in this thread for a start. 
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote:

> And verily, didst usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk hastily babble thusly:
> > Hmm... Wonder whose still here from 2002?
> 
> Most of the people in this thread for a start. 

I'm here from 2002. As in "I stopped posting here in 2002" .-D

-- 
| | |_|_|___ ___ ___  |  biggo.   Strattinare <mailto:big-go@bluewin.ch>
| | o | | o | o | o | |  Finche' c'e', c'e'<http://ilbiggo.blogspot.com>
| |___|_|_  |_  |___| | 
|        ___|___|     | *Audi famam illius

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1638

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, biggo wrote:

> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And verily, didst usenet@gfarlie-adsl.demon.co.uk hastily babble thusly:
>>> Hmm... Wonder whose still here from 2002?
>>
>> Most of the people in this thread for a start.
>
> I'm here from 2002. As in "I stopped posting here in 2002" .-D

I'm here from 1995 :)

Although I rarely post these days.

deKay
-- 
  Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
  Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
  Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
  My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.sinclair

csiph-web