Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #626302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-27 08:12 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 775 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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.
Smokers are smarter, I say. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-01 16:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 00:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-04-01 20:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 20:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 14:02 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:53 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 09:36 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2017-04-03 11:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:32 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-03 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-03 13:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 14:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 10:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-03 14:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 11:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 09:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 09:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-04 10:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 10:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 00:09 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-03 18:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-04 01:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-08 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 20:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 16:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 15:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 11:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-13 14:31 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 20:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 13:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-13 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 10:32 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 18:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 12:51 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-16 15:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-16 16:54 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:10 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-16 19:29 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:40 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 11:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:14 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-13 14:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-13 14:48 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:05 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-09 14:43 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 19:46 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-19 17:06 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-19 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 21:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 23:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 22:49 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 10:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 15:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 23:59 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 17:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 15:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 17:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 10:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 21:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-04 17:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 22:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 16:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 15:25 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:11 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:22 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 -0400
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 08:21 -0700
Re: OneDollar == OneVote. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 22:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 13:42 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:10 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 18:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 21:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 13:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-21 13:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 22:32 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 17:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 18:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 01:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 02:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 19:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 03:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 21:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 04:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 22:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 19:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 19:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 09:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 10:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 11:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-11 13:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-11 13:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-10 09:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 12:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 17:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 09:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 06:59 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-10 13:08 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-04-10 12:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 08:13 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 18:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:44 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 00:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 00:07 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:49 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 18:41 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 19:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 20:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 12:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:13 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku (島鉄雄) - 2017-04-23 21:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-23 17:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:50 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 15:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 19:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 17:50 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 20:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 21:27 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-24 00:47 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 16:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-24 01:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 17:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:31 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:43 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:15 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 20:00 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-05-02 23:54 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 13:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 20:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:10 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 01:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-16 21:29 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 23:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:03 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 16:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 14:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 17:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 19:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 20:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:18 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:58 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 16:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 01:00 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:40 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:30 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-14 21:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 23:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:37 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-15 09:03 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 19:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:12 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-11 01:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-13 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-13 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:29 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:21 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 20:14 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 18:00 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 13:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 22:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 14:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 23:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 15:39 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 00:19 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:37 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 22:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-25 18:39 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-25 16:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:51 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 16:04 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 11:52 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-08 16:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 21:36 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. notX <no.email@dummy.invalid> - 2017-04-03 13:33 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-08 17:51 +0100
Smoker Willie Nelson turns 84 this month. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-17 17:45 -0300
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-25 18:12 +0100
Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-04-02 12:13 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 20:18 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-02 16:36 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 18:19 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-02 23:32 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-02 19:09 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:27 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:00 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:02 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 01:19 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:34 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 22:54 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 15:17 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-05 00:08 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 19:05 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-05 09:49 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2017-04-05 23:33 -0500
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:25 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-02 23:08 -0500
Tardigrades (Was:Re: Old Age ...) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-03 08:24 -0400
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-04 23:02 +0100
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 16:44 -0700
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:34 +0000
Re: Old Age is the leading cause of death everywhere, globally. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-03 00:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 23:51 +0800
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-16 16:53 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-02 14:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-04-03 12:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. erickawilliams.d@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-04-04 11:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 11:45 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2017-04-26 18:22 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:40 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:12 -0500
Page 24 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 39 Next page →
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yys1mwvljs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629346 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:20 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:25 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>>> >>>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>>> >>>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >>> >>> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >>> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >>> >>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>> things. >>> >>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >> >> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. >> > > I've used Opera in Windows and Linux. > Not my cup of tea. Its mail/newsgroups program is excellent. -- Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od0k2p$s7s$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #629351 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:24:22 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:20 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:25 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>>>> >>>>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >>>> >>>> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >>>> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >>>> >>>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >>>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>>> things. >>>> >>>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >>>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >>> >>> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. >>> >> >> I've used Opera in Windows and Linux. >> Not my cup of tea. > > Its mail/newsgroups program is excellent. > I'll stick to a modern UI. :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 22:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yys33hdojs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629355 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:27:05 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:24:22 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:20 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:25 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>>>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >>>>> >>>>> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >>>>> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >>>>> >>>>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>>>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >>>>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>>>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >>>>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>>>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >>>> >>>> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. >>>> >>> >>> I've used Opera in Windows and Linux. >>> Not my cup of tea. >> >> Its mail/newsgroups program is excellent. >> > > I'll stick to a modern UI. :) slrn is far from that. -- Create instant designer stubble by sucking a magnet and dipping your chin in a bowl of iron fillings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku (島鉄雄) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m2inlureke.fsf@dai.tokyo.teikoku> |
| In reply to | #629346 |
島鉄雄です。 Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> in <od0j90$s7s$2@dont-email.me> writes: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:13:25 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>>> >>>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>>> >>>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >>> >>> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >>> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >>> >>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>> things. >>> >>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >> >> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. >> > > I've used Opera in Windows and Linux. > Not my cup of tea. Opera used to be the best browser back in the days (at least, for Windows). I've been using it since version 3, circa 1999, even before they came up with integrated e-mail client. They were first to introduce many features which are standard nowadays, and back then Opera was one of the most customizable browsers, if not the most. Over time, competitors were getting better and better while Opera was evolving slower and slower, and one day it became just one of the crowd. I still used Opera until the day they went WebKit. I know some former Opera programmers are trying to develop new browser, Vivaldi. I wish them luck, but not sure if the project will ever become as popular as Opera was, and even in its better days Opera (the desktop version) was mostly unknown to the audience. -- 41号
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 17:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <230420171739087189%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #630291 |
In article <m2inlureke.fsf@dai.tokyo.teikoku>, ??? <shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku> wrote: > I know some former Opera programmers are trying to develop new browser, > Vivaldi. I wish them luck, but not sure if the project will ever become > as popular as Opera was, and even in its better days Opera (the desktop > version) was mostly unknown to the audience. vivaldi is interesting, but boy is it slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tt8qfclvjv7ejadcu1thtcm1j59mqj6vjn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #630291 |
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:37:24 +0000 (UTC), shima.tetsuo@dai.tokyo.teikoku (???) wrote: >Opera used to be the best browser back in the days (at least, for >Windows). I don't disagree with you, other than to say that's not my opinion. My point is that we all have different tastes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5192715.9F555%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629341 |
On 4/16/17, 1:13 PM, in article op.yys04n1bjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>> >>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>> >>>> >>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>> >>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>> >>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >> >> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >> >> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >> things. >> >> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >> nonsense which is all too common in that group. > > AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. I did not even know they had one. Just went to their site and will check it out. Thanks! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5192803.9F57E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629341 |
On 4/16/17, 1:13 PM, in article op.yys04n1bjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>> >>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>> >>>> >>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>> >>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>> >>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >> >> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >> >> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >> things. >> >> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >> nonsense which is all too common in that group. > > AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. Downloaded and will try it. Did not even know they had such a client. Cool. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 22:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yys3ucvljs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629367 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:54:11 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/16/17, 1:13 PM, in article op.yys04n1bjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:50:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/16/17, 12:31 PM, in article op.yysy7ag2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Nah, just can't spell worth a shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does your newsreader not underline fuckups in red? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My newsreader uses an external editor, through which I can invoke spell >>>>> checking, I just don't bother. >>>>> >>>>> I have most curse words down pat :) >>>> >>>> Your newsreader can't edit by itself? Oh dear. >>> >>> I have no issue with a modular tool -- but if the BEST choice he can find >>> for it does not even have auto-spell checking that is sad. >>> >>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move to >>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>> things. >>> >>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... but >>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >> >> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm using. > > Downloaded and will try it. Did not even know they had such a client. Cool. It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a newsreader/mail client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. -- Circumvent (n.), an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D519301E.9F5C8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629370 |
On 4/16/17, 2:12 PM, in article op.yys3ucvljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move >>>> to >>>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>>> things. >>>> >>>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... >>>> but >>>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >>> >>> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm >>> using. >> >> Downloaded and will try it. Did not even know they had such a client. Cool. > > It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a newsreader/mail > client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. Also does not let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). Also does not have colors in responses, only in reading. But only used it for a few moments... maybe there are ways to fix that? Does seem to have a good basic look and it easy to use. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yys6s4g1js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629385 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 22:28:46 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/16/17, 2:12 PM, in article op.yys3ucvljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> Heck, I am using the world's crappiest news reader, a nearly 10 year old >>>>> program made by MS for the Mac (Entourage). I really should at least move >>>>> to >>>>> Thunderbird or SOMETHING, but I openly admit there are no good newsreaders >>>>> for the Mac. I do not feel the need to pretend the Mac is good at all >>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> If he admits Linux is doing a poor job for him, too, then no big deal... >>>>> but >>>>> I find Linux users all too often feel the need to support the cult-like >>>>> nonsense which is all too common in that group. >>>> >>>> AFAIK Opera is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's what I'm >>>> using. >>> >>> Downloaded and will try it. Did not even know they had such a client. Cool. >> >> It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a newsreader/mail >> client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. > > Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to > just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, It will do that fine (in the windows version anyway). I highlight any text, then press reply. Only that text is quoted, the rest disappears. > and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. Not sure what you mean there. > Also does not > let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without > that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). Dunno what you mean by "saved searches". > Also does not have colors in responses, only in reading. Agreed, although I've never needed them in reading. I find the number of > is enough for me. > But only used it for a few moments... maybe there are ways to fix that? Does > seem to have a good basic look and it easy to use. I like the killfile and filter options the most. Easy to use and able to filter on all sorts. For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to me or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. And I can killfile people and any replies to them. Some newsreaders are incapable of both of those things, as they won't look at the body of the message. -- What is the punishment for bigamy? Two mother-in-laws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5194509.9F642%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629401 |
On 4/16/17, 3:16 PM, in article op.yys6s4g1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a newsreader/mail >>> client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. >> >> Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to >> just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, > > It will do that fine (in the windows version anyway). I highlight any text, > then press reply. Only that text is quoted, the rest disappears. Might be a setting somewhere? >> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. > > Not sure what you mean there. Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very carefully before the text. >> Also does not >> let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without >> that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). > > Dunno what you mean by "saved searches". Do a search and click "save" -- I have a lot of these, with rules such as contains word Snit, is unread, is not from Snit, is not in such-and-such threads, etc. But Opera handles this reasonably well. I like to be able to have them in their own floating windows which it does not allow (that I saw) but hardly a deal-breaker. It does show a count of messages in the search. That is fine. >> Also does not have colors in responses, only in reading. > > Agreed, although I've never needed them in reading. I find the number of > is > enough for me. I prefer the colors... helps to keep track. DOES have them in reading, just not replying. >> But only used it for a few moments... maybe there are ways to fix that? Does >> seem to have a good basic look and it easy to use. > > I like the killfile and filter options the most. Easy to use and able to > filter on all sorts. Similar to what I am used to and does work well. > For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to me > or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. Sounds like a saved search. And it allows for looking at headers my current one does not. That would be a BIG advantage to what I have. > And I can killfile people and any replies to them. Some newsreaders are > incapable of both of those things, as they won't look at the body of the > message. Mine does not handle the replies... so it clearly had benefits I would use, but is quirky enough I doubt I will move to it. Will certainly give it a shot -- like it more, I think, than I did Thunderbird. Even if I do not move to it thanks for pointing me to it. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 01:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yytddpjmjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629404 |
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:58:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/16/17, 3:16 PM, in article op.yys6s4g1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a newsreader/mail >>>> client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. >>> >>> Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to >>> just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, >> >> It will do that fine (in the windows version anyway). I highlight any text, >> then press reply. Only that text is quoted, the rest disappears. > > Might be a setting somewhere? I've never set it to do that, it did it out of the box. It's possible they fucked it up on the Mac version. >>> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. >> >> Not sure what you mean there. > > Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it > selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very > carefully before the text. That's a known bug that's pissed off many people. I often find myself clicking below all the text to type at the bottom, only to find the cursor's at the top. The text editing function is apparently taken from something else, and they never fixed it. >>> Also does not >>> let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without >>> that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). >> >> Dunno what you mean by "saved searches". > > Do a search and click "save" -- I have a lot of these, with rules such as > contains word Snit, is unread, is not from Snit, is not in such-and-such > threads, etc. > > But Opera handles this reasonably well. I like to be able to have them in > their own floating windows which it does not allow (that I saw) but hardly a > deal-breaker. It does show a count of messages in the search. That is fine. I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. I only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. >>> Also does not have colors in responses, only in reading. >> >> Agreed, although I've never needed them in reading. I find the number of > is >> enough for me. > > I prefer the colors... helps to keep track. DOES have them in reading, just > not replying. I guess it would be useful. I didn't realise any other newsreader did colours. People are usually surprised when I mention it. >>> But only used it for a few moments... maybe there are ways to fix that? Does >>> seem to have a good basic look and it easy to use. >> >> I like the killfile and filter options the most. Easy to use and able to >> filter on all sorts. > > Similar to what I am used to and does work well. I used to use Forte Agent and the filters were far too complicated and rather limited. >> For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to me >> or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. > > Sounds like a saved search. And it allows for looking at headers my current > one does not. That would be a BIG advantage to what I have. I created a label called "replies to me" with: entire message contains red.lan or entire message contains James Wilkinson and from header does not contain James Wilkinson I.e. anything quoting me that isn't written by me, plus people who don't quote my name but the reference header contains my message ID, which always has red.lan in it. >> And I can killfile people and any replies to them. Some newsreaders are >> incapable of both of those things, as they won't look at the body of the >> message. > > Mine does not handle the replies... so it clearly had benefits I would use, > but is quirky enough I doubt I will move to it. Will certainly give it a > shot -- like it more, I think, than I did Thunderbird. > > Even if I do not move to it thanks for pointing me to it. Seeing people replying to someone I've killfiled is irritating. I couldn't live without this function. -- "Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D51975DF.9F6FA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629421 |
On 4/16/17, 5:38 PM, in article op.yytddpjmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:58:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/16/17, 3:16 PM, in article op.yys6s4g1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a >>>>> newsreader/mail >>>>> client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. >>>> >>>> Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to >>>> just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, >>> >>> It will do that fine (in the windows version anyway). I highlight any text, >>> then press reply. Only that text is quoted, the rest disappears. >> >> Might be a setting somewhere? > > I've never set it to do that, it did it out of the box. It's possible they > fucked it up on the Mac version. Quit and re-launched and it was fine. Cannot replicate the broken behavior. Call it a bizarre quirk I ran into... if I do not see it again it is a non-issue (though still odd it was happening). >>>> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. >>> >>> Not sure what you mean there. >> >> Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it >> selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very >> carefully before the text. > > That's a known bug that's pissed off many people. I often find myself > clicking below all the text to type at the bottom, only to find the cursor's > at the top. The text editing function is apparently taken from something > else, and they never fixed it. It is pretty bad -- might be a deal breaker. If the rest is great, though, I can live with it. The not having colored text in replies is pretty annoying for me, too, though. Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have to do that? Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the font options but that is pretty minor. >>>> Also does not >>>> let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without >>>> that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). >>> >>> Dunno what you mean by "saved searches". >> >> Do a search and click "save" -- I have a lot of these, with rules such as >> contains word Snit, is unread, is not from Snit, is not in such-and-such >> threads, etc. >> >> But Opera handles this reasonably well. I like to be able to have them in >> their own floating windows which it does not allow (that I saw) but hardly a >> deal-breaker. It does show a count of messages in the search. That is fine. > > I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. I > only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a > week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) >>>> Also does not have colors in responses, only in reading. >>>> >>> Agreed, although I've never needed them in reading. I find the number of > >>> is enough for me. >>> >> I prefer the colors... helps to keep track. DOES have them in reading, just >> not replying. > > I guess it would be useful. I didn't realise any other newsreader did > colours. People are usually surprised when I mention it. Many do not... I really like the feature. It is one thing that has kept me in Entourage. I think Thunderbird does it too, but their font rendering at least used to be pretty bad. They did not use the OS rendering. >>>> But only used it for a few moments... maybe there are ways to fix that? >>>> Does seem to have a good basic look and it easy to use. >>>> >>> I like the killfile and filter options the most. Easy to use and able to >>> filter on all sorts. >>> >> Similar to what I am used to and does work well. >> > I used to use Forte Agent and the filters were far too complicated and rather > limited. Entourage is OK but does not handle headers well. >>> For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to >>> me or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. >>> >> Sounds like a saved search. And it allows for looking at headers my current >> one does not. That would be a BIG advantage to what I have. > > I created a label called "replies to me" with: > > entire message contains red.lan > or entire message contains James Wilkinson > and from header does not contain James Wilkinson > > I.e. anything quoting me that isn't written by me, plus people who don't quote > my name but the reference header contains my message ID, which always has > red.lan in it. Makes sense. Others have actually tracking of the thread, but what you describe would work well, too. >>> And I can killfile people and any replies to them. Some newsreaders are >>> incapable of both of those things, as they won't look at the body of the >>> message. >> >> Mine does not handle the replies... so it clearly had benefits I would use, >> but is quirky enough I doubt I will move to it. Will certainly give it a >> shot -- like it more, I think, than I did Thunderbird. >> >> Even if I do not move to it thanks for pointing me to it. > > Seeing people replying to someone I've killfiled is irritating. I couldn't > live without this function. I can set to auto-read any post that mentions a given word which allows me to sorta do that. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 17:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy5qeu1bjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629442 |
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:26:23 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/16/17, 5:38 PM, in article op.yytddpjmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:58:01 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/16/17, 3:16 PM, in article op.yys6s4g1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> It split into two. There's a browser based on Chrome, and a >>>>>> newsreader/mail >>>>>> client called "M2" which used to be part of the browser. >>>>> >>>>> Playing with it now... does not seem to let me select text and respond to >>>>> just that... have to hit reply and then delete what I do not want, >>>> >>>> It will do that fine (in the windows version anyway). I highlight any text, >>>> then press reply. Only that text is quoted, the rest disappears. >>> >>> Might be a setting somewhere? >> >> I've never set it to do that, it did it out of the box. It's possible they >> fucked it up on the Mac version. > > Quit and re-launched and it was fine. Cannot replicate the broken behavior. > Call it a bizarre quirk I ran into... if I do not see it again it is a > non-issue (though still odd it was happening). It's a buggy bit of software, and they aren't putting much effort into the mail/news program since it split from the browser. >>>>> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. >>>> >>>> Not sure what you mean there. >>> >>> Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it >>> selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very >>> carefully before the text. >> >> That's a known bug that's pissed off many people. I often find myself >> clicking below all the text to type at the bottom, only to find the cursor's >> at the top. The text editing function is apparently taken from something >> else, and they never fixed it. > > It is pretty bad -- might be a deal breaker. If the rest is great, though, I > can live with it. The not having colored text in replies is pretty annoying > for me, too, though. Opera's the only newsreader I've ever known to use coloured text anywhere! > Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a programmer to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body though, which is very useful. > Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have > to do that? Worked for me. > Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the > font options but that is pretty minor. Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're referring to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? >>>>> Also does not >>>>> let me open the saved searches in their own windows, but I can live without >>>>> that (seems fast enough at going back and forth). >>>> >>>> Dunno what you mean by "saved searches". >>> >>> Do a search and click "save" -- I have a lot of these, with rules such as >>> contains word Snit, is unread, is not from Snit, is not in such-and-such >>> threads, etc. >>> >>> But Opera handles this reasonably well. I like to be able to have them in >>> their own floating windows which it does not allow (that I saw) but hardly a >>> deal-breaker. It does show a count of messages in the search. That is fine. >> >> I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. I >> only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a >> week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. > > With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call > them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) Sounds confusing to me. I create a label manually and type in the rules to define it. A search isn't specific enough. >>>> For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to >>>> me or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. >>>> >>> Sounds like a saved search. And it allows for looking at headers my current >>> one does not. That would be a BIG advantage to what I have. >> >> I created a label called "replies to me" with: >> >> entire message contains red.lan >> or entire message contains James Wilkinson >> and from header does not contain James Wilkinson >> >> I.e. anything quoting me that isn't written by me, plus people who don't quote >> my name but the reference header contains my message ID, which always has >> red.lan in it. > > Makes sense. Others have actually tracking of the thread, but what you > describe would work well, too. Opera can mark threads to watch or ignore, but I don't think it can use them to spot replies to yourself. -- You may be a cunning linguist, but I am a master debater.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5222C31.A0EF4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630234 |
On 4/23/17, 9:50 AM, in article op.yy5qeu1bjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> I've never set it to do that, it did it out of the box. It's possible they >>> fucked it up on the Mac version. >> >> Quit and re-launched and it was fine. Cannot replicate the broken behavior. >> Call it a bizarre quirk I ran into... if I do not see it again it is a >> non-issue (though still odd it was happening). > > It's a buggy bit of software, and they aren't putting much effort into the > mail/news program since it split from the browser. Fair enough. >>>>>> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what you mean there. >>>> >>>> Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it >>>> selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very >>>> carefully before the text. >>> >>> That's a known bug that's pissed off many people. I often find myself >>> clicking below all the text to type at the bottom, only to find the cursor's >>> at the top. The text editing function is apparently taken from something >>> else, and they never fixed it. >> >> It is pretty bad -- might be a deal breaker. If the rest is great, though, I >> can live with it. The not having colored text in replies is pretty annoying >> for me, too, though. > > Opera's the only newsreader I've ever known to use coloured text anywhere! I think Thunderbird does and I have seen others. Even my ancient horrid ones does. >> Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. > > Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a programmer > to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body > though, which is very useful. Yes. For me that is a must. >> Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have >> to do that? > > Worked for me. Right... it works but is not done well. But, again, once you set it up not a big deal. >> Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the >> font options but that is pretty minor. > > Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're referring > to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? The list of posts. Again, not a big deal. ... >>> I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. I >>> only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a >>> week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. >> >> With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call >> them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) > > Sounds confusing to me. I create a label manually and type in the rules to > define it. A search isn't specific enough. Same idea just different ways to get there. And what it has is reasonably good. I later ran into it not setting posts to be shown as read even when set to do so after 1 second. Will play with that more later. >>>>> For example I've set up a folder which contains all posts made in reply to >>>>> me or thereafter. I can respond to those first before looking elsewhere. >>>>> >>>> Sounds like a saved search. And it allows for looking at headers my current >>>> one does not. That would be a BIG advantage to what I have. >>> >>> I created a label called "replies to me" with: >>> >>> entire message contains red.lan >>> or entire message contains James Wilkinson >>> and from header does not contain James Wilkinson >>> >>> I.e. anything quoting me that isn't written by me, plus people who don't >>> quote >>> my name but the reference header contains my message ID, which always has >>> red.lan in it. >> >> Makes sense. Others have actually tracking of the thread, but what you >> describe would work well, too. > > Opera can mark threads to watch or ignore, but I don't think it can use them > to spot replies to yourself. Thanks. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 20:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy5wnzuujs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630241 |
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:02:25 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/23/17, 9:50 AM, in article op.yy5qeu1bjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> I've never set it to do that, it did it out of the box. It's possible they >>>> fucked it up on the Mac version. >>> >>> Quit and re-launched and it was fine. Cannot replicate the broken behavior. >>> Call it a bizarre quirk I ran into... if I do not see it again it is a >>> non-issue (though still odd it was happening). >> >> It's a buggy bit of software, and they aren't putting much effort into the >> mail/news program since it split from the browser. > > Fair enough. > >>>>>>> and even then have to be very careful to select the front of a line. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure what you mean there. >>>>> >>>>> Say I am selecting the start of line 10... if I am too far to the left it >>>>> selects from the very top of the post. Have to position my mouse very >>>>> carefully before the text. >>>> >>>> That's a known bug that's pissed off many people. I often find myself >>>> clicking below all the text to type at the bottom, only to find the cursor's >>>> at the top. The text editing function is apparently taken from something >>>> else, and they never fixed it. >>> >>> It is pretty bad -- might be a deal breaker. If the rest is great, though, I >>> can live with it. The not having colored text in replies is pretty annoying >>> for me, too, though. >> >> Opera's the only newsreader I've ever known to use coloured text anywhere! > > I think Thunderbird does and I have seen others. Even my ancient horrid ones > does. I guess I haven't tried that many. I like to get used to one and stick with it. I've only really used Netscape, Agent, and Opera for any length of time. >>> Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. >> >> Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a programmer >> to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body >> though, which is very useful. > > Yes. For me that is a must. You're the first person I've heard say they've used it. Most people are surprised I can do so. >>> Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have >>> to do that? >> >> Worked for me. > > Right... it works but is not done well. But, again, once you set it up not a > big deal. Not sure how they could make it any simpler. >>> Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the >>> font options but that is pretty minor. >> >> Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're referring >> to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? > > The list of posts. Again, not a big deal. That does seem odd, I just looked and you can change the compose and display, but not the list. >>>> I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. I >>>> only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a >>>> week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. >>> >>> With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call >>> them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) >> >> Sounds confusing to me. I create a label manually and type in the rules to >> define it. A search isn't specific enough. > > Same idea just different ways to get there. And what it has is reasonably > good. > > I later ran into it not setting posts to be shown as read even when set to > do so after 1 second. Will play with that more later. Dunno, I mark as read manually (or with filters). It has another thing called "touched" when you click on one. Blue if never touched, black if touched, grey if marked as read. -- I like bagpipes. I also like violins when played with a hammer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5224B2B.A0F82%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630260 |
On 4/23/17, 12:05 PM, in article op.yy5wnzuujs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> Opera's the only newsreader I've ever known to use coloured text anywhere! >> >> I think Thunderbird does and I have seen others. Even my ancient horrid ones >> does. > > I guess I haven't tried that many. I like to get used to one and stick with > it. I've only really used Netscape, Agent, and Opera for any length of time. I have not used many to any great extent but have looked at a few to see if I can replace my horrid one. Never found one that appealed to me enough to make me want to move. I have been on Usenet long enough where I used to use tin (a command line program). >>>> Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. >>> >>> Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a programmer >>> to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body >>> though, which is very useful. >> >> Yes. For me that is a must. > > You're the first person I've heard say they've used it. Most people are > surprised I can do so. I have filters which show me messaged I am mentioned in... and some other criteria. I read those and often few if any others. >>>> Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have >>>> to do that? >>> >>> Worked for me. >> >> Right... it works but is not done well. But, again, once you set it up not a >> big deal. > > Not sure how they could make it any simpler. The standard toolbar tools of macOS... just drag and drop. >>>> Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the >>>> font options but that is pretty minor. >>> >>> Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're referring >>> to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? >> >> The list of posts. Again, not a big deal. > > That does seem odd, I just looked and you can change the compose and display, > but not the list. Yeah, I would prefer a bit smaller but as I said not a big deal at all. >>>>> I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. >>>>> I >>>>> only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a >>>>> week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. >>>> >>>> With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call >>>> them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) >>> >>> Sounds confusing to me. I create a label manually and type in the rules to >>> define it. A search isn't specific enough. >> >> Same idea just different ways to get there. And what it has is reasonably >> good. >> >> I later ran into it not setting posts to be shown as read even when set to >> do so after 1 second. Will play with that more later. > > Dunno, I mark as read manually (or with filters). It has another thing called > "touched" when you click on one. Blue if never touched, black if touched, > grey if marked as read. I saw the color changes and did not really get it... but makes sense that it is sort of between read and unread. I suppose I could get used to that and then mark read the "touched" ones. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yy50f9czjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630261 |
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:14:35 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/23/17, 12:05 PM, in article op.yy5wnzuujs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> Opera's the only newsreader I've ever known to use coloured text anywhere! >>> >>> I think Thunderbird does and I have seen others. Even my ancient horrid ones >>> does. >> >> I guess I haven't tried that many. I like to get used to one and stick with >> it. I've only really used Netscape, Agent, and Opera for any length of time. > > I have not used many to any great extent but have looked at a few to see if > I can replace my horrid one. Never found one that appealed to me enough to > make me want to move. > > I have been on Usenet long enough where I used to use tin (a command line > program). First time I used usenet was Netscape 3 on Windows 3.1 in 1995. Then Netscape 4. Then Forte Agent in a couple of versions. Then Opera. >>>>> Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. >>>> >>>> Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a programmer >>>> to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body >>>> though, which is very useful. >>> >>> Yes. For me that is a must. >> >> You're the first person I've heard say they've used it. Most people are >> surprised I can do so. > > I have filters which show me messaged I am mentioned in... and some other > criteria. I read those and often few if any others. Same here. I dread to think how people read usenet if they can't see who's replying to them. They must miss half their replies. >>>>> Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you have >>>>> to do that? >>>> >>>> Worked for me. >>> >>> Right... it works but is not done well. But, again, once you set it up not a >>> big deal. >> >> Not sure how they could make it any simpler. > > The standard toolbar tools of macOS... just drag and drop. Which is precisely how Opera works. >>>>> Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the >>>>> font options but that is pretty minor. >>>> >>>> Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're referring >>>> to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? >>> >>> The list of posts. Again, not a big deal. >> >> That does seem odd, I just looked and you can change the compose and display, >> but not the list. > > Yeah, I would prefer a bit smaller but as I said not a big deal at all. It's maybe linked to the OS font size, but I guess you don't want to change it for everything. >>>>>> I do a similar thing using labels. It's how I look at all replies to me. >>>>>> I >>>>>> only search when I'm looking at something in the past I remember sending a >>>>>> week ago and want to find the thread. I have no need to save it. >>>>> >>>>> With the saved searched they get placed with the labels... maybe they call >>>>> them that? But you do a search and hit "save" as one way to get them. :) >>>> >>>> Sounds confusing to me. I create a label manually and type in the rules to >>>> define it. A search isn't specific enough. >>> >>> Same idea just different ways to get there. And what it has is reasonably >>> good. >>> >>> I later ran into it not setting posts to be shown as read even when set to >>> do so after 1 second. Will play with that more later. >> >> Dunno, I mark as read manually (or with filters). It has another thing called >> "touched" when you click on one. Blue if never touched, black if touched, >> grey if marked as read. > > I saw the color changes and did not really get it... but makes sense that it > is sort of between read and unread. I suppose I could get used to that and > then mark read the "touched" ones. I wouldn't want everything I click on to be marked as read. Just clicking it doesn't mean I've actually read it. It could be a long reply I don't have time to look at just now. -- What's black and white and rolls down the Boardwalk? A nigger and a seagull fighting over a French Fry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5226CD9.A102E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630272 |
On 4/23/17, 1:27 PM, in article op.yy50f9czjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >> I have not used many to any great extent but have looked at a few to see if >> I can replace my horrid one. Never found one that appealed to me enough to >> make me want to move. >> >> I have been on Usenet long enough where I used to use tin (a command line >> program). > > First time I used usenet was Netscape 3 on Windows 3.1 in 1995. Then Netscape > 4. Then Forte Agent in a couple of versions. Then Opera. Pretty sure when I got back into Usenet I used Entourage... but could be wrong. :) >>>>>> Still, the better filtering, etc. is appealing. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. Forte Agent had a lot of filters, but you needed to be a >>>>> programmer >>>>> to understand them. I don't think it would filter on stuff in the body >>>>> though, which is very useful. >>>> >>>> Yes. For me that is a must. >>> >>> You're the first person I've heard say they've used it. Most people are >>> surprised I can do so. >> >> I have filters which show me messaged I am mentioned in... and some other >> criteria. I read those and often few if any others. > > Same here. I dread to think how people read usenet if they can't see who's > replying to them. They must miss half their replies. Right... though some also track by threading and can do much the same that way. Works even if someone does not use your name. That is assuming their client puts the proper headers in... not all do. >>>>>> Also do not like how you add and remove buttons, but how often do you >>>>>> have >>>>>> to do that? >>>>> >>>>> Worked for me. >>>> >>>> Right... it works but is not done well. But, again, once you set it up not >>>> a >>>> big deal. >>> >>> Not sure how they could make it any simpler. >> >> The standard toolbar tools of macOS... just drag and drop. > > Which is precisely how Opera works. Don't have time but later I might make a video to show you what I mean. >>>>>> Would like to make list text smaller and did not see that in the >>>>>> font options but that is pretty minor. >>>>> >>>>> Never tried that. Seems the perfect size for me. I assume you're >>>>> referring >>>>> to the list of folders/newsgroups.etc? >>>> >>>> The list of posts. Again, not a big deal. >>> >>> That does seem odd, I just looked and you can change the compose and >>> display, >>> but not the list. >> >> Yeah, I would prefer a bit smaller but as I said not a big deal at all. > > It's maybe linked to the OS font size, but I guess you don't want to change it > for everything. Right. If I did, though, TinkerTool makes that pretty easy. Not gonna do it though. ... >>> Dunno, I mark as read manually (or with filters). It has another thing >>> called >>> "touched" when you click on one. Blue if never touched, black if touched, >>> grey if marked as read. >> >> I saw the color changes and did not really get it... but makes sense that it >> is sort of between read and unread. I suppose I could get used to that and >> then mark read the "touched" ones. > > I wouldn't want everything I click on to be marked as read. Just clicking it > doesn't mean I've actually read it. It could be a long reply I don't have > time to look at just now. When I do that I mark as unread or flag it... but could get used to other tools. Might give Opera a second look. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web