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 27 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 25 26 [27] 28 29 … 39 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D511007B.9E255%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #628206 |
On 4/10/17, 5:27 AM, in article ocftnq$7fv$1@news.albasani.net, "Melzzzzz" <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Sprang wrote: >>> >>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> >>> *plonk* >> >> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >> > Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... That is not unlikely. -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocp2cv$2qe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #628206 |
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Sprang wrote: >>> >>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> >>> *plonk* >> >> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >> > Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... > Wrong. You all think everyone is someone else. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yyo4i0zwjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #628890 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:42:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> >>>> *plonk* >>> >>> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >>> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >>> >> Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... >> > > Wrong. > You all think everyone is someone else. Maybe he can't handle more than one person with the same opinion against his? -- In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird, people take prozac to make it normal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5165B38.9EFD3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #628994 |
On 4/14/17, 10:36 AM, in article op.yyo4i0zwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:42:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote >> this: >>> On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> >>>>> *plonk* >>>> >>>> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >>>> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >>>> >>> Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... >>> >> >> Wrong. >> You all think everyone is someone else. > > Maybe he can't handle more than one person with the same opinion against his? In COLA if you are not someone who is accepted by the "herd" you are called a sock puppet of someone else (generally me) and then chased out by vicious attacks. Most just leave. Those that stay do so to either find acceptance by the herd, to tease them, or to watch the bizarre psychology of it all. I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but the latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and learning. It is odd. -- 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 | 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yyo5spc4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #628995 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:55:52 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 10:36 AM, in article op.yyo4i0zwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:42:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote >>> this: >>>> On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> >>>>>> *plonk* >>>>> >>>>> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >>>>> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >>>>> >>>> Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... >>>> >>> >>> Wrong. >>> You all think everyone is someone else. >> >> Maybe he can't handle more than one person with the same opinion against his? > > In COLA if you are not someone who is accepted by the "herd" you are called > a sock puppet of someone else (generally me) and then chased out by vicious > attacks. Most just leave. Those that stay do so to either find acceptance by > the herd, to tease them, or to watch the bizarre psychology of it all. > > I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but the > latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already > know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There > always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and > learning. It is odd. It's because most linux users are strange. -- My memory foam pillow has got Alzheimer's! -- Steve Pounder circa 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D516605D.9EFEE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #628996 |
On 4/14/17, 11:03 AM, in article op.yyo5spc4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:55:52 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/14/17, 10:36 AM, in article op.yyo4i0zwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:42:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote >>>> this: >>>>> On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *plonk* >>>>>> >>>>>> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >>>>>> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >>>>>> >>>>> Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> You all think everyone is someone else. >>> >>> Maybe he can't handle more than one person with the same opinion against >>> his? >> >> In COLA if you are not someone who is accepted by the "herd" you are called >> a sock puppet of someone else (generally me) and then chased out by vicious >> attacks. Most just leave. Those that stay do so to either find acceptance by >> the herd, to tease them, or to watch the bizarre psychology of it all. >> >> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but the >> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >> learning. It is odd. > > It's because most linux users are strange. There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for free. Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because there are times some of the above applies). But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds. Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. -- 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 | 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #628999 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:17:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 11:03 AM, in article op.yyo5spc4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:55:52 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/14/17, 10:36 AM, in article op.yyo4i0zwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:42:23 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:27:38 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz, after 15 edits, wrote >>>>> this: >>>>>> On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:59:15 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *plonk* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you're plonking him for writing "after 15 edits"? Maybe we should >>>>>>> all plonk you for daring to use an asterisk? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sprang is flatfish nymshifter... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>>> You all think everyone is someone else. >>>> >>>> Maybe he can't handle more than one person with the same opinion against >>>> his? >>> >>> In COLA if you are not someone who is accepted by the "herd" you are called >>> a sock puppet of someone else (generally me) and then chased out by vicious >>> attacks. Most just leave. Those that stay do so to either find acceptance by >>> the herd, to tease them, or to watch the bizarre psychology of it all. >>> >>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but the >>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>> learning. It is odd. >> >> It's because most linux users are strange. > > There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them > (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated > hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for free. > Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because > there are times some of the above applies). Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade to 10 for free. > But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. > They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... I > use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons and > people should use what they like and what fits their needs and resources. > You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a Linux "hater" > and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I turn in bug > reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of desktop Linux and > that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same for software on > other platforms is not relevant in their minds. > > Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? -- Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, and the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5166E49.9F03E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629000 |
On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>> the >>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>> learning. It is odd. >>> >>> It's because most linux users are strange. >> >> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for free. >> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >> there are times some of the above applies). > > Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade to > 10 for free. Legally? And will it run on older hardware? Right now, for example, I have 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. >> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... I >> use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons and >> people should use what they like and what fits their needs and resources. >> You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a Linux "hater" >> and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I turn in bug >> reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of desktop Linux and >> that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same for software on >> other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >> >> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. > > Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and apps (and overall design principle for those). Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. -- 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 | 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629004 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>>> the >>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>>> learning. It is odd. >>>> >>>> It's because most linux users are strange. >>> >>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for free. >>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >>> there are times some of the above applies). >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade to >> 10 for free. > > Legally? Who cares about that? As long as it works. > And will it run on older hardware? Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. > Right now, for example, I have > 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, > fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes instead of 2 hours. > and then buy new > installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month before the hard > drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which Linux does well > enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with Linux installed > and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time now. Also can > use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. > >>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... I >>> use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons and >>> people should use what they like and what fits their needs and resources. >>> You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a Linux "hater" >>> and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I turn in bug >>> reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of desktop Linux and >>> that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same for software on >>> other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >>> >>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. >> >> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? > > Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details > but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and > apps (and overall design principle for those). > > Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use > then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if > you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different > rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper > and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most > tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system > is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. -- An airliner was having engine trouble, and the pilot instructed the cabin crew to have the passengers take their seats and get prepared for an emergency landing. A few minutes later, the pilot asked the flight attendants if everyone was buckled in and ready. "All set back here, Captain," came the reply, "except one lawyer who is still going around passing out business cards."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140420171535206200%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629005 |
In article <op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> > >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) > >> upgrade to > >> 10 for free. > > > > Legally? > > Who cares about that? As long as it works. that makes you a thief. what else do you steal? > > > Right now, for example, I have > > 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, > > fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) > > I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. > The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes > instead of 2 hours. bullshit. adding memory to a macbook does not require dismantling nor does it take 2 hours unless you're a total klutz, and even if you are, 2 hours is a stretch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yypcpyg9js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629006 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:35:20 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) >> >> upgrade to >> >> 10 for free. >> > >> > Legally? >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > > that makes you a thief. > > what else do you steal? Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. >> > Right now, for example, I have >> > 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >> > fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >> >> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >> instead of 2 hours. > > bullshit. > > adding memory to a macbook does not require dismantling nor does it > take 2 hours unless you're a total klutz, and even if you are, 2 hours > is a stretch. On this particular model it did, it was unusual. I had to remove the keyboard, the hard disk, and about 5 other components. Ah, I misremembered, I was replacing/upgrading a hard drive: https://youtu.be/nCdO4eaE4xE -- Corduroy pillows are making headlines!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <140420171635584439%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629022 |
In article <op.yypcpyg9js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) > >> >> upgrade to > >> >> 10 for free. > >> > > >> > Legally? > >> > >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > > > > that makes you a thief. > > > > what else do you steal? > > Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. doesn't make it legal. one day you'll get caught. and then there's your sheer lack of ethics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yypd42jwjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629025 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:35:58 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yypcpyg9js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) >> >> >> upgrade to >> >> >> 10 for free. >> >> > >> >> > Legally? >> >> >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >> > >> > that makes you a thief. >> > >> > what else do you steal? >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. > > doesn't make it legal. So what? > one day you'll get caught. All billion of us? > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. -- If you jog in a jogging suit, lounge in lounging pyjamas, and smoke in a smoking jacket, why would anyone want to wear a windbreaker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171210287749%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629028 |
In article <op.yypd42jwjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) > >> >> >> upgrade to > >> >> >> 10 for free. > >> >> > > >> >> > Legally? > >> >> > >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > >> > > >> > that makes you a thief. > >> > > >> > what else do you steal? > >> > >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. > > > > doesn't make it legal. > > So what? what other laws do you ignore? > > one day you'll get caught. > > All billion of us? one day your number will come up. > > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. > > Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. do you murder people because you're mad at them? steal from them because you want their stuff?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yywr58z4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629128 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:10:28 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yypd42jwjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) >> >> >> >> upgrade to >> >> >> >> 10 for free. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Legally? >> >> >> >> >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >> >> > >> >> > that makes you a thief. >> >> > >> >> > what else do you steal? >> >> >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. >> > >> > doesn't make it legal. >> >> So what? > > what other laws do you ignore? I regularly break 6 laws at once when driving. >> > one day you'll get caught. >> >> All billion of us? > > one day your number will come up. And half the population of the world? Are they going to jail us all? >> > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. >> >> Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. > > do you murder people because you're mad at them? > steal from them because you want their stuff? I don't murder or steal. I make copies. -- A hammer is a device designed to break valuable objects next to the nail you are aiming at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180420171709198349%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629706 |
In article <op.yywr58z4js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. > >> > > >> > doesn't make it legal. > >> > >> So what? > > > > what other laws do you ignore? > > I regularly break 6 laws at once when driving. then you're a very unsafe driver, putting everyone at risk. one day you'll crash or get caught. maybe both. hopefully you won't injure or maim other people with your stupidity. > >> > one day you'll get caught. > >> > >> All billion of us? > > > > one day your number will come up. > > And half the population of the world? Are they going to jail us all? half the population are not criminals. > >> > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. > >> > >> Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. > > > > do you murder people because you're mad at them? > > steal from them because you want their stuff? > > I don't murder or steal. yet. everyone who steals starts small. > I make copies. not while driving, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdgrwezjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629713 |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:09:19 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yywr58z4js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> Go look up how many people use torrents. It ain't just me. >> >> > >> >> > doesn't make it legal. >> >> >> >> So what? >> > >> > what other laws do you ignore? >> >> I regularly break 6 laws at once when driving. > > then you're a very unsafe driver, putting everyone at risk. one day > you'll crash or get caught. maybe both. hopefully you won't injure or > maim other people with your stupidity. You assume laws and safety are the same thing. >> >> > one day you'll get caught. >> >> >> >> All billion of us? >> > >> > one day your number will come up. >> >> And half the population of the world? Are they going to jail us all? > > half the population are not criminals. They are by your definition. Half the population download copies of things. >> >> > and then there's your sheer lack of ethics. >> >> >> >> Ethics serve no useful purpose, they just make things more expensive. >> > >> > do you murder people because you're mad at them? >> > steal from them because you want their stuff? >> >> I don't murder or steal. > > yet. everyone who steals starts small. I've not started. Copying isn't theft. >> I make copies. > > not while driving, you don't. Irrelevant. -- Judi: "Hon, what is my love worth to you?" Amanpreet: "Am I buying, or selling?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5167493.9F054%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629005 |
On 4/14/17, 12:29 PM, in article op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>>>> the >>>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>>>> learning. It is odd. >>>>> >>>>> It's because most linux users are strange. >>>> >>>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >>>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >>>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for >>>> free. >>>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >>>> there are times some of the above applies). >>> >>> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade >>> to >>> 10 for free. >> >> Legally? > > Who cares about that? As long as it works. A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for free from employers). But even when not it is not something many know how to do. >> And will it run on older hardware? > > Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. Old enough and it does not run well. >> Right now, for example, I have >> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) > > I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. > The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes > instead of 2 hours. This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed though. >> and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month >> before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which >> Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with >> Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time >> now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. >> >>>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >>>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... >>>> >>>> I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons >>>> and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and >>>> resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a >>>> Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I >>>> turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of >>>> desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same >>>> for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >>>> >>>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. >>>> >>> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? >> >> Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details >> but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and >> apps (and overall design principle for those). >> >> Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use >> then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if >> you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different >> rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper >> and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most >> tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system >> is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. > > Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a > decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems it has pros and cons. -- 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 | 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yypcikknjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629009 |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:44:03 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 12:29 PM, in article op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already >>>>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There >>>>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and >>>>>>> learning. It is odd. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's because most linux users are strange. >>>>> >>>>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them >>>>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated >>>>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for >>>>> free. >>>>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because >>>>> there are times some of the above applies). >>>> >>>> Windows 7 is easy to get for free. Which used to (and still does?) upgrade >>>> to >>>> 10 for free. >>> >>> Legally? >> >> Who cares about that? As long as it works. > > A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for > free from employers). Most people use illegal something. Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed limits, the list goes on. Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much duller simpler life. > But even when not it is not something many know how to do. Easy enough to Google or ask a friend. >>> And will it run on older hardware? >> >> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. > > Old enough and it does not run well. Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well. >>> Right now, for example, I have >>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >> >> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >> instead of 2 hours. > > This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a > (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed > though. The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" >>> and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month >>> before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which >>> Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with >>> Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time >>> now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work. >>> >>>>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre. >>>>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user... >>>>> >>>> I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons >>>>> and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and >>>>> resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a >>>>> Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I >>>>> turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of >>>>> desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same >>>>> for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds. >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch. >>>>> >>>> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top? >>> >>> Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details >>> but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and >>> apps (and overall design principle for those). >>> >>> Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use >>> then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if >>> you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different >>> rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper >>> and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most >>> tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system >>> is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both. >> >> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a >> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. > > I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating > most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other > OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting > something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS > and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems > it has pros and cons. And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware. -- Q. What's a Catholic priest and a pint of Guinness got in common? A. A black coat, white collar and you've got to watch your arse if you get a dodgy one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D516A1D0.9F0D2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629019 |
On 4/14/17, 1:28 PM, in article op.yypcikknjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> Who cares about that? As long as it works. >> >> A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for >> free from employers). > > Most people use illegal something. Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed > limits, the list goes on. Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much > duller simpler life. > >> But even when not it is not something many know how to do. > > Easy enough to Google or ask a friend. Many do not want to use an illegal OS, know how, or even realize it is an option. >>>> And will it run on older hardware? >>> >>> Of course. The problem is newer hardware than the OS. >> >> Old enough and it does not run well. > > Add more memory. My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as > much memory as required to run Windows 10 very well. Why bring up your relatively new machine? >>>> Right now, for example, I have >>>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive, >>>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy) >>> >>> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade. >>> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes >>> instead of 2 hours. >> >> This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a >> (clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed >> though. > > The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's > the bloody power switch?" After that, "Where's the reset button?" and > "Where's the hard disk activity LED?" I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the second... and not at all with the first.:) ... >>> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a >>> decent price. I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS. >> >> I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating >> most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other >> OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting >> something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS >> and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems >> it has pros and cons. > > And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware. Don't know the current price comparisons, but in the past Apple has rated well FOR WHAT YOU GET. Does not mean you can get an inexpensive Mac. -- 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 27 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 25 26 [27] 28 29 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web