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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 ๐ถ็ฌ <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 Kรถhlmann <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 (ๅณถ้้) - 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 Kรถhlmann <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 29 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 39 Next page →
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631119 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:19:18 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 11:37 AM, in article op.yze4pbmmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:07:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/17, 9:51 AM, in article op.yzezrwg0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a >>>>>>> hard drive of that size. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a >>>>>> feasible price. Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a >>>>>> bit extra. 1TB of SSD is about ยฃ220. 1TB of hard disk is about ยฃ45. So >>>>>> only ยฃ175 for a HUGE speed increase. >>>>>> >>>>> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is >>>>> quite a difference there. >>>>> >>>> 5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one >>>> component. >>>> >>> It is the total price of the component we are talking about. >> >> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an SSD. > > Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there. I thought you said they didn't do SSDs. >>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a >>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With >>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that it >>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing. >>> >> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS? > > They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one > (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past > time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS > just migrated to it, but macOS has not. So like FAT to FAT32? Egad! > And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I > think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger > issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in > terms of file systems. It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers. Which is a main reason why I go with PCs. Choice, competition. >>>> You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine. And consider >>>> that a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price >>>> difference. >>>> >>> I agree Apple should include better drives. It is absurd to sell an iMac with >>> a 5400 RPM drive in it. >>> >>>> I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it, >>>> it's like night and day. >>>> >>> Even a Fusion drive would make sense for most... closer to the cost of the >>> hard drive and most of the benefits of the SSD (though if you are like me and >>> use a lot of VMs and the like you will run into issues). >> >> I have a lot of stuff stored on my computer. I have an SSD and a hard disk. >> I use the SSD for most things and the hard disk for storing huge data files. >> >> Well it's two of each actually as they're mirrored. I hate hard disk >> failures. Also makes upgrading easy. Simply pull out one of them (even with >> the computer running) and stick in a bigger one. Wait for it to duplicate the >> data, then do the same with the other one. Then instruct the driver to expand >> the partition to fill the now larger drives. > > I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a > second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account. > Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to > there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive. > > All worked very well. > > As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next > since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of > these years. I didn't freshly install for about 17 years. Just kept upgrading the OS from Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck. -- What did God say when he made the first black man? "Damn, I burnt one."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D528EC86.A2292%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631124 |
On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an >>> SSD. >>> >> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there. > > I thought you said they didn't do SSDs. Not by default but they are there as an option. >>>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a >>>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With >>>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that >>>> it >>>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing. >>>> >>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS? >> >> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one >> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past >> time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS >> just migrated to it, but macOS has not. > > So like FAT to FAT32? Egad! Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :) >> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I >> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger >> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in >> terms of file systems. > > It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers. Which is a main reason why > I go with PCs. Choice, competition. I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better. They offer the tools that let me do more for less money. ... >> I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a >> second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account. >> Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to >> there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive. >> >> All worked very well. >> >> As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next >> since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of >> these years. > > I didn't freshly install for about 17 years. Just kept upgrading the OS from > Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one > component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck. I do wish Apple made it easier to swap components... no doubt that is a weakness with their systems. -- 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 | 2017-04-28 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yze9dcf2js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631125 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:56:38 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an >>>> SSD. >>>> >>> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there. >> >> I thought you said they didn't do SSDs. > > Not by default but they are there as an option. They're living in the past. They should at least have the OS on a small SSD. I used to build custom computers and the default was an SSD for the OS and major applications, and a hard disk for large data. >>>>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a >>>>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With >>>>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that >>>>> it >>>>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing. >>>>> >>>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS? >>> >>> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one >>> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past >>> time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS >>> just migrated to it, but macOS has not. >> >> So like FAT to FAT32? Egad! > > Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :) Did they get rid of those blasted forks? >>> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I >>> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger >>> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in >>> terms of file systems. >> >> It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers. Which is a main reason why >> I go with PCs. Choice, competition. > > I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better. > They offer the tools that let me do more for less money. They are not a choice of many. They are a single choice for making a mac. I consider that unwise. It's a monopoly. >>> I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a >>> second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account. >>> Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to >>> there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive. >>> >>> All worked very well. >>> >>> As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next >>> since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of >>> these years. >> >> I didn't freshly install for about 17 years. Just kept upgrading the OS from >> Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one >> component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck. > > I do wish Apple made it easier to swap components... no doubt that is a > weakness with their systems. It's their crazy form over function designs. Makes it harder to change things that don't quite fit. Still, a hacksaw can help. -- What's meaner than a pit bull with AIDS? The guy that gave it to him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5290004.A22C3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631130 |
On 4/28/17, 1:18 PM, in article op.yze9dcf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:56:38 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an
>>>>> SSD.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.
>>>
>>> I thought you said they didn't do SSDs.
>>
>> Not by default but they are there as an option.
>
> They're living in the past. They should at least have the OS on a small SSD.
> I used to build custom computers and the default was an SSD for the OS and
> major applications, and a hard disk for large data.
I would just go with a Fusion drive on the low end and then SSD as an
upgrade option. The default of a hard drive -- and a SLOW one at that -- is
insane.
Been a while since I bought a Mac so I just checked to see if that was still
what they did. It is.
<https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
-----
1TB (5400-rpm) hard drive
Configurable up to 1TB Fusion Drive or 256GB of flash storage (SSD)
-----
The cost to go from the hard drive to the Fusion Drive is $100. I think it
used to be worse.
...
>>>>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
>>>> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG
>>>> past time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and
>>>> iOS just migrated to it, but macOS has not.
>>>
>>> So like FAT to FAT32? Egad!
>>
>> Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :)
>
> Did they get rid of those blasted forks?
Supported but optional (and not used much). APFS (the new file system)
supports "extended object attributes" -- which includes backwards support
for forks if you still use them but allows for much more robust meta-data
(not that I know the full details of it).
>>>> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
>>>> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
>>>> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
>>>> terms of file systems.
>>>>
>>> It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers. Which is a main reason
>>> why I go with PCs. Choice, competition.
>>>
>> I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better.
>> They offer the tools that let me do more for less money.
>>
> They are not a choice of many. They are a single choice for making a mac. I
> consider that unwise. It's a monopoly.
They are a choice for a desktop computer (or laptop, etc.). And for me they
offer the best capabilities at the lowest price. If someone beats them on
that, though, I would happily move (and I do use Windows and Linux, too).
...
--
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 | 2017-04-27 23:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdl4anmjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629058 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 01:17:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/14/17, 4:58 PM, in article op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ...>>>>>> 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? >> >> How old will it be when four times the memory is needed for the latest >> windows? >> >> Anyway, a 10 year old machine is shit. Even if you can run some antiquated OS >> on it, it hasn't got the power to do much useful. Get a 6 year old one on >> freecycle. > > I am talking ones which are 10 years old (or so) and older. My wife's which > is running Linux is that old... and it works fine for our needs. Luddite. The shittiest machine I have is a Q8400 quad core with 8GB RAM, an 80GB hard disk, and a Nvidea Geforce 9500. It does nothing but run SETI, Einstein, Milkyway and Universe. I'd never use such an old beast to interact with. It was built from old parts given to 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. >>>>>> >>>>> 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.:) >> >> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >> mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has >> crashed or is busy. > > Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard > drives) but they crash only very rarely. They crash exactly as often as PCs. > But, sure, I have played with disk > light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not used it > in years. When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's waiting for the disk. >> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very stuck >> and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back on when >> you can press one button? > > Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a > need for it. How often does your computer not respond? Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset buttons back in the days of weekly crashes. > And even the fan in > my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not really surprising to > most. Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset the computer? One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... >>>>>> 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. >> >> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs have been about >> double the price. > > Here are the OLD comparisons I have logged... and I included every single > one people pointed me to (have the requirements on the very ugly page): > > <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> > > Stopped tracking it after that as formally, but still keep a eye out for > such articles. The trend seems about the same. > >> I even know someone who loved macs and hated windows, but >> converted to windows solely because of Apple's over inflated prices. > > You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to > windows for the same reason. And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... -- The length of women's skirts are directly proportional to the current financial climate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527C928.A2102%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630978 |
On 4/27/17, 3:58 PM, in article op.yzdl4anmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the >>>> second... and not at all with the first.:) >>> >>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >>> mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has >>> crashed or is busy. >> >> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard >> drives) but they crash only very rarely. > > They crash exactly as often as PCs. Both crash rarely but, as is your norm, you have no support for your claim of them being exactly the same. >> But, sure, I have played with disk light or things similar to it years ago... >> never found the need. Not used it in years. > > When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's > waiting for the disk. Use the Mac on a desk. Don't hang it. And if you want a disk monitor get one. Heck, use the built in one. Whatever. >>> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >>> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back >>> on when you can press one button? >>> >> Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a >> need for it. How often does your computer not respond? >> > Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset buttons > back in the days of weekly crashes. So you find you have to reset your computer once a month. Me, well, maybe once a year but I have a Mac. And then I use the reset button to reset it. >> And even the fan in my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not >> really surprising to most. > > Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset the > computer? I cannot reset it instead of resetting it... they are the same. > One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. > Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... Who is? And once a year or less when you need to reset you have to press the reset button for a few seconds. The horror. >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs have been >>> about double the price. >> >> Here are the OLD comparisons I have logged... and I included every single >> one people pointed me to (have the requirements on the very ugly page): >> >> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >> >> Stopped tracking it after that as formally, but still keep a eye out for >> such articles. The trend seems about the same. >> >>> I even know someone who loved macs and hated windows, but >>> converted to windows solely because of Apple's over inflated prices. >> >> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to >> windows for the same reason. > > And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... In a way you cannot quote, sure. But here is the thing: when you make include your fantasizes of what I said it makes your stories not very believable. -- 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 | 2017-04-28 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdozfovjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630983 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:13:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 3:58 PM, in article op.yzdl4anmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by the >>>>> second... and not at all with the first.:) >>>> >>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >>>> mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine has >>>> crashed or is busy. >>> >>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard >>> drives) but they crash only very rarely. >> >> They crash exactly as often as PCs. > > Both crash rarely but, as is your norm, you have no support for your claim > of them being exactly the same. My experience shows they crash at the same rate. >>> But, sure, I have played with disk light or things similar to it years ago... >>> never found the need. Not used it in years. >> >> When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's >> waiting for the disk. > > Use the Mac on a desk. Don't hang it. And if you want a disk monitor get > one. Heck, use the built in one. Whatever. What's wrong with an LED? Why did Apple choose not to include one? >>>> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >>>> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back >>>> on when you can press one button? >>>> >>> Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a >>> need for it. How often does your computer not respond? >>> >> Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset buttons >> back in the days of weekly crashes. > > So you find you have to reset your computer once a month. Me, well, maybe > once a year but I have a Mac. Depends what you do with it. Mine is worked 100% 24/7. > And then I use the reset button to reset it. They don't have those. >>> And even the fan in my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not >>> really surprising to most. >> >> Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset the >> computer? > > I cannot reset it instead of resetting it... they are the same. What? >> One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. >> Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... > > Who is? Mac users, I just told you. > And once a year or less when you need to reset you have to press the > reset button for a few seconds. The horror. I press mine for a fraction of a second. >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs have been >>>> about double the price. >>> >>> Here are the OLD comparisons I have logged... and I included every single >>> one people pointed me to (have the requirements on the very ugly page): >>> >>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >>> >>> Stopped tracking it after that as formally, but still keep a eye out for >>> such articles. The trend seems about the same. >>> >>>> I even know someone who loved macs and hated windows, but >>>> converted to windows solely because of Apple's over inflated prices. >>> >>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved to >>> windows for the same reason. >> >> And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... > > In a way you cannot quote, sure. You forgot what you just wrote? > But here is the thing: when you make include your fantasizes of what I said it makes your stories not very > believable. That is the worst English I've ever seen. -- โWhatโs the difference between a British and an Iraqi tank?โ โI donโt know.โ โWelcome to the US Air Force.โ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527D94B.A211A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630985 |
On 4/27/17, 5:00 PM, in article op.yzdozfovjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:13:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/27/17, 3:58 PM, in article op.yzdl4anmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by >>>>>> the second... and not at all with the first.:) >>>>>> >>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody >>>>> even mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine >>>>> has crashed or is busy. >>>>> >>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with >>>> hard drives) but they crash only very rarely. >>>> >>> They crash exactly as often as PCs. >>> >> Both crash rarely but, as is your norm, you have no support for your claim of >> them being exactly the same. > > My experience shows they crash at the same rate. OK, if your "exactly" was just a figure of speech or hyperbole I am with you -- both crash rarely, maybe once a year or so even under heavy use. Even then I find the rare crashes I have with OS X are when I am running Parallels and generally more than one VM. >>>> But, sure, I have played with disk light or things similar to it years >>>> ago... never found the need. Not used it in years. >>>> >>> When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's >>> waiting for the disk. >>> >> Use the Mac on a desk. Don't hang it. And if you want a disk monitor get one. >> Heck, use the built in one. Whatever. >> > What's wrong with an LED? Why did Apple choose not to include one? No real value for the majoity of user. And I know I do not like blinking lights and the like. Heck, I have an external speaker and the NON-blinking light is covered mostly with white-out. Why the hell would I *want* something useless blinking and being a distraction. Would be an interesting study to see how much impact that particular distraction has on users. I bet you can make a study where it is shown to be measurable. >>>>> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >>>>> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and >>>>> back on when you can press one button? >>>>> >>>> Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a >>>> need for it. How often does your computer not respond? >>>> >>> Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset >>> buttons back in the days of weekly crashes. >>> >> So you find you have to reset your computer once a month. Me, well, maybe >> once a year but I have a Mac. >> > Depends what you do with it. Mine is worked 100% 24/7. What do you do to get it to crash? For me it is running multiple VMs at the same time and even then it is very rare. >> And then I use the reset button to reset it. > > They don't have those. You use yours a whole lot but do not know where the power / reset button is. No offense but I assumed you were more technical than that. Most in Usenet are, but many people in general are not. Sorry for the poor assumption on my part. >>>> And even the fan in my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not >>>> really surprising to most. >>>> >>> Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset >>> the computer? >>> >> I cannot reset it instead of resetting it... they are the same. >> > What? Exactly... makes no sense. >>> One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. >>> Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... >> >> Who is? > > Mac users, I just told you. I look forward to the quotes where Mac users told you they can reset their computers with fewer button pushes. I bet you made that up. >> And once a year or less when you need to reset you have to press the >> reset button for a few seconds. The horror. > > I press mine for a fraction of a second. So it can be pushed accidently. Yuck. That is bad design. ... >>>> >>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved >>>> to windows for the same reason. >>> >>> And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... >> >> In a way you cannot quote, sure. > > You forgot what you just wrote? I do! That is why I know you just made up your claims. But you do that a lot with your trolling. >> But here is the thing: when you make include your fantasizes of what I said >> it makes your stories not very believable. > > That is the worst English I've ever seen. I left in the word "make" -- which is just poor editing. Above you showed you do not know the difference between "less" and "fewer". In other words: my error was from carelessness, yours from ignorance. -- 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 | 2017-04-28 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzeilyzgjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630989 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:22:19 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 5:00 PM, in article op.yzdozfovjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:13:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/17, 3:58 PM, in article op.yzdl4anmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I would be surprised if people asked the last... somewhat surprised by >>>>>>> the second... and not at all with the first.:) >>>>>>> >>>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody >>>>>> even mildly technical wanted it. It's the only way to tell if the machine >>>>>> has crashed or is busy. >>>>>> >>>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with >>>>> hard drives) but they crash only very rarely. >>>>> >>>> They crash exactly as often as PCs. >>>> >>> Both crash rarely but, as is your norm, you have no support for your claim of >>> them being exactly the same. >> >> My experience shows they crash at the same rate. > > OK, if your "exactly" was just a figure of speech or hyperbole I am with you No, a rough estimate. Could be 25% either way. > -- both crash rarely, maybe once a year or so even under heavy use. Depends what you do with them. Heavy use can be once a month. Do you run your CPU and GPU flat out 24/7? > Even > then I find the rare crashes I have with OS X are when I am running > Parallels and generally more than one VM. > >>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk light or things similar to it years >>>>> ago... never found the need. Not used it in years. >>>>> >>>> When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's >>>> waiting for the disk. >>>> >>> Use the Mac on a desk. Don't hang it. But they're ornaments aren't they? Form over feature. >>> And if you want a disk monitor get one. >>> Heck, use the built in one. Whatever. >>> >> What's wrong with an LED? Why did Apple choose not to include one? > > No real value for the majoity of user. And I know I do not like blinking > lights and the like. They don't have to particularly bright or aimed directly at you. > Heck, I have an external speaker and the NON-blinking > light is covered mostly with white-out. Why the hell would I *want* > something useless blinking and being a distraction. It isn't a distraction since it's there all the time. No more than the clock on your VCR. > Would be an interesting study to see how much impact that particular > distraction has on users. I bet you can make a study where it is shown to be > measurable. Yes somebody somewhere will waste money on studying anything. But I find it very useful to determine what the computer is doing. >>>>>> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >>>>>> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and >>>>>> back on when you can press one button? >>>>>> >>>>> Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever a >>>>> need for it. How often does your computer not respond? >>>>> >>>> Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset >>>> buttons back in the days of weekly crashes. >>>> >>> So you find you have to reset your computer once a month. Me, well, maybe >>> once a year but I have a Mac. >>> >> Depends what you do with it. Mine is worked 100% 24/7. > > What do you do to get it to crash? For me it is running multiple VMs at the > same time and even then it is very rare. Distributed computing. CPU and GPU running flat out at 70C all day and all night. The GPU actually come sold as running at 90C, which is ridiculous and would soon kill it. I changed it to 80C (faster fan settings) but that still crashed too often. 70C seems to make it fairly rare. >>> And then I use the reset button to reset it. >> >> They don't have those. > > You use yours a whole lot but do not know where the power / reset button is. > No offense but I assumed you were more technical than that. Most in Usenet > are, but many people in general are not. Sorry for the poor assumption on my > part. I don't have a Mac. I supported them, but I don't own one. Never seen one with a reset button (unless you find a paperclip). Heck you can buy home made reset buttons on Ebay, so somebody wants them! >>>>> And even the fan in my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not >>>>> really surprising to most. >>>>> >>>> Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset >>>> the computer? >>>> >>> I cannot reset it instead of resetting it... they are the same. >>> >> What? > > Exactly... makes no sense. One is quicker and easier and more intuitive. >>>> One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. >>>> Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... >>> >>> Who is? >> >> Mac users, I just told you. > > I look forward to the quotes where Mac users told you they can reset their > computers with fewer button pushes. I bet you made that up. Not for resetting, for doing everything. It's their main gripe about Windows - too complicated. >>> And once a year or less when you need to reset you have to press the >>> reset button for a few seconds. The horror. >> >> I press mine for a fraction of a second. > > So it can be pushed accidently. Yuck. That is bad design. Why on earth would I accidentally press a button? It's no more likely than me pressing the switch on the wall socket. That would have the same effect. Or before they invented electronically controlled power buttons, the power button. >>>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved >>>>> to windows for the same reason. >>>> >>>> And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... >>> >>> In a way you cannot quote, sure. >> >> You forgot what you just wrote? > > I do! That is why I know you just made up your claims. But you do that a lot > with your trolling. WTF? Up there you said "You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac", yet you're arguing with me ad nauseum that they're the same price. >>> But here is the thing: when you make include your fantasizes of what I said >>> it makes your stories not very believable. >> >> That is the worst English I've ever seen. > > I left in the word "make" -- which is just poor editing. And wrote fantasizes instead of fantasies. > Above you showed > you do not know the difference between "less" and "fewer". In other words: > my error was from carelessness, yours from ignorance. Less and fewer mean precisely the same thing. It's just ungrammatical to use the other one. -- Mental Health Outsourcing -- I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. I got a call centre in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D528CA2B.A2211%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631050 |
On 4/28/17, 3:40 AM, in article op.yzeilyzgjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>>>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with >>>>>> hard drives) but they crash only very rarely. >>>>>> >>>>> They crash exactly as often as PCs. >>>>> >>>> Both crash rarely but, as is your norm, you have no support for your claim >>>> of them being exactly the same. >>>> >>> My experience shows they crash at the same rate. >>> >> OK, if your "exactly" was just a figure of speech or hyperbole I am with you >> > No, a rough estimate. Could be 25% either way. > >> -- both crash rarely, maybe once a year or so even under heavy use. > > Depends what you do with them. Heavy use can be once a month. Do you run > your CPU and GPU flat out 24/7? I run my systems pretty hard, but, no, I am not at my computer every moment of every day. And neither are you. >> Even then I find the rare crashes I have with OS X are when I am running >> Parallels and generally more than one VM. >> >>>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk light or things similar to it years >>>>>> ago... never found the need. Not used it in years. >>>>>> >>>>> When the mac is unresponsive, it's handy to know if it's hung up or it's >>>>> waiting for the disk. >>>>> >>>> Use the Mac on a desk. Don't hang it. > > But they're ornaments aren't they? Form over feature. I can go into how I think they focus too much on being thin but that is not even relevant to the conversation. >>>> And if you want a disk monitor get one. >>>> Heck, use the built in one. Whatever. >>>> >>> What's wrong with an LED? Why did Apple choose not to include one? >> >> No real value for the majoity of user. And I know I do not like blinking >> lights and the like. > > They don't have to particularly bright or aimed directly at you. Irrelevant. It is still a flashing like. On what all-in-one system is it on the back where you would not see it? >> Heck, I have an external speaker and the NON-blinking >> light is covered mostly with white-out. Why the hell would I *want* >> something useless blinking and being a distraction. > > It isn't a distraction since it's there all the time. If it is on all the time it tells you nothing. But it is not. It blinks and flashes. > No more than the clock on your VCR. When people had those the clock was a distraction when it blinked. >> Would be an interesting study to see how much impact that particular >> distraction has on users. I bet you can make a study where it is shown to be >> measurable. > > Yes somebody somewhere will waste money on studying anything. > > But I find it very useful to determine what the computer is doing. Already covered: if you want it add it to the dock or menu. Most people, including myself, do NOT want it. It is actually one of the reasons I dislike many computers... and why I turn things off like the bouncing icons on the Mac dock. >>>>>>> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >>>>>>> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and >>>>>>> back on when you can press one button? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Most people would never think to ask for one and there is rarely if ever >>>>>> >>>>>> a need for it. How often does your computer not respond? >>>>>> >>>>> Mac or PC, probably once a month nowadays. But macs didn't have reset >>>>> buttons back in the days of weekly crashes. >>>>> >>>> So you find you have to reset your computer once a month. Me, well, maybe >>>> once a year but I have a Mac. >>>> >>> Depends what you do with it. Mine is worked 100% 24/7. >>> >> What do you do to get it to crash? For me it is running multiple VMs at the >> same time and even then it is very rare. > > Distributed computing. CPU and GPU running flat out at 70C all day and all > night. The GPU actually come sold as running at 90C, which is ridiculous and > would soon kill it. I changed it to 80C (faster fan settings) but that still > crashed too often. 70C seems to make it fairly rare. So you overheat your systems... yeah, you might want to rethink doing so. But curious what type of distributed computing. I used to do things for SETI and some other projects. >>>> And then I use the reset button to reset it. >>> >>> They don't have those. >> >> You use yours a whole lot but do not know where the power / reset button is. >> No offense but I assumed you were more technical than that. Most in Usenet >> are, but many people in general are not. Sorry for the poor assumption on my >> part. > > I don't have a Mac. I supported them, but I don't own one. Never seen one > with a reset button (unless you find a paperclip). Heck you can buy home made > reset buttons on Ebay, so somebody wants them! The reset button is just the power button. As with many things hold it for a couple seconds and it shuts the system down. As I said, I even had a fan in my office that works like that. It is very common. Not that it cannot lead to confusion, but given how the general user will never need it I do not see it as a big deal. And much better than having a button you can accidently bump into and have your system reset! >>>>>> And even the fan in my room has the press-and-hold to reset option. Not >>>>>> really surprising to most. >>>>>> >>>>> Press and hold the power button, then turn it back on. Why not just reset >>>>> the computer? >>>>> >>>> I cannot reset it instead of resetting it... they are the same. >>>> >>> What? >> >> Exactly... makes no sense. > > One is quicker and easier and more intuitive. And far, far easier to accidently hit. Have seen people hit the power button on their PCs multiple times. >>>>> One click instead of a 4 second click, a pause, then another one. >>>>> Mac users are constantly telling PC users they need less button pushes.... >>>> >>>> Who is? >>> >>> Mac users, I just told you. >> >> I look forward to the quotes where Mac users told you they can reset their >> computers with fewer button pushes. I bet you made that up. > > Not for resetting, for doing everything. It's their main gripe about Windows > - too complicated. Well, no doubt for many things macOS offers a more streamlined workflow, but sounds like you are confusing contexts or making generalizations that do not apply. The fact macOS tends to be easier to use than Windows does not mean it will have distracting blinking lights or buttons you can too easily hit and reset the machine accidently. >>>> And once a year or less when you need to reset you have to press the >>>> reset button for a few seconds. The horror. >>> >>> I press mine for a fraction of a second. >> >> So it can be pushed accidently. Yuck. That is bad design. > > Why on earth would I accidentally press a button? By accident. You sorta provided your own answer. :) > It's no more likely than me pressing the switch on the wall socket. If you mean the sockets that actually have switches, like the ones in bathrooms, people DO sometimes accidently hit those when they plug something in. > That would have the same effect. Or before they invented electronically > controlled power buttons, the power button. > >>>>>> You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac. I know people who have moved >>>>>> to windows for the same reason. >>>>> >>>>> And yet you're arguing the other way recently.... >>>> >>>> In a way you cannot quote, sure. >>> >>> You forgot what you just wrote? >> >> I do! That is why I know you just made up your claims. But you do that a lot >> with your trolling. > > WTF? Up there you said "You can get a PC a *lot* cheaper than a Mac", yet > you're arguing with me ad nauseum that they're the same price. Other than admitting you are not understanding what you read I am not sure of your point. >>>> But here is the thing: when you make include your fantasizes of what I said >>>> it makes your stories not very believable. >>> >>> That is the worst English I've ever seen. >> >> I left in the word "make" -- which is just poor editing. > > And wrote fantasizes instead of fantasies. Fair enough. >> Above you showed >> you do not know the difference between "less" and "fewer". In other words: >> my error was from carelessness, yours from ignorance. > > Less and fewer mean precisely the same thing. It's just ungrammatical to use > the other one. We each made errors. OH NO! -- 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 | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150420171210307895%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #629055 |
In article <op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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.:) > > The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even > mildly technical wanted it. no they didn't. > It's the only way to tell if the machine has > crashed or is busy. definitely not. > Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very > stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back > on when you can press one button? that rarely happens, but if it does, it's trivial to reset it without turning it off/on. > > 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. > > Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs > have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved > macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because > of Apple's over inflated prices. apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar products. for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* alone, which still needs a computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629131 |
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:10:30 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yypl69nhjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> 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.:) >> >> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS. Anybody even >> mildly technical wanted it. > > no they didn't. They did where I worked. Those that were stupid enough to stick with macs. During my 6 years there I converted 90% of them. >> It's the only way to tell if the machine has >> crashed or is busy. > > definitely not. Yes it is. If you believe otherwise, then provide some details. >> Why are you surprised at wanting a reset button? If the machine is very >> stuck and won't respond to any key or mouse input, why turn it off and back >> on when you can press one button? > > that rarely happens, but if it does, it's trivial to reset it without > turning it off/on. Without a reset button? How? By magic? >> > 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. >> >> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs >> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved >> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because >> of Apple's over inflated prices. > > apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar > products. > > for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* > alone, which still needs a computer. Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC. -- There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and the stupid idiot's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D51BCC2A.A02DE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #629707 |
On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs
>>> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved
>>> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because
>>> of Apple's over inflated prices.
>>
>> apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar
>> products.
>>
>> for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display*
>> alone, which still needs a computer.
>
> Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC.
I do not have recent comparisons, but older ones do not support your
position. I included EVERY comparison shown to me that met the criteria
listed:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
--
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 | 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #629709 |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:59:06 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs >>>> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved >>>> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because >>>> of Apple's over inflated prices. >>> >>> apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar >>> products. >>> >>> for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* >>> alone, which still needs a computer. >> >> Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC. > > I do not have recent comparisons, but older ones do not support your > position. I included EVERY comparison shown to me that met the criteria > listed: > > <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. I just tried going to Apple's site and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. -- Circumvent (n.), an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #630793 |
In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, > Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. not for the same specs, you didn't. a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k that includes a computer. > I just tried going to Apple's site > and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where > I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. apple.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630796 |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. > > not for the same specs, you didn't. Yes I did. > a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k > that includes a computer. Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? >> I just tried going to Apple's site >> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where >> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. > > apple.com That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. -- U2's on-tour sound system weighs 30 tons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52698E8.A1F4F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630806 |
On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >> >> not for the same specs, you didn't. > > Yes I did. Interesting how you cannot share these specs. >> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >> that includes a computer. > > Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? You mean the ones you cannot compare specs. OK. >>> I just tried going to Apple's site >>> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me >>> where >>> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. >> >> apple.com > > That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". > Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad > core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? -- 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 | 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630822 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>> >>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >> >> Yes I did. > > Interesting how you cannot share these specs. Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as to what was cheaper. >>> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >>> that includes a computer. >> >> Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? > > You mean the ones you cannot compare specs. OK. See below. >>>> I just tried going to Apple's site >>>> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me >>>> where >>>> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. >>> >>> apple.com >> >> That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". >> Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad >> core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. > > Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is the path I took: https://www.apple.com Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top menu. Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom of the page. For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. Same vague processor information given. Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. At this point I gave up. -- There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In Jewish tradition, the foetus is not considered viable until it graduates from law school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527653A.A1FED%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630878 |
On 4/27/17, 6:51 AM, in article op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>>> >>>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >>> >>> Yes I did. >> >> Interesting how you cannot share these specs. > > Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as > to what was cheaper. So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. OK. ... >> Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? > > Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is > the path I took: > https://www.apple.com > Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top > menu. > Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. > Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom > of the page. > For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. > Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). > All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or > 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) > To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. > Same vague processor information given. > Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. > At this point I gave up. With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the CPU specs you want. -- 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 | 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630890 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:07:06 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 6:51 AM, in article op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>>>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>>>> >>>>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >>>> >>>> Yes I did. >>> >>> Interesting how you cannot share these specs. >> >> Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as >> to what was cheaper. > > So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, > not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. > > OK. You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact models, then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible. When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs given by our local Apple supplier. >>> Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? >> >> Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is >> the path I took: >> https://www.apple.com >> Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top >> menu. >> Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. >> Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom >> of the page. >> For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. >> Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). >> All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or >> 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) >> To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. >> Same vague processor information given. >> Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. >> At this point I gave up. > > With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the > CPU specs you want. Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of adverts with no information. -- An old Irish farmer's dog goes missing and he's inconsolable. His wife says "Why don't you put an advert in the paper?" He does, but two weeks later the dog is still missing. "What did you put in the paper?" his wife asks. "Here boy" he replies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web