John Doe writes:

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system.

No, they do not. Most people replace the computer if they need a
faster one. Many people keep the same computer for years without any
changes. They usually keep it until it fails, then they replace it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Doe wrote:

Liar troll

Please, no more of your self analysis.


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



John Doe wrote:



David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:




Peter wrote:




In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers. And if you pretend to not know the difference
between an operating system and an application, you are just a
liar. There is a gray area but it's not that difficult to
generally separate an operating system from applications.



But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the
O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed,
then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of
the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set
of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary
component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't
just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have
applications as it's components, it was far more complicated
than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?



On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.



A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.


or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.


The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.


Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard wrote:



John Doe wrote:



David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:




John Doe wrote:




Mxsmanic mxsmanic gmail.com wrote:





John Doe writes:





The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as
has been explained many times before, is because of network
effects and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of
anything that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to
steal it.

ROTFLOL


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was
one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was
all that grand a descent from where you started.


My name calling should flatter you. Obviously you will say anything
not no matter how frivolous, in an attempt to win an argument. Any
technical advice you give should be verified by the reader with
someone who can be trusted.

Well, at least you're consistently loony.


Message-ID: 11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.


Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994
and took on the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html


You provided a citation. I am impressed.

First sane thing you've said.


That loss was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate
position, yes.


Which doesn't mean anything by itself. If Netscape were
overcharging, Microsoft would have been able to gain market share
without illegally using its Windows monopoly.

I didn't make any comment at all about what would be a 'fair', or 'unfair'
price.

David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.






Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger international
and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north American
continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes sky-high
because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the wintertime
the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of demand and gas
drops. The immediate response or belief drilled into the general
public is that there is a shortage of oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.




Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough
to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state
of the world's oil supply.



Overly simplistic bull****.


Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet


Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.


You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..


But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.




They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't
get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.



Again, overly simplistic bull****.


Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the crap
out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.




Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other
means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local
supplies have been pre stocked.



Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.


Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?

Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand
miles of Tundra. Do you know what that is? I doubt it. Why
let factual information get in the way. You cannot bury pipe in
perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration paths for
caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered. The
route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for
administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build
it. So, screw ya, do without it.


We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where we
have them, we apply them.


Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd
of thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

snip, bull****

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.

Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger international
and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.

Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough
to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the
state of the world's oil supply.

Overly simplistic bull****.

Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet

Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.

You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.


They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't
get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.

Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the crap
out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.


Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.

Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?


Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles of
Tundra. Do you know what that is?

Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual
information get in the way. You cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also,
when run on the surface, migration paths for caribou and other migratory
species *must* be considered. The route chosen by our government, which
would have addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much
trouble for administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't
build it. So, screw ya, do without it.

Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone else.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you folks
build it your own blessed selves?

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.



Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.


Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.


snip, bull****

David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft,
not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.


Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about
the state of the world's oil supply.


Overly simplistic bull****.


Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet


Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.


You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..


But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.



They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.


Again, overly simplistic bull****.


Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.



Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build
a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.


Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.


Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?



Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles of
Tundra. Do you know what that is?


Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You cannot
bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration
paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered.
The route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for administrators
of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it. So, screw ya, do
without it.


Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone
else.

Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no
blame being placed on anyone.
It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are
whining, because they can't get their own way in implementing a
pipeline from Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada
(that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about
f**king up some other country's environment like they've done
with their own. Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget
it. Don't you think the US would do the same if things were
reversed??



If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?

Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our
country. I suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest
moves yet today. You *do* understand that Canada is not part of
the US I assume?

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have
no reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any
more. Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you
that a number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US
State and Canada *happens* to be in the way.


We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.




Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the
costs come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock
Exchange and Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be
that dumb and unaware of the world around you. Haven't you
noticed statements like "The price of oil for delivery in
February will be ....", for example or, the price of oil was up
on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like that excuses it).
How in the hell does anyone *know* what the situation is
gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like next
friggin' week for chrissake.




Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.


Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times
already. Why do you always have to try and read in something
that is not there? Really don't feel too secure in your
argument or what??


And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk.
Find another angle, this one is wearing thin.



snip, bull****

Mxsmanic wrote:

John Doe writes:

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system.

No, they do not. Most people replace the computer if they need a
faster one. Many people keep the same computer for years without
any changes. They usually keep it until it fails, then they
replace it.

I said "many". Whether or not most do is probably unmeasured.

Once again, you leave me wondering why you are hanging out in the
homebuilt PC group. To ask questions and shill for Microsoft I
guess.

John Doe writes:

Once again, you leave me wondering why you are hanging out in the
homebuilt PC group.

I'm running two computers that I built myself.

To ask questions and shill for Microsoft I guess.

Don't guess.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.



Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.



Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about
the state of the world's oil supply.



Overly simplistic bull****.



Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet



Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.



You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..



But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control*
the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.




They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.



Again, overly simplistic bull****.



Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting
a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.




Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build
a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.



Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.



Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?




Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?



Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You cannot
bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration
paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered.
The route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for administrators
of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it. So, screw ya, do
without it.



Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone
else.


Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.

Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very next
sentence is a 'logical' argument?

It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king up
some other country's environment like they've done with their own.
Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you think the
US would do the same if things were reversed??

I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing Alyeska
pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?


Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country. I
suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet today.
You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?

When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the other
and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a number
of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and Canada
*happens* to be in the way.

Thanks for being a good neighbor.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.





Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.


Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware of
the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The price of
oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or, the price of
oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like that excuses
it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the situation is gonna be
in February? Nobody knows what it will be like next friggin' week for
chrissake.

Supply and demand.


Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.


Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times already.
Why do you always have to try and read in something that is not there?
Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??

Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.


And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.


Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.

Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.

David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.




Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil.
There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.




Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing
about the state of the world's oil supply.




Overly simplistic bull****.




Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally
flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet




Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.




You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure
they'll get their money now, while the gettin' is good..




But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who
*control* the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.





They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.




Again, overly simplistic bull****.




Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting
a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.





Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them
build a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in
every other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with
whatever local supplies have been pre stocked.




Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.




Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?





Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?




Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell
you're located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You
cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface,
migration paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be
considered. The route chosen by our government, which would have
addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for
administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it.
So, screw ya, do without it.




Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on
someone else.



Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.


Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very
next sentence is a 'logical' argument?


I really think you need to not only learn to read, but learn to
understand what you read. What is written below is a
*statement* not a *blame*. You're definitely mistaking me for
someone who gives a **** as to whether or not the oil gets south
of the border.


It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king
up some other country's environment like they've done with their own.
Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you think the
US would do the same if things were reversed??


I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing
Alyeska pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?



Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country. I
suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet today.
You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?


When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

Man, you can't play ball with Goliath when he's continually
shoving the bat up your ass.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a
number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and
Canada *happens* to be in the way.


Thanks for being a good neighbor.

Good neighbor? If "good neighbor" is defined by giving up your
right to implement your own rules in your own country in what
you perceive as being the best and least destructive, Then I say
f**k it, be a lousy neighbor. Don't see much "good neighbor"
coming north from your neck of the woods, except when it serves
"American interests". Takes 2 to tango mister.


We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.






Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.



Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware
of the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The
price of oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or,
the price of oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like
that excuses it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the
situation is gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like
next friggin' week for chrissake.


Supply and demand.

Supply and ****, we're talking months into the future. Supply
*and* demand is what happens in the present.



Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.


Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.



Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times already.
Why do you always have to try and read in something that is not
there? Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??


Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.

WooHoo. From this thread and others I get the impression you
think you understand a lot about everything. I would argue the
point. But???


And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.


I say GREED. Do you need a definition? What could that
possibly have to do with "conspiracy and paranoia". Man, you
make absolutely no sense sometimes. I notice it normally occurs
"argument legs" get really wobbly. :-)




Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.


Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.

Really dumb statement. I guess enough is enough. Later

Gary H wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist
IBM's
arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft
Per Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and
the control factor. The desire for absolute power and to
corrupt absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly
head virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron,
Hollinger international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in
the wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because
of demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief
drilled into the general public is that there is a shortage of
oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are
net exporters of oil.

Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing
about the state of the world's oil supply.

Overly simplistic bull****.

Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally
flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet

Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.

You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure
they'll get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who
*control* the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.

They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.

Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're
expecting a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the
continent.

Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them
build a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked
in every other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck
with whatever local supplies have been pre stocked.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.

Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?


Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?

Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell
you're located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You
cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface,
migration paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be
considered. The route chosen by our government, which would have
addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much trouble
for administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build
it. So, screw ya, do without it.

Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on
someone else.

Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.

Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very
next sentence is a 'logical' argument?


I really think you need to not only learn to read, but learn to
understand what you read. What is written below is a *statement* not a
*blame*. You're definitely mistaking me for someone who gives a **** as
to whether or not the oil gets south of the border.

Your assessment of virtually everything is a 'blame' of one sort or the
other. In this particular case, it's a blame you apparently consider
thankfully 'averted': the dirty rotten cheap ******* oil companies from
"f**king up some other country's environment."


It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king
up some other country's environment like they've done with their
own. Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you
think the US would do the same if things were reversed??

I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing
Alyeska pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?

Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country.
I suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet
today. You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?

When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

Man, you can't play ball with Goliath when he's continually shoving the
bat up your ass.

I supposed this isn't a 'blame' either.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a
number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and
Canada *happens* to be in the way.

Thanks for being a good neighbor.

Good neighbor? If "good neighbor" is defined by giving up your right to
implement your own rules in your own country in what you perceive as
being the best and least destructive, Then I say f**k it, be a lousy
neighbor. Don't see much "good neighbor" coming north from your neck of
the woods, except when it serves "American interests". Takes 2 to tango
mister.

IMO a "good neighbor" is defined, in part at least, as being reasonable,
rational and, ideally, cordial and helpful but I'm not getting that
impression from you.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.

Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware
of the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The
price of oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or,
the price of oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking"
(like that excuses it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the
situation is gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like
next friggin' week for chrissake.

Supply and demand.


Supply and ****, we're talking months into the future. Supply *and*
demand is what happens in the present.

Simply not so. Companies of all kinds, not just 'oil', have to deal with
future supplies for the simple fact they hope to be in business past 'the
present' and not everything just spontaneously appears on your dock the
instant you may need it, at least not without planning into the future. So
if see you won't be able to get what you need *then* it affects what you do
*now*.

Btw, in your futures trading examples, the price generally goes *down* on
"profit taking," not up, (increased supply as the profit takers try to
sell) and that "nobody knows... what the situation is gonna be in February"
is why it's a risk. Futures traders are gambling on the price, they don't
'fix' it, so if that "for delivery in February" price they paid turns out
to be high they lose.


Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times
already. Why do you always have to try and read in something that is
not there? Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??

"Greed" is a motive and if it were not acted on you wouldn't be so
incensed. But you are so you obviously feel it's being acted on and that is
'the plot'. Or, in your case, I suspect it's many plots as you seem to use
it as a universal explanation for every perceived ill.

Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.

WooHoo. From this thread and others I get the impression you think you
understand a lot about everything. I would argue the point. But???

I provide the logic behind my 'understanding' so it can be evaluated.

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

I say GREED. Do you need a definition? What could that possibly have
to do with "conspiracy and paranoia". Man, you make absolutely no sense
sometimes. I notice it normally occurs "argument legs" get really
wobbly. :-)

Explained just above. "Greed" is simply a motive behind the 'conspiracy'
and without the act the motive is moot so you'd have nothing to rail about.

Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.

Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.


Really dumb statement. I guess enough is enough. Later

I was referring to your insistence that every perceived ill is due to "greed."

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have
mine. Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.

"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .
David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.

I find communication breaks down when the same old rhetoric gets spewed over
and over, whether its fact or just something they heard once from 'someone'
at the dinner table, who could have invested in MS in the 80's, but didn't
because it was a lark and would never become anything worth while.

JAD wrote:
"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.


I find communication breaks down when the same old rhetoric gets spewed over
and over, whether its fact or just something they heard once from 'someone'
at the dinner table, who could have invested in MS in the 80's, but didn't
because it was a lark and would never become anything worth while.



You sure got that right. By both parties. My apologies, I
should have left it alone many many lines back.
Too stupid I suppose.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:44:10 -0800, JAD wrote:

your begging the old fashioned way and you have internet access? Get with it
man, I'm a Technobum. I don't need to deal with the elements. I sit in blogs
and virtual street corners, I make twice that.

Really? Please do tell me more!

I suppose you could email me - I have a spamdump at ,
but if you elide ard, I'll get it eventually. ;-)

But netiquette asks that you post so that others can benefit from your
answers; so if you want to email me, just cc your post.

Remember to elide ard. ;-)

Quant Suff!
Rich

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:54:03 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Michael A. Terrell writes:

I never begged. I found odd jobs and paid for my own food. I may have
slept in my truck and taken showers at a relatives house, but I was
never a bum.

Beggars and bums are not synonymous. There are situations and times
in which some people may be temporarily reduced to begging without
this necessarily reflecting upon their habitual industry. It is true
that someone who chooses voluntarily to make a career of begging over
the long term may be somewhat of a bum, particularly in developed
countries where so many other options exist.

The only people I have seen begging fit Rich's description of
alcoholics wanting booze. I've seen them with "Will work for food signs"
and they got ****ed when someone stopped and gave them food instead of
money.

I don't. I thank them gushingly. Let's face the facts, I've been a bum
since long before I became a professional beggar. And like I said, it
takes a lot of pride to go hungry in a country where they throw away
hundred of pounds of food every day because the "sell by" code was
yesterday.

Hell, in college, the guys in the dorm would walk across the street
to the burger joint at closing time, when they were about to toss
the unsold burgers and fries into the dumpster. They just tossed them
to us instead.

The other things I learned in college are, Tang mixes perfectly well
with straight vodka, but it's terribly strong; and how to burn farts.

Around here that will get you arrested. The homeless live in the
Ocala national forest and are treated like trash. A lot of them are
veterans we are trying to help find jobs and get back on their feet but
most want nothing to do with anyone outside of their camouflaged camps.

Yours must be a very cruel society.

He's talking about Florida, the state that got Dubya elected. Of course
they're harsh!

Gee, its easy for you to judge others. Its a warm climate and these
people hive migrated here from all over the country. Some have mental
problems, others are thieves. They make no attempt to fit in with people
outside their small groups, and most encounters are when they are
stealing something. How do you expect people to think of them? They
have been offered help, food and clothing along with a place to shower
for free. Their reaction was to start more trouble. Some have been
arrested a number of times.

I notice a lot of "Them" here, speaking of "judg[ing] others". Maybe
"they" prefer not to receive largesse from a self-righteous boor who
issues his charity with a generous dollop of guilt-trip.

What was that crack about your walking-stick? You're such a victim
because they cut you off in the crosswalk? Is that the old rich white
people who do that?

Just whack them with your stick!

And lately, I haven't been begging, I've been selling jokes. This one's
pretty popular:

Q: How many white guys does it take to change out a light bulb?

A: One.

;-P

Good Luck!
Rich

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:03:28 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

JAD wrote:

OH ok judge jury and executioner mike a terrel......... live with them, THEN
talk about what you have learned. How they got there, who put them there,
and why can't the richest nation in the world take some interest in
them.........until then STFU.............


So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?

We get off our fat, self-righteous, judgemental ass, and give what we can
spare, when we can spare it.

You astonish me sometimes, the way you rag on Jim Thompson, while, in
these tirades, you're practically indistinguishable from him.

Self-righteous is as self-righteous does.

And that "one hand on the keyboard" crack is kind of pitiable, when you
think it through.

Good Luck!
Rich

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:29:33 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:

So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?

You're assimilating beggars with people who refuse to be helped. They
are not one and the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


I can only speak about those that I have met. I'm sure that there are
others, but I have never met any of them.

Maybe you should try. You might learn a little bit about what "self-
sufficiency" really means: Here's a clue: It's not "waiting for my
benefits check".

Thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:00:24 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Michael A. Terrell writes:

Gee, its easy for you to judge others.

Not easy enough that I can arrest them for begging without feeling a
pang of conscience.

Hey, it's just as illegal for rich people to sleep under bridges as it
is for poor people.

:-/
Rich

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:19:58 -0330, Gary H wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
snip

BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax
evasion....

I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....

Good day...

He should give a goddam sight more than he does. S.O.B. got
rich by stealing CP/M and rewriting it slightly and calling it
MS-DOS. Daddy was a big time lawyer and mommy was a big **** in
government so, true to the American way, Billy got his own way
and became very very rich. If some other poor S.O.B. off the
street tried it, they would probably throw him so deep in the
slammer they'd have to pump sunshine to him.

I guess *you'll* call that *free* enterprise.

Nah, it's just the ruling-class/peasant dichotomy, which Americans seem
to be really enamored of trying to convince themselves doesn't exist.

Wonder what Uncle Billy's paying for a blow job these days? ;-P

Thanks!
Rich

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:02:48 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

snip

BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of
you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be
tax
evasion....

I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....

Good day...

He should give a goddam sight more than he does.

None of your business what he gives nor does it matter what you think he
'should'.

S.O.B. got rich by
stealing CP/M and rewriting it slightly and calling it MS-DOS.

And CPM was 'stolen' from Digital Equipment Corp RT-11 right down to pip
but if you think MS-DOS looks like CPM then you never used CPM.

On the other hand one wonders how he ran the 'stolen' 8 bit 8080 CMP code
on 16 bit processors.

He didn't have to. IBM and Intel were kind enough to provide him with the
ever-popular 8088, which once they got the assembler written, could cross-
compile 8080 code and execute it. I once had an opportunity to play with
a very expensive S-100 computer that had both and 8085 and an 8088, and
could run the native code of each, but not simultaneously. I had some
great fun writing interprocess communications stuff in assembly code,
and trying to invent file locking on a "MP/M-8/16" OS. It was based on
CP/M, but was "multi-user", in that it supported several ASCII serial
terminals, but not "multi-user" in any real sense.

Anyway, at the time Intel came out with the 8088, everyone with half a
brain or more wondered, "If they're segmenting memory to get an effective
20-bit address, with two overlapping 16-bit address registers, why didn't
they just multiplex it to 32 x 16 right on the spot, and not worry about
"segmentation," but start right out with flat memory? There's really
no excuse for making a processor as crippled as an 8088, other than that
everybody already had an 8080, and all of the peripherals were 8 bits,
and the bus was 8 bits at the time; but why not just for the time being,
ignore the unused 8 bits on the 16-bit bus, go ahead and have 16-bit wide
memory on-board, and so on?

But nOOOOOooo! They graced us with the 8088 and all that has followed.

Oh, well - hindsight is always 20-20, and I think I have a ... Nah, lemme
check: Heh. AMD Athlon, but I have no idea if it's 16 or 32 bits - call it
a brain fart. Blame it on rant endorphins, thanks. :-)
/rant

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise eatmyshorts doubleclick.net wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:19:58 -0330, Gary H wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
snip

BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most
of you will earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will
consider that to be tax evasion....

I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow......
lol....

Good day...

He should give a goddam sight more than he does. S.O.B. got
rich by stealing CP/M and rewriting it slightly and calling it
MS-DOS. Daddy was a big time lawyer and mommy was a big **** in
government so, true to the American way, Billy got his own way
and became very very rich. If some other poor S.O.B. off the
street tried it, they would probably throw him so deep in the
slammer they'd have to pump sunshine to him.

I guess *you'll* call that *free* enterprise.

Nah, it's just the ruling-class/peasant dichotomy, which Americans
seem to be really enamored of trying to convince themselves
doesn't exist.

It's easy enough to measure and often enough complained about here
in the United States.

Could be better if our big corporations would stop exporting jobs to
countries which are much more ruling-class/peasant based.


Wonder what Uncle Billy's paying for a blow job these days? ;-P

You can get more attention with that troll in a politics group.




Thanks!
Rich




Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.c om!130.81.64.211.MISMATCH!cycny01.gnilink.net!spam killer.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc01.POSTED!dd6 53b87!not-for-mail
From: Rich Grise eatmyshorts doubleclick.net
Organization: Yah, Right!
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table)
Message-Id: pan.2005.12.15.23.05.34.233704 doubleclick.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 62nbm1130fchsdrvdqho8bdgid476d4hbb 4ax.com Xns970134A7B3410follydom 207.115.17.102 9okem19cqn8cihh8l5jj75o6ao0fb5lve8 4ax.com Xns970147786A91Bfollydom 207.115.17.102 8EL9f.4374$8W.18 newssvr30.news.prodigy.com Xns9701B9F44C436follydom 207.115.17.102 8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 31
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:01:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.103.96.171
X-Complaints-To: abuse verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc01 1134687686 71.103.96.171 (Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:01:26 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:01:26 EST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:230168 sci.electronics.repair:433254 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452803

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:41:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Gary H writes:

Awwww, please don't practice your dime store psychology on me?

I don't recall mentioning you. Hmm.

I know Bill Gates is much much smarter than I am, no question
about it. I didn't say he wasn't. I merely said he was a thief
with accomplices before and after the fact. Why do you have to
make it complicated?

Do you find "dime-store" psychology to be complicated?

Bill Gates is no more a thief than any other corporate CEO. He
happens to be the founder of a very successful company, and the
founders of successful companies are routinely demonized, typically
without any rational basis for doing so.

I've heard him called a "brilliant opportunist", which, AFAIU,
means, "being in the right place at the right time and being
conscious/sober enough at the time to spot the goose that's laying
the golden egg".

I want to sell bumper stickers that say, "If you're so rich, howcome
you're not smart?" ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:52:27 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Many people refuse to believe that anyone could become more successful
than themselves through purely legitimate means because it implies
that these such a person might be smarter than they are, and they
cannot accept this possibility.


Awwww, please don't practice your dime store psychology on me? I know
Bill Gates is much much smarter than I am, no question about it. I
didn't say he wasn't. I merely said he was a thief with accomplices
before and after the fact. Why do you have to make it complicated? :-)


Because you demonstrate the trait even in the denial of it.

Which trait is that? Being a thief? Please show us an example of this
alleged "demonstration".

You certainly are showing a lot of the symptoms of this "denial" you so
glibly bandy about, however.
--
Flap!
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that
hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is. ;-j

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:35:38 -0330, Gary H wrote:

... Lawd hep us!!

He wants to, but it seems very, very few people are willing to relax
their brain-lock enough to accept it in the form it's currently being
offered.
--
Good Luck!
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:43:34 -0600, clifto wrote:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command
and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they
are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to
use a computer?

I hate mice. I hate graphics tablets worse, and I hate trackballs only
marginally less than I hate mice, but I hate mice with a passion.

I am to pointing devices what Yosemite Sam is to rabbits.

What? You try to cheat them at poker?

Could you be thinking of Elmer Fudd?

Thnaks!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:02:48 -0600, David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

snip

BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of
you will
earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be
tax
evasion....

I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol....

Good day...

He should give a goddam sight more than he does.

None of your business what he gives nor does it matter what you think he
'should'.


S.O.B. got rich by
stealing CP/M and rewriting it slightly and calling it MS-DOS.

And CPM was 'stolen' from Digital Equipment Corp RT-11 right down to pip
but if you think MS-DOS looks like CPM then you never used CPM.

On the other hand one wonders how he ran the 'stolen' 8 bit 8080 CMP code
on 16 bit processors.


He didn't have to. IBM and Intel were kind enough to provide him with the
ever-popular 8088, which once they got the assembler written, could cross-
compile 8080 code and execute it.

It's really a moot point as Microsoft bought QDOS to make PC-DOS for IBM.

I once had an opportunity to play with
a very expensive S-100 computer that had both and 8085 and an 8088, and
could run the native code of each, but not simultaneously. I had some
great fun writing interprocess communications stuff in assembly code,
and trying to invent file locking on a "MP/M-8/16" OS. It was based on
CP/M, but was "multi-user", in that it supported several ASCII serial
terminals, but not "multi-user" in any real sense.

Anyway, at the time Intel came out with the 8088, everyone with half a
brain or more wondered, "If they're segmenting memory to get an effective
20-bit address, with two overlapping 16-bit address registers, why didn't
they just multiplex it to 32 x 16 right on the spot, and not worry about
"segmentation," but start right out with flat memory? There's really
no excuse for making a processor as crippled as an 8088, other than that
everybody already had an 8080, and all of the peripherals were 8 bits,
and the bus was 8 bits at the time; but why not just for the time being,
ignore the unused 8 bits on the 16-bit bus, go ahead and have 16-bit wide
memory on-board, and so on?

But nOOOOOooo! They graced us with the 8088 and all that has followed.

Oh, well - hindsight is always 20-20, and I think I have a ... Nah, lemme
check: Heh. AMD Athlon, but I have no idea if it's 16 or 32 bits - call it
a brain fart. Blame it on rant endorphins, thanks. :-)
/rant

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:41:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:


Gary H writes:


Awwww, please don't practice your dime store psychology on me?

I don't recall mentioning you. Hmm.


I know Bill Gates is much much smarter than I am, no question
about it. I didn't say he wasn't. I merely said he was a thief
with accomplices before and after the fact. Why do you have to
make it complicated?

Do you find "dime-store" psychology to be complicated?

Bill Gates is no more a thief than any other corporate CEO. He
happens to be the founder of a very successful company, and the
founders of successful companies are routinely demonized, typically
without any rational basis for doing so.


I've heard him called a "brilliant opportunist", which, AFAIU,
means, "being in the right place at the right time and being
conscious/sober enough at the time to spot the goose that's laying
the golden egg".

There's certainly something to be said for having the snap to recognize a
golden opportunity. Remember, IBM wanted to use CPM and went to Digital
Research FIRST.

I want to sell bumper stickers that say, "If you're so rich, howcome
you're not smart?" ;-)

Reminds me of an old commercial with a rich fellow in his limo clipping
coupons and a startled bystander exclaims "as rich as you are you clip
coupons?" and the rich dude replies "how do you think I got to be so rich?"


Thanks!
Rich

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:52:27 -0600, David Maynard wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


Many people refuse to believe that anyone could become more successful
than themselves through purely legitimate means because it implies
that these such a person might be smarter than they are, and they
cannot accept this possibility.


Awwww, please don't practice your dime store psychology on me? I know
Bill Gates is much much smarter than I am, no question about it. I
didn't say he wasn't. I merely said he was a thief with accomplices
before and after the fact. Why do you have to make it complicated? :-)


Because you demonstrate the trait even in the denial of it.


Which trait is that? Being a thief? Please show us an example of this
alleged "demonstration".

I never said a thing about anyone being a thief so your request is nonsensical.


You certainly are showing a lot of the symptoms of this "denial" you so
glibly bandy about, however.

Name one.

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.

It is true that discussions usually go no where when one, or both, simply
throw 'opinions' around. That's why I provide the logic and reasoning, so
it isn't 'just an opinion'.

That, of course, doesn't work either if one clings to 'opinions' regardless
of logic or reasoning.

Rich Grise writes:

I've heard him called a "brilliant opportunist", which, AFAIU,
means, "being in the right place at the right time and being
conscious/sober enough at the time to spot the goose that's laying
the golden egg".

Many successful people owe their success in some measure to simple
luck, but the suggestion that their success is _entirely_ due to luck
is almost always an extreme exaggeration, as it is here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Rich Grise writes:

Anyway, at the time Intel came out with the 8088, everyone with half a
brain or more wondered, "If they're segmenting memory to get an effective
20-bit address, with two overlapping 16-bit address registers, why didn't
they just multiplex it to 32 x 16 right on the spot, and not worry about
"segmentation," but start right out with flat memory? There's really
no excuse for making a processor as crippled as an 8088, other than that
everybody already had an 8080, and all of the peripherals were 8 bits,
and the bus was 8 bits at the time; but why not just for the time being,
ignore the unused 8 bits on the 16-bit bus, go ahead and have 16-bit wide
memory on-board, and so on?

Engineers always make mistakes with addressing; there is probably no
other aspect of computer engineering that is as consistently the
source of serious design errors as addressing. Yes, the engineers
could have planned ahead ... but they never do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Doe wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a
question appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.


I have repaired computers for 23 years. I teach free classes on
computer repair and how to build your own. I have worked with
embedded controllers, both custom design and PC-104 format. Some
of my computer work is in orbit aboard the ISS. Now that I am a
100% non service connected disabled veteran I have started a
program to collect and repair computers which are given to
disabled veterans who can't afford to purchase on on their
disability pension. I repair some motherboards and other computer
circuit boards, monitors and printers. I owned a used computer
business for a few years before I went back to electronics
manufacturing of communications equipment.

Maybe you should write an autobiography, elsewhere.


Do you have any idea how much bandwidth is available to the ISS,

The ISS has a 20 MHZ bandwidth KU-Band data link to and from the
ground.


Do you know who built the equipment, and where? Also, if they had
waited about a year to order the equipment they would have had the
option for 40 Mhz bandwidth. Unfortunatly, that equipment line was
dropped when our company was bought and shut down to get our newest
design. That receiver uses a variant of the MC68020 with a custom
realtime OS.

See if you can focus all that bandwidth on the current topic.


or what equipment they use? I worked on the KU band equipment used
for data and private video link to the ISS.

That suggests you are all knowing about picking parts for,
assembling, booting, and configuring a personal computer (and maybe
every other subject you discuss), but only in your head.


Whatever you want to believe, but my test stamp is on a number of
circuit boards in the custom 700 series reciever aboard the ISS.



--
Been there, Done that, I've got my DD214 to prove it.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.


It is true that discussions usually go no where when one, or both,
simply throw 'opinions' around. That's why I provide the logic and
reasoning, so it isn't 'just an opinion'.

That, of course, doesn't work either if one clings to 'opinions'
regardless of logic or reasoning.



Sir, you supply *nothing* to these discussions except the same
old tired rhetoric, time after time, post after post. You
"seem" as though you don't live in the real world at all. All
you ever offer the other side of a discussion are your points of
view while trying to the discredit the other party with
accusations of paranoia, flawed logic, being a whiner,
irrational, conspiracy buff and so on and so on.
You take a totally off-hand discussion of views, on a given
subject, and turn it into a personal thing where you try to
discredit a point of view with personal slurs. Then you have
the audacity to say?

*When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one
or the other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the
problems.*

I didn't say that and I don't even believe that.
I would think *that* would likely be *your* major problem though
because, as I see it, some of the things I said were "spot-on"
and some of the things you said were "spot-on". However, you
have indicated clearly, on more than one occasion, that you
believe you were *absolutely correct* and I was *absolutely
incorrect*.

Man, you have no idea what debate or discussion is. I *could*
play your game.
I could be saying I think you're nothing but a goddam troll who
doesn't have a life who spends his time in the NGs looking for
arguments and trying to impress people with the thickness of his
black book of useless information. But I won't.
I could also say, I believe you're a condescending lecturer type
filled with a sense of wonder at what you perceive to be *your*
wealth of accumulated knowledge and wisdom. But I won't.

Anyone, including me, can play that stupidly useless "personal
card" as well. Useless because, as I said somewhere far back in
these bull**** meanderings, I don't know you, I don't know
anything about you, not what your life is and sure as hell not
what your knowledge base or acquired level of wisdom is. So,
how can I, in good conscience, make personal remarks and/or
observations about you without, "logically" (a word you like to
use a lot) having those facts. I can't.

One thing I am sure of though and that is the fact that you're
one of the nastiest assholes I've ever been unfortunate enough
to come across. Further communication between us is definitely
*not* in the cards.

Have a good "Holiday season"

"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .
David Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.


It is true that discussions usually go no where when one, or both, simply
throw 'opinions' around. That's why I provide the logic and reasoning, so
it isn't 'just an opinion'.

That, of course, doesn't work either if one clings to 'opinions'
regardless of logic or reasoning.



Sir, you supply *nothing* to these discussions except the same old tired
rhetoric, time after time, post after post. You "seem" as though you
don't live in the real world at all. All you ever offer the other side of
a discussion are your points of view while trying to the discredit the
other party with accusations of paranoia, flawed logic, being a whiner,
irrational, conspiracy buff and so on and so on.
You take a totally off-hand discussion of views, on a given subject, and
turn it into a personal thing where you try to discredit a point of view
with personal slurs. Then you have the audacity to say?

*When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.*

I didn't say that and I don't even believe that.
I would think *that* would likely be *your* major problem though because,
as I see it, some of the things I said were "spot-on" and some of the
things you said were "spot-on". However, you have indicated clearly, on
more than one occasion, that you believe you were *absolutely correct*
and I was *absolutely incorrect*.

Man, you have no idea what debate or discussion is. I *could* play your
game.
I could be saying I think you're nothing but a goddam troll who doesn't
have a life who spends his time in the NGs looking for arguments and
trying to impress people with the thickness of his black book of useless
information. But I won't.
I could also say, I believe you're a condescending lecturer type filled
with a sense of wonder at what you perceive to be *your* wealth of
accumulated knowledge and wisdom. But I won't.

Anyone, including me, can play that stupidly useless "personal card" as
well. Useless because, as I said somewhere far back in these bull****
meanderings, I don't know you, I don't know anything about you, not what
your life is and sure as hell not what your knowledge base or acquired
level of wisdom is. So, how can I, in good conscience, make personal
remarks and/or observations about you without, "logically" (a word you
like to use a lot) having those facts. I can't.

One thing I am sure of though and that is the fact that you're one of the
nastiest assholes I've ever been unfortunate enough to come across.
Further communication between us is definitely *not* in the cards.

Have a good "Holiday season"

And "Merry Christmas" to you Gary. When talking pipelines in and
through Canada, you have to take into consideration that your economy needs
to continue to be the largest oil supplier to the US. Many people don't know
that you ARE the largest importer of oil we currently have. US companies DO
purchase your oil, but by no means OWN it. Your producers do. Any pipeline
from Alaska or anywhere is a positive for your economy by giving another
conduit for shipping your petroleum to the US or to ports to export
elsewhere.
You may disagree with David but your insults about him could not be
further from the truth. It is you that just cannot stand to have someone
that doesn't agree with you. You have this built-in hate for large
corporations like Microsoft and oil companies that no one is going to change
and you can only respond to others with insults and unsubstantiated "facts".
You seem unable to accept that there are a lot of positives and not just
negatives in respect to these companies being successful.

Ed

Ed Medlin wrote:

Snip

And "Merry Christmas" to you Gary.

You will note that I said "Have a good holiday season" That is
because I am not Christian and I do not celebrate "Christmas".
But, thank you anyway. :-)

When talking pipelines in and
through Canada, you have to take into consideration that your economy needs
to continue to be the largest oil supplier to the US. Many people don't know
that you ARE the largest importer of oil we currently have.

I'm sure you mean Canada is the largest exporter of petroleum
products to the US. And, hopefully we will continue to be.
Only however, if environmental and native concerns are properly
considered and protected.
That's my belief, not necessarily the way it will be. If it's
not? Then I have the right to express my concerns without being
labeled paranoid and a conspiracy buff.

US companies DO
purchase your oil, but by no means OWN it. Your producers do. Any pipeline
from Alaska or anywhere is a positive for your economy by giving another
conduit for shipping your petroleum to the US or to ports to export
elsewhere.

Please read the full thread. When discussing the Alaska Gas
Pipeline, the discussion revolved around environmental concerns,
not dollars and the economy.

You may disagree with David but your insults about him could not be
further from the truth. It is you that just cannot stand to have someone
that doesn't agree with you.

My "insults" were rhetorical comments showing that I didn't have
the right to insult. Please observe context when reading the
material. My command of English may not be the best but I give
it my best shot.

My "nastiest asshole" comment *was* a genuine remark.

You have this built-in hate for large
corporations like Microsoft and oil companies that no one is going to change
and you can only respond to others with insults and unsubstantiated "facts".
You seem unable to accept that there are a lot of positives and not just
negatives in respect to these companies being successful.

I have no hate for anything or anyone, built-in or otherwise.
But, I do feel there is something wrong in the system and if
folks think that sounds paranoid, then so be it. It's called an
honest opinion based on observation (subjective I think they
call it), not a fact, unsubstantiated or otherwise and it
certainly is not paranoia.


Ed

Troll

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.ne wshosting.com!newshosting.com!207.69.154.102.MISMA TCH!elnk-atl-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl ink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!b1 a104da!not-for-mail
Message-ID: 43A28487.93FD30DA earthlink.net
From: "Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net
Reply-To: mike.terrell earthlink.net
Organization: http://home.earthlink.net/~mike.terrell/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!!
References: 0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net 4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net ajuhp1t8tteh81n9jke52ldstpd9bpojgs 4ax.com dtmjp1p7vuo5l07pj7bb9bcbprftqua2m5 4ax.com d4lmf.11503$tQ7.8070 fe04.lga 439A09AE.C187A86 earthlink.net mmlkp1po49fb15vc309ov7n5f03t4tni2b 4ax.com 439A6E3A.F857771A earthlink.net pan.2005.12.11.00.32.21.914028 doubleclick.net 439BA98E.E354C897 earthlink.net 04vnp15gka4d7ffi3gp9ehofgfr9jpj31i 4ax.com 439C67B4.FF564383 earthlink.net mUZmf.4530$ES.4450 fe05.lga 439C9417.12D570A8 earthlink.net yB0nf.553$PQ3.98759 news20.bellglobal.com fdinf.15$It6.5 fe02.lga 439E6988.73EBEF85 earthlink.net Xns972B7618CDE98follydom 207.115.17.102 439F8FDC.9FC91077 earthlink.net Xns972BE7AA63B17follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 59
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:10:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.110.15.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1134724244 24.110.15.31 (Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:10:44 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:10:44 PST
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:230207 sci.electronics.repair:433306 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452840

John Doe wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I would be very impressed if (in reality) you never had a
question appropriate for the homebuilt PC group.


I have repaired computers for 23 years. I teach free classes on
computer repair and how to build your own. I have worked with
embedded controllers, both custom design and PC-104 format. Some
of my computer work is in orbit aboard the ISS. Now that I am a
100% non service connected disabled veteran I have started a
program to collect and repair computers which are given to
disabled veterans who can't afford to purchase on on their
disability pension. I repair some motherboards and other computer
circuit boards, monitors and printers. I owned a used computer
business for a few years before I went back to electronics
manufacturing of communications equipment.

Maybe you should write an autobiography, elsewhere.


Do you have any idea how much bandwidth is available to the ISS,

The ISS has a 20 MHZ bandwidth KU-Band data link to and from the
ground.


Do you know who built the equipment, and where? Also, if they had
waited about a year to order the equipment they would have had the
option for 40 Mhz bandwidth. Unfortunatly, that equipment line was
dropped when our company was bought and shut down to get our newest
design. That receiver uses a variant of the MC68020 with a custom
realtime OS.

See if you can focus all that bandwidth on the current topic.


or what equipment they use? I worked on the KU band equipment used
for data and private video link to the ISS.

That suggests you are all knowing about picking parts for,
assembling, booting, and configuring a personal computer (and maybe
every other subject you discuss), but only in your head.


Whatever you want to believe, but my test stamp is on a number of
circuit boards in the custom 700 series reciever aboard the ISS.



--
Been there, Done that, I've got my DD214 to prove it.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:29:02 +0000, John Doe wrote:

Rich Grise eatmyshorts doubleclick.net wrote:

Wonder what Uncle Billy's paying for a blow job these days? ;-P

You can get more attention with that troll in a politics group.

You're right, I shouldn't have posted that crap to s.e.basics.

My apologies.

Thanks,
Rich

On 2005-12-16, Ed Medlin wrote:

When talking pipelines in and
through Canada, you have to take into consideration that your economy needs
to continue to be the largest oil supplier to the US.

sounds something like like putting all one's eggs in one basket.

anyone who needs the USA to do anything is relying on something that is
beyond their control.

Many people don't know
that you ARE the largest importer of oil we currently have. US companies DO
purchase your oil, but by no means OWN it. Your producers do. Any pipeline
from Alaska or anywhere is a positive for your economy by giving another
conduit for shipping your petroleum to the US or to ports to export
elsewhere.

only if it passes through a convenient location in Canada (like an oilfield)
_and_ has excess capacity available. or maybe the canadian government could
tax the stuff as it flows across the border ?

Bye.
Jasen

Damn. I thought I was THE troll. Are these trophies
awarded by the Bank of Nigeria? If so, I have not yet
received fax instructions where to send my $1000 to cover
trophy shipping charges.

How many have been awarded Troll of the Year by John Doe?
Just wondering how large the stadium will be to hold all this
year's recipients.

John Doe wrote:
Troll

"Michael A. Terrell" mike.terrell earthlink.net wrote:
Whatever you want to believe, but my test stamp is on a
number of circuit boards in the custom 700 series reciever
aboard the ISS.