.... please?

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...
... please?


Boo ;p



a

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 10:53:12 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

... please?

Mary


Hello Mary.

Were you feeling in need of care and attention?

Do I need to have a word with Spouse about this?




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Thanks to all of you.

I'm not lonely nor in need of a shoulder to cry on or care and attention,
it's far less interesting than that. I've tiddled with my identity and
wanted to know if it was working.

Seems to be, thanks to you all.

Just back from a wonderful anniversary celebration and recovered from the
champagne but not from the over indulgence of fabulous food. Have to prepare
for the next one now, I have five years to lose enough weight to fit into a
slinky gold lame frock.

Nice to be back :-)

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...
... please?

Mary


alt.test or uk.test, put anything but 'ignore' in the subject line and
you should have at least one server send an auto reply to your return
address, do was it your intention to bog the ng down with one line
replies to your request from 50,000 readers ?...

alt.test or uk.test, put anything but 'ignore' in the subject line and
you should have at least one server send an auto reply to your return
address, do was it your intention to bog the ng down with one line
replies to your request from 50,000 readers ?...

LOL! You've done the same but with more words :-)

Mary

"Parttime" wrote in message
...

But he's not the OP! Cummon, you knew about alt.test

You're making a wrong assumption.

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more bandwidth,
nor am I going to waste more of my time. If you lot want to do by yourself
what you're accusing me of doing go ahead and play.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...


alt.test or uk.test, put anything but 'ignore' in the subject line
and
you should have at least one server send an auto reply to your
return
address, do was it your intention to bog the ng down with one line
replies to your request from 50,000 readers ?...

LOL! You've done the same but with more words :-)


No, I've tried (but seemingly failed) to inform you of the test
groups, how they work and why people should use them. :~(

Mary Fisher wrote:

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more bandwidth,

The "bandwidth" arguemnt only exists in the minds of the anally
retentive percentage of usenet.

In the days of 1200 baud modems and when the reality of disk space and
memory ever getting cheaper than £1/MB was a dream in the minds of the
insane, then, yes, bandwidth was an issue. But with todays Terrabyte
storage devices and Gigabit networks and fibre optics and stuff, an
entire thread that carrys on for eternity even with non-snipping Noobs
etc etc, the "waste of bandwidth" card can not be played.

So post away and have no worries.

BTW. If you had posted a test message and you subsequently saw it appear
then why did you need to request a reply?


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

"Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more
bandwidth,

The "bandwidth" arguemnt only exists in the minds of the anally
retentive percentage of usenet.
snip

So what would the effect be off 100,000 people each posting a1Kb
message and 100,000 people each downloading each of the 100,000
messages then ?...

Just increasing the speed of modems etc. still means that the
bandwidth used, it's just used more quickly you oaf, what weighs more,
a Tonne of feathers or a Tonne of lead.... Doh!

":::Jerry::::" wrote in news:424d5411$0$33318$892e7fe2
@authen.white.readfreenews.net:



No, I've tried (but seemingly failed) to inform you of the test
groups, how they work and why people should use them. :~(

P'raps it's you?

mike

In message , Mary
Fisher writes
... please?

Mary

1 out of 10 for getting your name right ...


--
geoff

In message , Parttime
writes
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:31:39 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:



alt.test or uk.test, put anything but 'ignore' in the subject line and
you should have at least one server send an auto reply to your return
address, do was it your intention to bog the ng down with one line
replies to your request from 50,000 readers ?...

LOL! You've done the same but with more words :-)

Mary

But he's not the OP! Cummon, you knew about alt.test - so what's your real
motive :-) :-)

****ed again on fizzy wine

--
geoff

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk wrote:

The "bandwidth" arguemnt only exists in the minds of the anally
retentive percentage of usenet.

Here speaketh a man who does not routinely access data on the move via
metered GPRS or GSM data links (56K or 9K6 bps, often at £1.50 / meg)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

what weighs more, a Tonne of feathers or a Tonne of lead.... Doh!

If you want real pedentry, then there is a good probability the lead
will weigh more.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more bandwidth,

The "bandwidth" arguemnt only exists in the minds of the anally
retentive percentage of usenet.

GPRS?

Capped bandwidth like the Tiscali / BT etc con trick?

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

GPRS?

Capped bandwidth like the Tiscali / BT etc con trick?

No, the "faster" of the commonly available ways of getting data down a
mobile phone connection...

(Standard GSM can do circuit switched dial-up at 9600bps - paid for at
standard per min call costs, the networks however also support 56kbps
GRPS "always on" packet switched data - paid for on a per kB basis. You
can get GPRS data cards for your computer that do not need a separate
phone to operate - but £40/month is not uncommon for tarrifs that let
you shift 100MB / month)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Parttime" wrote in message
...

But he's not the OP! Cummon, you knew about alt.test


You're making a wrong assumption.

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more bandwidth

It always amuses me when some one uses the term bandwidth on the internet.
The connection is serial and the data is on/off. So how can bandwidth be
used?
Bandwidth, by its very description, would mean that more data, other
than ones and zeros could be transmitted along the telephone line.
There are many radio amateurs looking into this ng who can back me up on
the description of bandwidth. So how did bandwidth get on the internet?

Dave

Very curious

:::Jerry:::: wrote:




So what would the effect be off 100,000 people each posting a1Kb
message and 100,000 people each downloading each of the 100,000
messages then ?...

The serial down/up load time might be delayed.
This is not a broad band issue. Bits of data can only be sent on a speed
issue. Broad band allows you to send additional information on top of
the data.
Think about a TV broadcast. The frame is sent as one part of the
transmission and the rest is added into this as additional data. Now
that is braodband

Just increasing the speed of modems etc. still means that the
bandwidth used, it's just used more quickly you oaf

I didn't understand that argument. Can you expand on it please?

Dave

Dave wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Parttime" wrote in message
...

But he's not the OP! Cummon, you knew about alt.test



You're making a wrong assumption.

Look, I 'm not going to upset any more people by takeing up more
bandwidth


It always amuses me when some one uses the term bandwidth on the internet.
The connection is serial and the data is on/off. So how can bandwidth be
used?

This one could run and run.... perhaps a new thread is in order.

Bandwidth, by its very description, would mean that more data, other
than ones and zeros could be transmitted along the telephone line.

And indeed it can and is (single symbol FSK modems went out years ago).

There are many radio amateurs looking into this ng who can back me up on
the description of bandwidth. So how did bandwidth get on the internet?

Much depends on your definition of bandwidth:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bandwidth

I expect that the original assumption that more bandwidth = more data
transfer capacity (al la Shannon) has evolved into a burring and re
appropriating of the term.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/