May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

Try more ad hominem attacks to prove your case. Ohhhh...what case?


------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Oh please! In theory only. You just destroyed your credibility with
two
simple statements there Jack.


-------------------
Jack wrote:
Disk and memory access was in the
terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on.

That's one I have never heard of.

Geeezzzz I used a Radio Scrap CoCo II, running a multitasking, multi
user O/S with 32K for a business.

-------------
wrote in message
news:23284940.663.1319033716417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prgt10...

m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its
subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized
business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped
their first PC.

On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"


You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Bull****!

--------------

"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...

On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"


You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 19, 7:48*pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

--------------

"-MIKE-" *wrote in ...

On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:

May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.



If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties.

On 10/19/11 7:54 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 7:48 pm, "m wrote:
Bull****!

--------------

"-MIKE-" wrote in ...

On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:

May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.



If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties.

Why would you be in his mommy's basement?

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"


Funny hearing that from you - Since that is your characteristic comment.
Asshole...


Try more ad hominem attacks to prove your case. Ohhhh...what case?

Do a goodle search on the definition of ad hominem before you use big words
like that in your posts - which you clearly do not understand.


--

-Mike-

-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"


You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.

He's just a freakin' moron Mike...

--

-Mike-

m II wrote:

Bull****.


That's one I have never heard of.

Geeezzzz I used a Radio Scrap CoCo II, running a multitasking, multi
user O/S with 32K for a business.

-------------
wrote in message
news:23284940.663.1319033716417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prgt10...

m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its
subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized
business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped
their first PC.

On 10/19/2011 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:24:30 -0400, wrote:

Nothing I said should give you that idea. IBM contracted with Gates for
the DT/PC OS. They could have written it themselves with no problem.

Actually, the couldn't. It would have cost *far* too much.

Perhaps you have no clue how much money IBM had/has. They had cocktail
party's that cost more than Gates bought DOS for.

Why they contracted with Gates is pure speculation, but NEVER did I
say it was because IBM couldn't do it themselves. My GUESS is IBM
didn't think the PC market would do anything, and if it did, they didn't
want another anti-trust suit, so they contracted with a dip**** they
thought they could control.

For the anticipated 25K units? No, the reason they didn't write it themselves
is that it would have cost 100x too much. The PC was a "skunkworks" project,
flying under the RADAR of the monster. The whole design team was only a few
people.

And the reason they contracted with Gates, who didn't have or own an OS
instead of someone already established was because what the hell, PC's
were skunkwork, right.

IBM wanted Gates to develop OS/2 so they could use it as the OS for ATM
machines, which had to be stable, unlike DOS/WIN. When Gates couldn't
deliver after years of trying, IBM did it themselves in less than a
year, after Gates said it was impossible to do what IBM wanted.

ATMs were *one* application for OS/2. There were *many* others.

I know, I ran my BBS under it. IBM took over the design because they
needed it for their ATM business.

Now, I think between MS, IBM and INTEL, they have a cartel and it will
take an act of god to get them to do more than rip everyone off.

They "have" a cartel? IBM isn't even in that business anymore. BTW, Intel
and MS hate each other.

Sure they do.

IBM was shipping 32-bit preemptively multitasking protected virtual operating systems when
Bill Gates was still in high school.

Doesn't change the fact they contracted with Gates to provide an OS for
their PC. Gates didn't even HAVE one at the time. IBM could have gone
to Patterson themselves and bought the OS instead of Gates. I don't
know why they didn't, but the most likely story I heard was Gates mother
was in with some IBM big cheese.

I've never heard that story and I worked for the beast. Any citations?

Millions worked for the beast, and didn't even know who the CEO was let
alone who his friends were. Any how, this was fairly common knowledge
during the OS wars in the BBS world. Since you worked for the beast, I
assume you can explain why IBM contracted with a looser like Gates when
they were developing and marketing and servicing complex multitasking
systems and equipment when Gates was jerking off in the boys room. Why
didn't IBM just go to Patterson and buy DOS off of him, or off Digital
Research that already had a working system or anyone other than a
college dropout that had no product to sell?

Microsoft bailed on OS/2 because Windows was making much more money for them, pure and simple.

Yep.

MS never could get OS/2 to work. IBM took the project off of MS when
they failed to deliver. IBM dropped OS/2 when it started to threaten MS
corner on the DT/PC OS market. Why they did this is speculative, my
feeling is the anti-trust thing, combined with the cozy cartel
IBM/MS/INTEL has going for them.

Baloney. IBM withdrew it when it was clear there was no money to be had.
There was no money to be had because they didn't want to spend the $200M
needed to market it. IBM was in tough shape in the early '90s, borrowing
money to pay dividends.

Baloney, $200 million was nothing compared to the potential returns, and
IBM had the money if they wanted to go that way. They spent more money
just on R&D than Microsoft grossed in those days. They could have
trashed MS with ease, had they wanted too. They had the product (OS/2)
they had the money, they had all they needed, but, they didn't want to
go that way. My guess is anti-trust fears, but since you worked for the
beast, I'm sure you know the real deal.

And if IBM was selling a million copies a month then it must have been more available
than you claim.

All I know is you could not buy a PC at any retail outlet (other than
possibly IBM, not sure about that) with OS/2 installed.

There were retail outlets, both storefront and Internet, that sold PCs with
OS/2 installed. Dell, HP, and Gateway didn't, if that's what you mean.

What I mean is no large retailers sold PC's with anything other than
windows on it. The geek down the street selling 20 PC's a year didn't
matter much, and they mostly sold DOS/WIN for a variety of reasons, all
related to the MS monopoly when OS/2 Warp was out.

None of the
retail stores around here sold OS/2, I know that because I had to get my
copies directly from IBM. The sales numbers were being reported by OS/2
user groups, I don't know where they got their numbers but I was
following them closely because I was keenly interested. IBM did little
to no retail marketing of OS/2, and most of the noise about it came from
delighted users, and the OS/2 user group. The user group got some, but
very little support from IBM. It was obvious to me that IBM was not
interested in competing with the company to which they bestowed the
DT/PC OS market. IMO, had they wanted to, they could have crushed Gates
and MS like a grape.

Wrong.


--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/19/2011 7:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jack wrote:

Disk and memory access was in the
terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on.

Oh please! In theory only.

Well yeah, PC's didn't have terabytes of memory, but the OS/2 kernel was
theoretically able to access 64 terabytes of it. Pretty sure the same
was true of disk space. Dos/win limits were perfect for requiring
annual upgrades as memory limits were reached on almost a monthly basis.

As far as disk fragmentation, it was non-existent on an HPFS drive, I
know, I ran one for many years, writing and deleting many thousands of
files daily. Never once had to defrag. I reckon theoretically it was
possible, but in reality, never happened. (I'm not even sure it was
possible theoretically).

HPFS I'm fairly sure was developed by MS, which should give you a hint I
don't care who writes the good stuff, just the crap) Pretty neat they
chose to use DOS to manage their disks. Piece of ****, good enough for
the dos/win losers, who were happy as hell to lose files, have massive
fragmentation and have to upgrade every time memory and drives grew past
DOS limits, which was usually within a month of each release (IBM don't
ya know). That could all have been avoided if MS and IBM would simply
have gone with OS/2. Wait, they couldn't have raped the user year after
year if the software worked for decades instead of months. Oh, and Gates
would be as much a hero to me as Ritchie.

You just destroyed your credibility with two
simple statements there Jack.

Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not
these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of what
OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty
****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you
were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of
memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I was
correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag
issues.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/19/2011 8:17 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.

He's just a freakin' moron Mike...

I thought both you Mikes were too smart to waste time with the trolls,
right?

Really...

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:10:11 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/19/2011 7:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jack wrote:

Disk and memory access was in the
terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on.

Oh please! In theory only.

Well yeah, PC's didn't have terabytes of memory, but the OS/2 kernel was
theoretically able to access 64 terabytes of it. Pretty sure the same
was true of disk space. Dos/win limits were perfect for requiring
annual upgrades as memory limits were reached on almost a monthly basis.

As far as disk fragmentation, it was non-existent on an HPFS drive, I
know, I ran one for many years, writing and deleting many thousands of
files daily. Never once had to defrag. I reckon theoretically it was
possible, but in reality, never happened. (I'm not even sure it was
possible theoretically).

Less likely but it would fragment.

HPFS I'm fairly sure was developed by MS, which should give you a hint I
don't care who writes the good stuff, just the crap) Pretty neat they
chose to use DOS to manage their disks. Piece of ****, good enough for
the dos/win losers, who were happy as hell to lose files, have massive
fragmentation and have to upgrade every time memory and drives grew past
DOS limits, which was usually within a month of each release (IBM don't
ya know). That could all have been avoided if MS and IBM would simply
have gone with OS/2. Wait, they couldn't have raped the user year after
year if the software worked for decades instead of months. Oh, and Gates
would be as much a hero to me as Ritchie.

HPFS was indeed written by Steve Ballmer. It's really not all that different
from NTFS. An HPFS drive is a *little* less likely to fragment because of the
way it uses "bands" of the disk, but it will if the disk gets filled.

You just destroyed your credibility with two
simple statements there Jack.

Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not
these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of what
OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty
****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you
were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of
memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I was
correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag
issues.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:24:09 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/19/2011 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:24:30 -0400, wrote:

Nothing I said should give you that idea. IBM contracted with Gates for
the DT/PC OS. They could have written it themselves with no problem.

Actually, the couldn't. It would have cost *far* too much.

Perhaps you have no clue how much money IBM had/has. They had cocktail
party's that cost more than Gates bought DOS for.

I have a little clue. I worked for them for 32 years. You certainly don't
understand IBM or business, for that matter.

Why they contracted with Gates is pure speculation, but NEVER did I
say it was because IBM couldn't do it themselves. My GUESS is IBM
didn't think the PC market would do anything, and if it did, they didn't
want another anti-trust suit, so they contracted with a dip**** they
thought they could control.

For the anticipated 25K units? No, the reason they didn't write it themselves
is that it would have cost 100x too much. The PC was a "skunkworks" project,
flying under the RADAR of the monster. The whole design team was only a few
people.

And the reason they contracted with Gates, who didn't have or own an OS
instead of someone already established was because what the hell, PC's
were skunkwork, right.

The Boca PC folks couldn't do it and they certainly didn't have the cash to
pay the OS developers to do it (they asked the question and were laughed out
of town). So, yes, pretty much.

IBM wanted Gates to develop OS/2 so they could use it as the OS for ATM
machines, which had to be stable, unlike DOS/WIN. When Gates couldn't
deliver after years of trying, IBM did it themselves in less than a
year, after Gates said it was impossible to do what IBM wanted.

ATMs were *one* application for OS/2. There were *many* others.

I know, I ran my BBS under it. IBM took over the design because they
needed it for their ATM business.

No, they needed it for *many* businesses and *many* customers. ATMs were a
small one.

Now, I think between MS, IBM and INTEL, they have a cartel and it will
take an act of god to get them to do more than rip everyone off.

They "have" a cartel? IBM isn't even in that business anymore. BTW, Intel
and MS hate each other.

Sure they do.

You got your words swapped; "They sure do!"

IBM was shipping 32-bit preemptively multitasking protected virtual operating systems when
Bill Gates was still in high school.

Doesn't change the fact they contracted with Gates to provide an OS for
their PC. Gates didn't even HAVE one at the time. IBM could have gone
to Patterson themselves and bought the OS instead of Gates. I don't
know why they didn't, but the most likely story I heard was Gates mother
was in with some IBM big cheese.

I've never heard that story and I worked for the beast. Any citations?

Millions worked for the beast, and didn't even know who the CEO was let
alone who his friends were.

Of course you don't. More cred down the drain.

Any how, this was fairly common knowledge
during the OS wars in the BBS world.

Any more fairy tales?

Since you worked for the beast, I
assume you can explain why IBM contracted with a looser like Gates when
they were developing and marketing and servicing complex multitasking
systems and equipment when Gates was jerking off in the boys room. Why
didn't IBM just go to Patterson and buy DOS off of him, or off Digital
Research that already had a working system or anyone other than a
college dropout that had no product to sell?

They didn't have the contacts. That was tough.

Microsoft bailed on OS/2 because Windows was making much more money for them, pure and simple.

Yep.

MS never could get OS/2 to work. IBM took the project off of MS when
they failed to deliver. IBM dropped OS/2 when it started to threaten MS
corner on the DT/PC OS market. Why they did this is speculative, my
feeling is the anti-trust thing, combined with the cozy cartel
IBM/MS/INTEL has going for them.

Baloney. IBM withdrew it when it was clear there was no money to be had.
There was no money to be had because they didn't want to spend the $200M
needed to market it. IBM was in tough shape in the early '90s, borrowing
money to pay dividends.

Baloney, $200 million was nothing compared to the potential returns, and
IBM had the money if they wanted to go that way. They spent more money
just on R&D than Microsoft grossed in those days. They could have
trashed MS with ease, had they wanted too. They had the product (OS/2)
they had the money, they had all they needed, but, they didn't want to
go that way. My guess is anti-trust fears, but since you worked for the
beast, I'm sure you know the real deal.

I know IBM was under water at the time. They had *massive* layoffs in the
early-mid '90s and were "two weeks from missing payroll". IBM, under Akers,
had borrowed money to pay dividends for a decade. The cards almost crashed.

Your "guesses" are just that; pathetic guesses.

And if IBM was selling a million copies a month then it must have been more available
than you claim.

All I know is you could not buy a PC at any retail outlet (other than
possibly IBM, not sure about that) with OS/2 installed.

There were retail outlets, both storefront and Internet, that sold PCs with
OS/2 installed. Dell, HP, and Gateway didn't, if that's what you mean.

What I mean is no large retailers sold PC's with anything other than
windows on it. The geek down the street selling 20 PC's a year didn't
matter much, and they mostly sold DOS/WIN for a variety of reasons, all
related to the MS monopoly when OS/2 Warp was out.

I detect goalposts in motion.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:27:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:46:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:38:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


IKWUABWAI?

Pure stupidity. You are either a 20-something text adict or you
are simply too lazy to type a comprehensive sentence - expecting
everyone else to either understand or to look up your "acronyms".

I can't help it if you're net illiterate, as well.

Not at all net illiterate.

Obviously not true.

To you - and I've reached the point where what is obvious to you has become
meaningless to me. So... **** off.

I don't really care that you insist on making your ignorance public.


Just not as lazy as you when it comes to
actually typing out what I mean to say. At that - your cute little
acronym is childish at best. And you consider yourself to be
literate - in exactly what way?

At least I know the common Usenet idioms.

Ohhhhhh... good for you! You are such a freakin' hero...

Don't cry!

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:42:49 -0400, "m II" wrote:

May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

"May as well blurted"? Incredible lack of English skills you have
there.

Jack wrote:


Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not
these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of
what OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty
****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you
were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of
memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I
was correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag
issues.

Ok - I'll take the hit that my statement was a tad on the strong side Jack.
You hit a button with the "memory" comment above since at my age, memory is
only something we... remember..

--

-Mike-

I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!


Where will you be?


-----------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

On Oct 19, 7:48 pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

--------------

"-MIKE-" wrote in ...

On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:

May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"

You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet.

Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first
name, doesn't mean they are the same person.



If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties.

hmmmmmmm.....

Mikeys like Bull****!

--

mike

-------------
"Jack" wrote in message ...
I thought both you Mikes were too smart to waste time with the trolls,
right?

Really...

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Bull****!

---------

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Funny hearing that from you - Since that is your characteristic
comment.
Asshole...


Try more ad hominem attacks to prove your case. Ohhhh...what case?

Do a goodle search on the definition of ad hominem before you use big
words
like that in your posts - which you clearly do not understand.

Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?

--

mike
-------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Ok - I'll take the hit that my statement was a tad on the strong side
Jack.
You hit a button with the "memory" comment above since at my age,
memory is
only something we... remember..

No! Mike Mashmallow wrote


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

m II wrote:

Bull****.

****in bottom feeders

m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

--

-Mike-

On Oct 20, 9:18*am, "m II" wrote:
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!

Where will you be?


Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole.

On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On Oct 20, 10:19*am, FrozenNorth
wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:







m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?

***** *FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)

--
Froz...

The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

LOL

FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)

G'damnit! I hate that small print stuff...

--

-Mike-

FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)



***** REVISED ADD *****

FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts.
Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the market, this
product has been reduced to give-away status.
Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand.

No cost - no risk.
Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...)
Will ship for free.
Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really good
for...)


ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn pile on
Friday.

--

-Mike-

Robatoy wrote:


LOL

Oh... Ha-ha your ass. Have I ever told you how much you look like my wife?

--

-Mike-

On 10/20/11 10:55 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)



***** REVISED ADD *****

FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts.
Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the market, this
product has been reduced to give-away status.
Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand.

No cost - no risk.
Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...)
Will ship for free.
Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really good
for...)


ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn pile on
Friday.

Please pack in an air-tight shipping container, prepaid shipping to
Antarctica, via a leaky canoe. Send $1000.00 Canadian to FrozenNorth
Enterprises for our valuable assistance in this matter, note the terms
are Net 10 Days, 2% cash discount if paid by yesterday. We are hoping
you have enjoyed this business dealing, and will continue to provide
further services on an as-needed basis.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 10:55 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote:
Bull****!

Looking for a last friend?



***** FOR SALE *****

One badly used usenet stalker.
Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model
Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it
Willing to part with it cheap
Make your best offer - no offer too low
Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model

Call now - operators are standing by...

There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes.
You got him, he is yours. :-)



***** REVISED ADD *****

FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts.
Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the
market, this product has been reduced to give-away status.
Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand.

No cost - no risk.
Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...)
Will ship for free.
Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really
good for...)


ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn
pile on Friday.

Please pack in an air-tight shipping container, prepaid shipping to
Antarctica, via a leaky canoe. Send $1000.00 Canadian to FrozenNorth
Enterprises for our valuable assistance in this matter, note the terms
are Net 10 Days, 2% cash discount if paid by yesterday. We are hoping
you have enjoyed this business dealing, and will continue to provide
further services on an as-needed basis.

SORRY BIDDERS - this sale has concluded, with the above referenced bidder as
the winner.

Congratulations to FrozenNorth for his/her successful bid.

Your shipment will be packaged and sent within the next 30 days. Please
allow for a particularly stinky package, upon its arrival. SHIPPING
NOTICE - Due to the unusual stinky nature of this shipment, it may be
difficult to find a carrier willing to accept this offering for shipment.
Shipper accepts no responsibility for said difficulties. Canadian
customers: Please note that we are unable to pay or refund in Canadian
funds, and all sales or refunds or payments will be made in depreciated NY
state budget funds. Current depreciation rates are 130%. Please remit the
amount of your referenced fee/offer, plus 30%. Limited time offer - provide
your mother-in-law's mailing address and receive this offer, shipped
directly to her for no fee, no shipping. Offer expires on 10/19/2011.

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:24:53 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

I always thought the Nat'l Semi 16032 and its relatives had the best
instruction set of the micro chips, but my real favorite was a
mainframe from the '60s, the GE4xx series. Not a lot about it on the
web but a little at:


Mixed thoughts there Larry 0 GE4x was not a microprocessor based
machine.

Well, I did say it was a "mainframe", but I see what you mean. I guess I
should have said the 4xx had my favorite instruction set of all
computers, main, mini, or micro.

For sheer simplicity, and elegance, the CDC 6600 was hard to beat.

Five(5!!) opcode mnemonics accounted for over _half_ the hardware
instruction set. you didn't need a 'cheat sheet' (aka "green card",
"yellow card", or whatever) to keep track of the instruction set.
If you had any experience with any assembler language, you could
learn assembler for the 6600 in a single afternoon. The *entire*
language -- well enough to start writing real applications.

Now, the closer to the 'bare metal' you got, the 'stranger' the hardware
got, but it _had_ it's endearing characteristics. *MUCH* to the annoyance
of the pure computer-science types, and for any data set* up to the
size of main memory, a carefully hand-coded one-key _bubble-sort_ would
out-perform _any_ other sorting algorithm.

Oh yeah, 'self-modifying code' was an integral part of the architecture.
At the _hardware_ level. You could _not_ do significant programming on
the machine without using self-modifying code.

And to add to the fun "CPU HALT" was a legitimate _user_mode_ (i.e.
'unprotected') instruction. In fact, it was the 'preferred' way for
a user program to exit. *great* fun. grin

....and to further and repeat after your avoidance and macho
declarations, "where will you be?"

----------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote:
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!

Where will you be?


Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:19:06 -0400, "m II" wrote:
Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole.

You don't have to look far dweeb. You see one in the mirror every
morning.

In article , "m II"
wrote:

...and to further and repeat after your avoidance and macho
declarations, "where will you be?"

----------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote:
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!

Where will you be?


Unlike you, I don't hang around my mother's basement all day. In fact I
have an active social life and have many friends, some nicer than others.
So why don't you give me an exact time and your cell number and then I
will tell you where I'll be. You can't expect me to sit around in one
spot all day, now can you?

On Oct 21, 11:39*am, Robatoy wrote:
In article , "m II"
wrote:

...and to further and repeat after your avoidance and *macho
declarations, "where will you be?"

----------------
"Robatoy" *wrote in message
...

On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote:
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!

Where will you be?

Unlike you, I don't hang around my mother's basement all day. In fact I
have an active social life and have many friends, some nicer than others.
So why don't you give me an exact time and your cell number and then I
will tell you where I'll be. You can't expect me to sit around in one
spot all day, now can you?

Besides, what if you are a 15 year old girl? I don't want to be on
Dateline being told "to have a seat over here".

ROFLMAO!! So true, so true!!

I was going to buy you a beer (Canadian stuff) for the price of seeing
your CNC.

That's OK... Clinical Neurosis Councillors get boring after a few
minutes, anyway.

--------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
Besides, what if you are a 15 year old girl? I don't want to be on
Dateline being told "to have a seat over here".

On Oct 21, 2:31*pm, "m II" wrote:
ROFLMAO!! So true, so true!!

I was going to buy you a beer (Canadian stuff) for the price of seeing
your CNC.

Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature
approach in how you're dealing with people here.

I only give what I get and really don't give a **** anymore. The group
is almost useless with the Sybil goons here. I have learned quite well
and my forty other IDs get information, when I want it, here.

You want to kick teeth, don't expect roses delivered.


---------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature
approach in how you're dealing with people here.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature
approach in how you're dealing with people here.

Occasionally you trying responding to him like he's some sort of
responsible adult and all you get is his bilge in return.

Gotta admit Toy, you're ever the optimist.