Re: uk.rec.gardening

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:

>
>
> hwf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
> > ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
> > bandwith with:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Sacha wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> >>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the 'regulars'
> >have>>
> >>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to sue
> >for>>libel.>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
> >>
> >>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
> >>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to discuss
> > I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my NG,
> > alt.usenet.kooks.
> > HTH
> >
> >
>
> Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
> If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the trouble
> of considering your request to begin with.
>
>
> This is a recording.
>

Too much compression and too little cowbell...

--
www.bushorchimp.com

 

???hw??f wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>
>
>>
>>hwf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
>>>bandwith with:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sacha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the 'regulars'
>>>
>>>have>>
>>>
>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to sue
>>>
>>>for>>libel.>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
>>>>
>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to discuss
>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my NG,
>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
>>>HTH
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the trouble
>>of considering your request to begin with.
>>
>>
>>This is a recording.
>>
>
>
> Too much compression and too little cowbell...
>
> --
> www.bushorchimp.com
>

Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider
reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself, then we're bound
to stumble upon a topic in the interim that discusses someone that is.


--
"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:q3hei353llm9jpui0p3gvj79o7nqd4rj5b@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:38:24 +0000 (UTC), in
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>news:le79i31g9afaibld8cvmagjtpi1kq12fip@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:b528i39pra00cauiqd3n0skhmb9fo8rves@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:52:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>> writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:64q7i3pn8tu9l3ji3ghib9otgvaqrbj9r1@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:hrj6i3dcjcnl95lo8fo8iif4qg6l435kub@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:00:03 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>news:1lh5i3t8rv848vqp4rscf41icrug2lv1ae@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:43:48 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would sue libelous paedophiles.
>>>>>>>>>>Only Aratzio would libel suits.
>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would libel Sue.
>>>>>>>>Only Sue would Libel Lionel.
>>>>>>> I have Libby's, Libby's, Libby's On My Table, Table, Table
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He wears a funny hat.
>>>>> Purple Furry?
>>>>Not barney again?
>>> Barney is a hat?
>>>
>>
>>He's a prat.
>
> WOT!
>

Don't have a barney.
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

rrock wrote:

>
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>> rrock wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's hard to take over the world via email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a good O/S can put a couple billion bucks in your pocket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how'd Billy Gates get rich?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He stole CP/M.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If he had, we'd have an actual wordprocessor, called "WordStar."
>>>> Actually, he "stole" Pederson's DOS for $10,000, then sold First
>>>> Serial Rights in it to IBM for $3 million.
>>>> That "windfall" founded MicroSlop, which had been him and four
>>>> friends in his garage.
>>>>
>>>> When the time came to expand certain datareas to 32 bits, Gates
>>>> painted WFW 3.11 over MSDOS 7, while IBM screwed the pooch with OS/2.
>>>> (IBM PC-DOS 7 is still 16-bit, and still works better.)
>>>> Win NT (incl ME, 2000, XP, etc.) is "bulletproof" for the simple
>>>> reason that it won't actually do anything in the first place,
>>>> without the DOS utilities and overlays called "Service Packages Each
>>>> Sold Separately." The ubiquitous Service Pack 3 that comes with XP
>>>> but not with NT still does all the work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure i still have a copy of WordStar in my archives. If you'd
>>> like
>>> a copy of MS-DOS 2.11, let me know, that's about the time i started the
>>> archive. If you don't like the NT kernel, then use something else.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, you had a TI! (Anything .11 was specifically ported for the TI
>> chipsets.)
>> As for NT/XP, I've got too much legacy filework tied up under it,
>> but someday I'll find something that runs my stuff the way it's spoZe to.
>> Or I'll have hand-converted my WordStar files to fuken text. (XP
>> won't "allow" WordStar to call its printer drivers -- W95 wouldn't
>> "allow" it to install them -- so there's no WS-to-ASCII converter.)
>>
>
> Nope, that version shipped with quite a few things. Pretty sure that we
> were selling "NorthStar" at the time, "Crystal Computers" was another...
> all Intel 8088's and HEY! for an extra grand or two you could get a
> FULL-Sized Winchester 20/20.....
>

Hmm. v.2.21, then. The DOS, BASIC, Lotus 123, WordStar, AutoCAD,
and a RamDrive installer that wasn't called "RamDrive." They
wouldn't run on an IBM clone or Compaq, and nothing else would run on
the TI.
I made a boot that put WordStar's overlays on the RAMdisc. It ran
at CPU speed instead of floppy, and I had one 1.2M for library and
one for writing on.
With all the activity imposed by AutoCAD, in one year, about 1/4
of the Winchester sectors had gone bad.
You punched REDRAW and smoked a cigarette or two...
Putting the AutoCAD .dxf files in WordStar and pulling various
SORTs cut the plotting time to between a quarter and a tenth what it
was for the raw draw (useta spend all its time running to change pens).

>
> lolol i still use PC-Write... remember
> that one? It has a format deelie that nobody has ever bothered with
> since. Bob Wallace wrote it.
>

Pretty sure I still have it. Maybe I should look it up; you could
write your own printer drivers. Do the same in WINSTALL, though.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

> rrock wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>> rrock wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's hard to take over the world via email.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But a good O/S can put a couple billion bucks in your pocket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how'd Billy Gates get rich?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He stole CP/M.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If he had, we'd have an actual wordprocessor, called "WordStar."
>>>>> Actually, he "stole" Pederson's DOS for $10,000, then sold First
>>>>> Serial Rights in it to IBM for $3 million.
>>>>> That "windfall" founded MicroSlop, which had been him and four
>>>>> friends in his garage.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the time came to expand certain datareas to 32 bits, Gates
>>>>> painted WFW 3.11 over MSDOS 7, while IBM screwed the pooch with OS/2.
>>>>> (IBM PC-DOS 7 is still 16-bit, and still works better.)
>>>>> Win NT (incl ME, 2000, XP, etc.) is "bulletproof" for the simple
>>>>> reason that it won't actually do anything in the first place,
>>>>> without the DOS utilities and overlays called "Service Packages
>>>>> Each Sold Separately." The ubiquitous Service Pack 3 that comes
>>>>> with XP but not with NT still does all the work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty sure i still have a copy of WordStar in my archives. If you'd
>>>> like
>>>> a copy of MS-DOS 2.11, let me know, that's about the time i started the
>>>> archive. If you don't like the NT kernel, then use something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, you had a TI! (Anything .11 was specifically ported for the TI
>>> chipsets.)
>>> As for NT/XP, I've got too much legacy filework tied up under it,
>>> but someday I'll find something that runs my stuff the way it's spoZe
>>> to.
>>> Or I'll have hand-converted my WordStar files to fuken text. (XP
>>> won't "allow" WordStar to call its printer drivers -- W95 wouldn't
>>> "allow" it to install them -- so there's no WS-to-ASCII converter.)
>>>
>>
>> Nope, that version shipped with quite a few things. Pretty sure that we
>> were selling "NorthStar" at the time, "Crystal Computers" was another...
>> all Intel 8088's and HEY! for an extra grand or two you could get a
>> FULL-Sized Winchester 20/20.....
>
>
> Hmm. v.2.21, then. The DOS, BASIC, Lotus 123, WordStar, AutoCAD, and a
> RamDrive installer that wasn't called "RamDrive." They wouldn't run on
> an IBM clone or Compaq, and nothing else would run on the TI.
> I made a boot that put WordStar's overlays on the RAMdisc. It ran at
> CPU speed instead of floppy, and I had one 1.2M for library and one for
> writing on.
> With all the activity imposed by AutoCAD, in one year, about 1/4 of
> the Winchester sectors had gone bad.
> You punched REDRAW and smoked a cigarette or two...
> Putting the AutoCAD .dxf files in WordStar and pulling various SORTs
> cut the plotting time to between a quarter and a tenth what it was for
> the raw draw (useta spend all its time running to change pens).

..... TSR.... Another acronym that bites the dust. lol

>>
>> lolol i still use PC-Write... remember
>> that one? It has a format deelie that nobody has ever bothered with
>> since. Bob Wallace wrote it.
>>
>
> Pretty sure I still have it. Maybe I should look it up; you could write
> your own printer drivers. Do the same in WINSTALL, though.
>

So, if i get the picture, you want to convert the old wordstar files to
something more recent. Did they have binary includes or something? I'm
unfamiliar with their actual format. Certainly with enough eyeballs
looking around it could still be found. If it were, and you were going
to convert the files, what format would you want them in now?

--

"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:08:45 +0000 (UTC), in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
<philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:

>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:q3hei353llm9jpui0p3gvj79o7nqd4rj5b@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:38:24 +0000 (UTC), in
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>>
>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>news:le79i31g9afaibld8cvmagjtpi1kq12fip@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:b528i39pra00cauiqd3n0skhmb9fo8rves@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:52:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:64q7i3pn8tu9l3ji3ghib9otgvaqrbj9r1@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:hrj6i3dcjcnl95lo8fo8iif4qg6l435kub@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:00:03 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>news:1lh5i3t8rv848vqp4rscf41icrug2lv1ae@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:43:48 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would sue libelous paedophiles.
>>>>>>>>>>>Only Aratzio would libel suits.
>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would libel Sue.
>>>>>>>>>Only Sue would Libel Lionel.
>>>>>>>> I have Libby's, Libby's, Libby's On My Table, Table, Table
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He wears a funny hat.
>>>>>> Purple Furry?
>>>>>Not barney again?
>>>> Barney is a hat?
>>>>
>>>
>>>He's a prat.
>>
>> WOT!
>>
>
>Don't have a barney.

I have a Jerry Lee (5.6 Earthquake that nicely rocked & rolled)

 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:

>
>
> ???hw??f wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
> > rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
> > with:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>hwf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
> >>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
> >>>bandwith with:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sacha wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> >>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the 'regulars'
> >>>
> >>>have>>
> >>>
> >>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to sue
> >>>
> >>>for>>libel.>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
> >>>>
> >>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
> >>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to discuss
> >>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my NG,
> >>>alt.usenet.kooks.
> >>>HTH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
> >>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the
> >trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
> >>
> >>
> >>This is a recording.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Too much compression and too little cowbell...
> >
> > --
> > www.bushorchimp.com
> >
>
> Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
> consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself, then
> we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that discusses
> someone that is.
>

DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
I'm king of AUK

--
www.alternet.org

 

???hw??f wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
> ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>
>
>>
>>???hw??f wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
>>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
>>>with:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>hwf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
>>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
>>>>>bandwith with:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sacha wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the 'regulars'
>>>>>
>>>>>have>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to sue
>>>>>
>>>>>for>>libel.>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to discuss
>>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my NG,
>>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
>>>>>HTH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
>>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the
>>>
>>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is a recording.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
>>>
>>>--
>>>www.bushorchimp.com
>>>
>>
>>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
>>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself, then
>>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that discusses
>>someone that is.
>>
>
>
> DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
> I'm king of AUK
>
> --
> www.alternet.org
>

If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you have.
How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes the archives
all the way back to the beginning)


--

"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

"???hw??f" <snuhwolf@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:20071031084002.5e5e102a@vector...

> DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
> I'm king of AUK


My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,

 

rrock wrote:

>
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>> rrock wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>
>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to take over the world via email.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But a good O/S can put a couple billion bucks in your pocket.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how'd Billy Gates get rich?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He stole CP/M.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he had, we'd have an actual wordprocessor, called "WordStar."
>>>>>> Actually, he "stole" Pederson's DOS for $10,000, then sold First
>>>>>> Serial Rights in it to IBM for $3 million.
>>>>>> That "windfall" founded MicroSlop, which had been him and four
>>>>>> friends in his garage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the time came to expand certain datareas to 32 bits, Gates
>>>>>> painted WFW 3.11 over MSDOS 7, while IBM screwed the pooch with OS/2.
>>>>>> (IBM PC-DOS 7 is still 16-bit, and still works better.)
>>>>>> Win NT (incl ME, 2000, XP, etc.) is "bulletproof" for the simple
>>>>>> reason that it won't actually do anything in the first place,
>>>>>> without the DOS utilities and overlays called "Service Packages
>>>>>> Each Sold Separately." The ubiquitous Service Pack 3 that comes
>>>>>> with XP but not with NT still does all the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty sure i still have a copy of WordStar in my archives. If
>>>>> you'd like
>>>>> a copy of MS-DOS 2.11, let me know, that's about the time i started
>>>>> the
>>>>> archive. If you don't like the NT kernel, then use something else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, you had a TI! (Anything .11 was specifically ported for the TI
>>>> chipsets.)
>>>> As for NT/XP, I've got too much legacy filework tied up under it,
>>>> but someday I'll find something that runs my stuff the way it's
>>>> spoZe to.
>>>> Or I'll have hand-converted my WordStar files to fuken text. (XP
>>>> won't "allow" WordStar to call its printer drivers -- W95 wouldn't
>>>> "allow" it to install them -- so there's no WS-to-ASCII converter.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, that version shipped with quite a few things. Pretty sure that we
>>> were selling "NorthStar" at the time, "Crystal Computers" was another...
>>> all Intel 8088's and HEY! for an extra grand or two you could get a
>>> FULL-Sized Winchester 20/20.....
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm. v.2.21, then. The DOS, BASIC, Lotus 123, WordStar, AutoCAD, and
>> a RamDrive installer that wasn't called "RamDrive." They wouldn't run
>> on an IBM clone or Compaq, and nothing else would run on the TI.
>> I made a boot that put WordStar's overlays on the RAMdisc. It ran
>> at CPU speed instead of floppy, and I had one 1.2M for library and one
>> for writing on.
>> With all the activity imposed by AutoCAD, in one year, about 1/4 of
>> the Winchester sectors had gone bad.
>> You punched REDRAW and smoked a cigarette or two...
>> Putting the AutoCAD .dxf files in WordStar and pulling various SORTs
>> cut the plotting time to between a quarter and a tenth what it was for
>> the raw draw (useta spend all its time running to change pens).
>
>
> .... TSR.... Another acronym that bites the dust. lol
>

"INT 20."
Fill up that huge 512K RAM with it pretty quick, though.
I remember when the Big Upgrade for the Trash-80 was 16K...

>>>
>>> lolol i still use PC-Write... remember
>>> that one? It has a format deelie that nobody has ever bothered with
>>> since. Bob Wallace wrote it.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty sure I still have it. Maybe I should look it up; you could
>> write your own printer drivers. Do the same in WINSTALL, though.
>>
>
> So, if i get the picture, you want to convert the old wordstar files to
> something more recent. Did they have binary includes or something? I'm
> unfamiliar with their actual format. Certainly with enough eyeballs
> looking around it could still be found. If it were, and you were going
> to convert the files, what format would you want them in now?
>

I even wrote a converter/three, and there's a dozen floating around.
WS files are riddled with printer-control, special character, and
high-ASCII CRLFs.
The grief is that XP won't "let" WS call its printer drivers, two
of which are WS>text converters, low and high ASCII.
As for its actually driving printers, it has no drivers later than
1994, but it's still the only actual touch-typed, book-capable
wordprocessor on the planet. I'm becoming inured to WordPad (NotePad
truncates files) for poems and essays, but I've rather given up on
the books for no other reason than that WinDoze manages to piss me
off at least once a day.
So WinDoze is actually doing what it was designed to.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org

 

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> rrock wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>> rrock wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to take over the world via email.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But a good O/S can put a couple billion bucks in your pocket.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So how'd Billy Gates get rich?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He stole CP/M.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he had, we'd have an actual wordprocessor, called "WordStar."
>>>>>>> Actually, he "stole" Pederson's DOS for $10,000, then sold
>>>>>>> First Serial Rights in it to IBM for $3 million.
>>>>>>> That "windfall" founded MicroSlop, which had been him and four
>>>>>>> friends in his garage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the time came to expand certain datareas to 32 bits, Gates
>>>>>>> painted WFW 3.11 over MSDOS 7, while IBM screwed the pooch with
>>>>>>> OS/2.
>>>>>>> (IBM PC-DOS 7 is still 16-bit, and still works better.)
>>>>>>> Win NT (incl ME, 2000, XP, etc.) is "bulletproof" for the
>>>>>>> simple reason that it won't actually do anything in the first
>>>>>>> place, without the DOS utilities and overlays called "Service
>>>>>>> Packages Each Sold Separately." The ubiquitous Service Pack 3
>>>>>>> that comes with XP but not with NT still does all the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty sure i still have a copy of WordStar in my archives. If
>>>>>> you'd like
>>>>>> a copy of MS-DOS 2.11, let me know, that's about the time i
>>>>>> started the
>>>>>> archive. If you don't like the NT kernel, then use something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, you had a TI! (Anything .11 was specifically ported for the
>>>>> TI chipsets.)
>>>>> As for NT/XP, I've got too much legacy filework tied up under it,
>>>>> but someday I'll find something that runs my stuff the way it's
>>>>> spoZe to.
>>>>> Or I'll have hand-converted my WordStar files to fuken text. (XP
>>>>> won't "allow" WordStar to call its printer drivers -- W95 wouldn't
>>>>> "allow" it to install them -- so there's no WS-to-ASCII converter.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that version shipped with quite a few things. Pretty sure that we
>>>> were selling "NorthStar" at the time, "Crystal Computers" was
>>>> another...
>>>> all Intel 8088's and HEY! for an extra grand or two you could get a
>>>> FULL-Sized Winchester 20/20.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. v.2.21, then. The DOS, BASIC, Lotus 123, WordStar, AutoCAD,
>>> and a RamDrive installer that wasn't called "RamDrive." They
>>> wouldn't run on an IBM clone or Compaq, and nothing else would run on
>>> the TI.
>>> I made a boot that put WordStar's overlays on the RAMdisc. It ran
>>> at CPU speed instead of floppy, and I had one 1.2M for library and
>>> one for writing on.
>>> With all the activity imposed by AutoCAD, in one year, about 1/4 of
>>> the Winchester sectors had gone bad.
>>> You punched REDRAW and smoked a cigarette or two...
>>> Putting the AutoCAD .dxf files in WordStar and pulling various
>>> SORTs cut the plotting time to between a quarter and a tenth what it
>>> was for the raw draw (useta spend all its time running to change pens).
>>
>>
>>
>> .... TSR.... Another acronym that bites the dust. lol
>>
>
> "INT 20."
> Fill up that huge 512K RAM with it pretty quick, though.
> I remember when the Big Upgrade for the Trash-80 was 16K...

int 0x20 was terminate program. Terminate Stay Resident was 0x27.

>
>>>>
>>>> lolol i still use PC-Write... remember
>>>> that one? It has a format deelie that nobody has ever bothered with
>>>> since. Bob Wallace wrote it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure I still have it. Maybe I should look it up; you could
>>> write your own printer drivers. Do the same in WINSTALL, though.
>>>
>>
>> So, if i get the picture, you want to convert the old wordstar files to
>> something more recent. Did they have binary includes or something? I'm
>> unfamiliar with their actual format. Certainly with enough eyeballs
>> looking around it could still be found. If it were, and you were going
>> to convert the files, what format would you want them in now?
>>
>
> I even wrote a converter/three, and there's a dozen floating around. WS
> files are riddled with printer-control, special character, and
> high-ASCII CRLFs.
> The grief is that XP won't "let" WS call its printer drivers, two of
> which are WS>text converters, low and high ASCII.
> As for its actually driving printers, it has no drivers later than
> 1994, but it's still the only actual touch-typed, book-capable
> wordprocessor on the planet. I'm becoming inured to WordPad (NotePad
> truncates files) for poems and essays, but I've rather given up on the
> books for no other reason than that WinDoze manages to piss me off at
> least once a day.
> So WinDoze is actually doing what it was designed to.

lol

you know... you don't have to run windows on a box today, you can always
just run plain old DOS. Last/best version that i saw/have is 6.22 and i still
keep it around for formatting disks and so forth.

--

"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:23 -0500
??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:

>
>
> ???hw??f wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
> > ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>???hw??f wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
> >>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
> >>>with:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>hwf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
> >>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
> >>>>>bandwith with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Sacha wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> >>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the
> >'regulars'>>>>
> >>>>>have>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to
> >sue>>>>
> >>>>>for>>libel.>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
> >>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
> >request.>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to
> >discuss>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my
> >NG,>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
> >>>>>HTH
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
> >>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the
> >>>
> >>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a recording.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>www.bushorchimp.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
> >>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself,
> >then>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that
> >discusses>someone that is.
> >>
> >
> >
> > DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
> > I'm king of AUK
> >
> > --
> > www.alternet.org
> >
>
> If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you
> have. How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes the
> archives all the way back to the beginning)
>

Ask OZZY...the king of kings...I let him do all the bookkeeping...

--
www.thinkprogress.org

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:13:37 GMT
"anonym_easynews_poster" <anonym@invalid.com> wasted precious
bandwith with:

>
> "???hw??f" <snuhwolf@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:20071031084002.5e5e102a@vector...
>
> > DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
> > I'm king of AUK
>
>
> My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
>
>
Bite the heads offa any bats lately?

--
www.truthout.org

 

???hw??f wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:23 -0500
> ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>
>
>>
>>???hw??f wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
>>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
>>>>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
>>>>>with:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>hwf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
>>>>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
>>>>>>>bandwith with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sacha wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the
>>>
>>>'regulars'>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>have>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to
>>>
>>>sue>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>for>>libel.>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
>>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
>>>
>>>request.>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to
>>>
>>>discuss>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my
>>>NG,>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
>>>
>>>>>>>HTH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your request.
>>>>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving me the
>>>>>
>>>>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a recording.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>www.bushorchimp.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
>>>>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself,
>>>
>>>then>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that
>>>discusses>someone that is.
>>>
>>>
>>>DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
>>>I'm king of AUK
>>>
>>>--
>>>www.alternet.org
>>>
>>
>>If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you
>>have. How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes the
>>archives all the way back to the beginning)
>>
>
>
> Ask OZZY...the king of kings...I let him do all the bookkeeping...
>
> --
> www.thinkprogress.org
>

I haven't any authority to do so. If you are king of AUK, then you
would have the authority to ask him for yourself and supply the
answer here.


--

"so, speech is not what im worried about." -- Steve wolfo0909@gmail.com
i think she looks sweet. http://content1.myyearbook.com/thumb_userimages/2007/10/23/23/thm_phpm5KRMi.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:42:32 -0500
??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:

>
>
> ???hw??f wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:23 -0500
> > ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>???hw??f wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
> >>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>???hw??f wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
> >>>>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
> >>>>>with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>hwf wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
> >>>>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
> >>>>>>>bandwith with:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sacha wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
> >>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the
> >>>
> >>>'regulars'>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>have>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to
> >>>
> >>>sue>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>for>>libel.>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
> >>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
> >>>
> >>>request.>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to
> >>>
> >>>discuss>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my
> >>>NG,>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>HTH
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
> >request.>>>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving
> >me the>>>>
> >>>>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>This is a recording.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>www.bushorchimp.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
> >>>>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself,
> >>>
> >>>then>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that
> >>>discusses>someone that is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
> >>>I'm king of AUK
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>www.alternet.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you
> >>have. How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes
> >the>archives all the way back to the beginning)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ask OZZY...the king of kings...I let him do all the
> > bookkeeping...
> >
> > --
> > www.thinkprogress.org
> >
>
> I haven't any authority to do so. If you are king of AUK, then you
> would have the authority to ask him for yourself and supply the
> answer here.
>

Oh ok. Well then he said you have to do everything I say

--
www.eiae.org

 

???hw??f wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:42:32 -0500
> ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>
>
>>
>>???hw??f wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:23 -0500
>>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
>>>>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
>>>>>>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
>>>>>>>with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>hwf wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
>>>>>>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
>>>>>>>>>bandwith with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sacha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the
>>>>>
>>>>>'regulars'>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>have>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to
>>>>>
>>>>>sue>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>for>>libel.>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
>>>>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
>>>>>
>>>>>request.>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to
>>>>>
>>>>>discuss>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my
>>>>>NG,>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>HTH
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
>>>
>>>request.>>>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving
>>>me the>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is a recording.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>www.bushorchimp.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
>>>>>>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself,
>>>>>
>>>>>then>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that
>>>>>discusses>someone that is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
>>>>>I'm king of AUK
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>www.alternet.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you
>>>>have. How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes
>>>
>>>the>archives all the way back to the beginning)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ask OZZY...the king of kings...I let him do all the
>>>bookkeeping...
>>>
>>>--
>>>www.thinkprogress.org
>>>
>>
>>I haven't any authority to do so. If you are king of AUK, then you
>>would have the authority to ask him for yourself and supply the
>>answer here.
>>
>
>
> Oh ok. Well then he said you have to do everything I say
>
> --
> www.eiae.org

Not until you have proven you are king of AUK.


--

"There is always the lonely inflatable dolls." -- Kenneth R. Pangborn web2457k@verizon.net
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....g/5e13fd54b88b47e9?dmode=source&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.angels/msg/2f5df80dfa199b93
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8245476550623867087

 

=?windows-1252?Q?=AA=BA=AA_rrock?= <invalid@address.here> pinched out a
steaming pile of<472b5fe5$0$8795$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>
>
>???hw??f wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:42:32 -0500
>> ??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:23 -0500
>>>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:15:48 -0500
>>>>>>??? rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>???hw??f wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:40:58 -0500
>>>>>>>> rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious bandwith
>>>>>>>>with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>hwf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>ªºª rrock <invalid@address.here> wasted precious
>>>>>>>>>>bandwith with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sacha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:02:16 -0500, "Dennis M. Hammes"
>>>>>>>>>>>><scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lurker Joe <me@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:mn.58d57d7948fbb892.67894@privacy.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[uk.rec.gardening removed]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best be careful in that group, a number of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'regulars'>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>have>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>said,>>>in the past, that they're _more_ than willing to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>sue>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>for>>libel.>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only severe piles would libel for Sue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Stop crossposting to my group uk.rec.gardening
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What is that, an invitation of some sort?
>>>>>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>request.>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Unless you Net Abusers have some notorious net k00ks to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>discuss>>>>I would suggest that you refrain from shitting up my
>>>>>>NG,>>>>alt.usenet.kooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>HTH
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Prove your claim of ownership and i'll consider your
>>>>
>>>>request.>>>>>If you're notorious yourself, then you'll be saving
>>>>me the>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>trouble>of considering your request to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is a recording.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Too much compression and too little cowbell...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>www.bushorchimp.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good point. Okay:: Prove your claim of ownership and i'll
>>>>>>>consider reading the proof. If you aren't notorious yourself,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>then>we're bound to stumble upon a topic in the interim that
>>>>>>discusses>someone that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
>>>>>>I'm king of AUK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>www.alternet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are king of AUK then you would know how many subjects you
>>>>>have. How many subjects are there in AUK? (yes, that includes
>>>>
>>>>the>archives all the way back to the beginning)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ask OZZY...the king of kings...I let him do all the
>>>>bookkeeping...
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>www.thinkprogress.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>I haven't any authority to do so. If you are king of AUK, then you
>>>would have the authority to ask him for yourself and supply the
>>>answer here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh ok. Well then he said you have to do everything I say
>>
>> --
>> www.eiae.org
>
>Not until you have proven you are king of AUK.
>
>
Its a self-appointed designation. if I believe it...it becomes truth

You may now return to your pesantry duties...


--
www.smirkingchimp.com

 

an al-bum?

"Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:JPednXu_COnFELTanZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@onvoy.com...
> ??? rrock wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>
>>> ??? rrock wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ??? rrock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ??? rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??? rrock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to take over the world via email.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But a good O/S can put a couple billion bucks in your pocket.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So how'd Billy Gates get rich?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He stole CP/M.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he had, we'd have an actual wordprocessor, called "WordStar."
>>>>>>> Actually, he "stole" Pederson's DOS for $10,000, then sold First
>>>>>>> Serial Rights in it to IBM for $3 million.
>>>>>>> That "windfall" founded MicroSlop, which had been him and four
>>>>>>> friends in his garage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the time came to expand certain datareas to 32 bits, Gates
>>>>>>> painted WFW 3.11 over MSDOS 7, while IBM screwed the pooch with
>>>>>>> OS/2.
>>>>>>> (IBM PC-DOS 7 is still 16-bit, and still works better.)
>>>>>>> Win NT (incl ME, 2000, XP, etc.) is "bulletproof" for the simple
>>>>>>> reason that it won't actually do anything in the first place,
>>>>>>> without the DOS utilities and overlays called "Service Packages Each
>>>>>>> Sold Separately." The ubiquitous Service Pack 3 that comes with XP
>>>>>>> but not with NT still does all the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty sure i still have a copy of WordStar in my archives. If you'd
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> a copy of MS-DOS 2.11, let me know, that's about the time i started
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> archive. If you don't like the NT kernel, then use something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, you had a TI! (Anything .11 was specifically ported for the TI
>>>>> chipsets.)
>>>>> As for NT/XP, I've got too much legacy filework tied up under it,
>>>>> but someday I'll find something that runs my stuff the way it's spoZe
>>>>> to.
>>>>> Or I'll have hand-converted my WordStar files to fuken text. (XP
>>>>> won't "allow" WordStar to call its printer drivers -- W95 wouldn't
>>>>> "allow" it to install them -- so there's no WS-to-ASCII converter.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that version shipped with quite a few things. Pretty sure that we
>>>> were selling "NorthStar" at the time, "Crystal Computers" was
>>>> another...
>>>> all Intel 8088's and HEY! for an extra grand or two you could get a
>>>> FULL-Sized Winchester 20/20.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. v.2.21, then. The DOS, BASIC, Lotus 123, WordStar, AutoCAD, and a
>>> RamDrive installer that wasn't called "RamDrive." They wouldn't run on
>>> an IBM clone or Compaq, and nothing else would run on the TI.
>>> I made a boot that put WordStar's overlays on the RAMdisc. It ran at
>>> CPU speed instead of floppy, and I had one 1.2M for library and one for
>>> writing on.
>>> With all the activity imposed by AutoCAD, in one year, about 1/4 of
>>> the Winchester sectors had gone bad.
>>> You punched REDRAW and smoked a cigarette or two...
>>> Putting the AutoCAD .dxf files in WordStar and pulling various SORTs
>>> cut the plotting time to between a quarter and a tenth what it was for
>>> the raw draw (useta spend all its time running to change pens).
>>
>>
>> .... TSR.... Another acronym that bites the dust. lol
>>
>
> "INT 20."
> Fill up that huge 512K RAM with it pretty quick, though.
> I remember when the Big Upgrade for the Trash-80 was 16K...
>
>>>>
>>>> lolol i still use PC-Write... remember
>>>> that one? It has a format deelie that nobody has ever bothered with
>>>> since. Bob Wallace wrote it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure I still have it. Maybe I should look it up; you could write
>>> your own printer drivers. Do the same in WINSTALL, though.
>>>
>>
>> So, if i get the picture, you want to convert the old wordstar files to
>> something more recent. Did they have binary includes or something? I'm
>> unfamiliar with their actual format. Certainly with enough eyeballs
>> looking around it could still be found. If it were, and you were going
>> to convert the files, what format would you want them in now?
>>
>
> I even wrote a converter/three, and there's a dozen floating around. WS
> files are riddled with printer-control, special character, and high-ASCII
> CRLFs.
> The grief is that XP won't "let" WS call its printer drivers, two of
> which are WS>text converters, low and high ASCII.
> As for its actually driving printers, it has no drivers later than 1994,
> but it's still the only actual touch-typed, book-capable wordprocessor on
> the planet. I'm becoming inured to WordPad (NotePad truncates files) for
> poems and essays, but I've rather given up on the books for no other
> reason than that WinDoze manages to piss me off at least once a day.
> So WinDoze is actually doing what it was designed to.
>
> --
> -------(m+
> ~/)_|
> Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
> http://scrawlmark.org

 

Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:mc3hi39sn2p0eps70kpkrce79b5ifab2oa@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:08:45 +0000 (UTC), in
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>news:q3hei353llm9jpui0p3gvj79o7nqd4rj5b@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:38:24 +0000 (UTC), in
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:le79i31g9afaibld8cvmagjtpi1kq12fip@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>> writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:b528i39pra00cauiqd3n0skhmb9fo8rves@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:52:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:64q7i3pn8tu9l3ji3ghib9otgvaqrbj9r1@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>news:hrj6i3dcjcnl95lo8fo8iif4qg6l435kub@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:00:03 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1lh5i3t8rv848vqp4rscf41icrug2lv1ae@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:43:48 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would sue libelous paedophiles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only Aratzio would libel suits.
>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would libel Sue.
>>>>>>>>>>Only Sue would Libel Lionel.
>>>>>>>>> I have Libby's, Libby's, Libby's On My Table, Table, Table
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He wears a funny hat.
>>>>>>> Purple Furry?
>>>>>>Not barney again?
>>>>> Barney is a hat?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He's a prat.
>>>
>>> WOT!
>>>
>>
>>Don't have a barney.
>
> I have a Jerry Lee (5.6 Earthquake that nicely rocked & rolled)
>

Wot like the dukes of hazzard?
--

P
h
i
l

K
y
l
e

W
o
z

E
r
e

 

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:31:18 +0000 (UTC), in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
<philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:

>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:mc3hi39sn2p0eps70kpkrce79b5ifab2oa@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:08:45 +0000 (UTC), in
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>>
>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>news:q3hei353llm9jpui0p3gvj79o7nqd4rj5b@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:38:24 +0000 (UTC), in
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> bloviated:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:le79i31g9afaibld8cvmagjtpi1kq12fip@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:b528i39pra00cauiqd3n0skhmb9fo8rves@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:52:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:64q7i3pn8tu9l3ji3ghib9otgvaqrbj9r1@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:22:55 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>news:hrj6i3dcjcnl95lo8fo8iif4qg6l435kub@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:00:03 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:1lh5i3t8rv848vqp4rscf41icrug2lv1ae@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:43:48 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Phil Kyle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <philkyle2003@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only paedohpiles would sue for libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would sue libelous paedophiles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only Aratzio would libel suits.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only Phil Kyle would libel Sue.
>>>>>>>>>>>Only Sue would Libel Lionel.
>>>>>>>>>> I have Libby's, Libby's, Libby's On My Table, Table, Table
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He wears a funny hat.
>>>>>>>> Purple Furry?
>>>>>>>Not barney again?
>>>>>> Barney is a hat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He's a prat.
>>>>
>>>> WOT!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't have a barney.
>>
>> I have a Jerry Lee (5.6 Earthquake that nicely rocked & rolled)
>>
>
>Wot like the dukes of hazzard?

No, a rockin' & rolling earthquake (Jerry Lee Lewis)...