Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
JOAT
The whole of life is a learning process.
- John Keel
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> You say you will make some exceptions. That's fine but how is anyone
> else
> supposed to determine that their email will be acceptable to you,
> before
> they send it?
Every year at Christmas, JOAT sends his email address along with a nice
card, stating he will accept your email. If you don't get one this year, it
means, well, you get the idea.
Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 10:42pm [email protected] (Edwin=A0Pawlowski) doth sayeth:
Every year at Christmas, JOAT sends his email address along with a nice
card, stating he will accept your email. If you don't get one this year,
it means, well, you get the idea.
And for those few of you that want to send me an e-mail anyway,
send them to Ed so he can screen them first, and then he will forward
just the "important" ones. And, for those of you that don't get the
e-mail, here's the card. Merry Xmas.
http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/meltingpot/jinx/399/jokes/files/Santa.gif
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
In article <[email protected]>, Kevin M.
Vernon <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>
> > Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> >weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> >who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> >then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> >know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> >repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> >just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> >will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> >e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> >is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
> >
> >
> >
> >JOAT
> >The whole of life is a learning process.
> >- John Keel
> Which, of course, is why many of us have "bogus" or "spam trap"
> e-mail addy's in our headers.
>
> Or perhaps you get yourself one of those "disposable" yahho addy or
> some such - and use that address for your usenet headers - then
> anything that comes there you can simply ignore.
You don't understand JT/JOAT.
If he can't bitch, whine and complain periodically, his sinuses get all
inflamed, his piles start bleeding, he starts to weep unconsolably, he
starts repainting all his tools green, and starts considering getting a
real internet connection instead of webtv.
You do NOT want that to happen.
Oh, he also starts calling people "sunshine".
It's just too ugly.
--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/
Sun, Nov 18, 2007, 9:20pm (EST-1) dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca
(Dave=A0Balderstone) doth sayeth:
You don't understand JT/JOAT.
If he can't bitch, whine and complain periodically, his sinuses get all
inflamed, his piles start bleeding, he starts to weep unconsolably, he
starts repainting all his tools green, and starts considering getting a
real internet connection instead of webtv.
You do NOT want that to happen.
Oh, he also starts calling people "sunshine".
It's just too ugly.
The name "Buttercup" comes to mind also. LMAO Hell, I don't
complain, I state legetimate concerns. At least that's what management
always use to call it when they complained. And that is an outright
lie, saying I would repaint any tools green. Red maybe, green no.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
J T wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
If I started a usenet thread every time I got an unwanted email, I'd
never get done typing...
Just ignore it.
Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 3:14am (EST+5) [email protected] (DS) did sayeth:
If I started a usenet thread every time I got an unwanted email, I'd
never get done typing...
Just ignore it.
Oops. I didn't read the 3d one. That was the one that was sent in
response to my reply to the 2d. LMAO
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 3:14am (EST+5) [email protected] (DS) doth sayeth:
If I started a usenet thread every time I got an unwanted email, I'd
never get done typing...
Just ignore it.
Didn't even read the 2d one.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
[email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
>weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
>who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
>then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
>know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
>repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
>just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
>will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
>e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
>is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>The whole of life is a learning process.
>- John Keel
Which, of course, is why many of us have "bogus" or "spam trap"
e-mail addy's in our headers.
Or perhaps you get yourself one of those "disposable" yahho addy or
some such - and use that address for your usenet headers - then
anything that comes there you can simply ignore.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 9:48pm [email protected]
(Kevin=A0M.=A0Vernon) doth sayeth:
=A0=A0Which, of course, is why many of us have "bogus" or "spam trap"
e-mail addy's in our headers.
Or perhaps you get yourself one of those "disposable" yahho addy or some
such - and use that address for your usenet headers - then anything that
comes there you can simply ignore.
Yep, seen those. And been told by someone more than once to e-mail
them, and not been able to reach them.
Nah, this way if someone who needs to contact me can. The
operational word there is "needs".
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
On Nov 16, 9:20 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know.
Noooo shit.
On Nov 17, 10:46 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:45:51 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:20:10 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> >>weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> >>who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> >>then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> >>know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> >>repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> >>just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> >>will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> >>e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> >>is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
> >You're just unclear on this whole internet thing, aren't you.
>
> It's all Al Gore's fault, he shouldn't have invented the damn thing..
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
Damn libtards
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:56:38 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's all Al Gore's fault, he shouldn't have invented the damn thing..
>>
>
>He did not invent the internet.
>
>He invented the algorithm.
>
>Where do you think it got its name?
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Watson
>
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Good one, Tom... I will ad that to my memory banks..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Nov 16, 9:20 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
At one time, long long ago, it was commonplace to email a copy
(referred to
as a 'courtesy copy') of a Usenet followup. Maybe there was some
sense to
it back when Usenet was much slower than email, but that situation
went
away about fifteen years ago so that today it is anything but
courteous.
But I don't agree that it is impolite to send on-topic email to the
author
INSTEAD of posting. I would suppose a person sends email when they
do not want to post something for everyone to see, perhaps including
their own email address.
Usenet has a header for the author's email address precisely so that
one
can send email instead of posting.
So I daresay that if you are adverse to receiving on-topic email
replies to
your articles you should say so, perhaps in your .sig, as it is not
reasonable
to suppose that otherwise anyone will know that is your preference.
You
are not alone in that preference, but it is not by any means typical.
I draw the line at email harvesting for bulk lists (spam), off-topic
or abusive
emails. Those have never been acceptable.
You say you will make some exceptions. That's fine but how is anyone
else
supposed to determine that their email will be acceptable to you,
before
they send it?
--
FF
Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 7:15pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Fred=A0the=A0Red=A0Shirt) doth sayeth:
<snip> But I don't agree that it is impolite to send on-topic email to
the author
INSTEAD of posting. I would suppose a person sends email when they do
not want to post something for everyone to see, perhaps including their
own email address.<snip>
So I daresay that if you are adverse to receiving on-topic email replies
to
your articles you should say so, <snip>
You say you will make some exceptions. That's fine but how is anyone
else
supposed to determine that their email will be acceptable to you, before
they send it?
It's like someone wanting a plans link e-mailed to them. That way
they have the link, but no one else. I don't believe in that.
I thought I just did say I was adverse to them.
The exceptions know who they are. And, they are polite enough to
start of their message stating it is by e-mail only, tread subject or
not.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
On Nov 19, 2:27 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 7:15pm (EST-3) [email protected]
> (Fred the Red Shirt) doth sayeth:
> <snip> But I don't agree that it is impolite to send on-topic email to
> the author
> INSTEAD of posting. I would suppose a person sends email when they do
> not want to post something for everyone to see, perhaps including their
> own email address.<snip>
> So I daresay that if you are adverse to receiving on-topic email replies
> to
> your articles you should say so, perhaps in your .sig, as it is not
reasonable
to suppose that otherwise anyone will know that is your preference.
<snip>
> You say you will make some exceptions. That's fine but how is anyone
> else
> supposed to determine that their email will be acceptable to you, before
> they send it?
>
> It's like someone wanting a plans link e-mailed to them. That way
> they have the link, but no one else. I don't believe in that.
Emailing the link to them does NOT stop anyone else from having the
same
link.
>
> I thought I just did say I was adverse to them.
>
Reminds me of the index to a Unix text. The enter for 'recursive'
read
'see recursive.'
> The exceptions know who they are. And, they are polite enough to
> start of their message stating it is by e-mail only, tread subject or
> not.
>
It's the non-exceptions who don't know who they are and it would
appear that you intend to keep it that way.
--
FF
Mon, Nov 19, 2007, 1:25pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Fred=A0the=A0Red=A0Shirt) doth sayeth:
Emailing the link to them does NOT stop anyone else from having the same
link.
The enter for 'recursive' read
'see recursive.'
It's the non-exceptions who don't know who they are and it would appear
that you intend to keep it that way.
If you e-mail it to one, you've gotta be prepared to e-mail it to
everyone. I'll post, I won't e-mail.
???
If they don't know that they're exceptions, that should
automatically tell them they're non-exceptions. Sounds good to me.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
On Nov 20, 1:31 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Mon, Nov 19, 2007, 1:25pm (EST-3) [email protected]
> (Fred the Red Shirt) doth sayeth:
> ...
>
> The enttry for 'recursive' read 'see recursive.'
>
> It's the non-exceptions who don't know who they are and it would appear
> that you intend to keep it that way.
>
> ...
>
> If they don't know that they're exceptions, that should
> automatically tell them they're non-exceptions. Sounds good to me.
Most Folks who post with a routable email address in their headers
and nothing that says "please don't; send me email' are OK with
receiving
private on-topic email.
You don't understand that you're the exception here, instead you
expect
everyone else to divine if they are or are not.
--
FF
Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 9:39am (EST-3) [email protected]
(Fred=A0the=A0Red=A0Shirt)
<snip-> You don't understand that you're the exception here, instead you
expect
everyone else to divine if they are or are not.
You aren't. No divination required..
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
You should simply shut down your email account rather than make this same
post two or three times a year. Ferchristsakes, you'd think your privacy at
home had been invaded. The last sentence is nothing if not ironic...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 5:19am [email protected] (Mike=A0Marlow) doth
sayeth:
You should simply shut down your email account rather than make this
same post two or three times a year. Ferchristsakes, you'd think your
privacy at home had been invaded. The last sentence is nothing if not
ironic...
But look at all the responses it elicits. At least at home I have
a wondernine handy. Ironic? Huh, and here I was, thinking it was
sarcastic. Learn something new every day.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
You would think that you sig would give you a clue that you're
probably going to get unwanted e-mail when you post to the usenet with
your valid address. Quit your damn bitchin' and get some of your
"learning process" activated.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:20:10 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
>weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
>who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
>then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
>know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
>repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
>just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
>will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
>e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
>is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>The whole of life is a learning process.
>- John Keel
On Nov 20, 1:41 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> What's wrong with my sig?
It doesn't tell people to not send you private email.
--
FF
Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 9:41am (EST-3) [email protected]
(Fred=A0the=A0Red=A0Shirt) doth sayeth:
It doesn't tell people to not send you private email.
OK, as long as it makes you happy. A change to my sig, stating I
do not want to receive e-mail. .
JOAT
I do not want to receive e-mail from [email protected]
(Fred=A0the=A0Red=A0Shirt)
at any time.
J T wrote:
> Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 9:41am (EST-3) [email protected]
> (Fred the Red Shirt) doth sayeth:
> It doesn't tell people to not send you private email.
>
> OK, as long as it makes you happy. A change to my sig,
> stating
> I do not want to receive e-mail. .
>
>
>
> JOAT
> I do not want to receive e-mail from [email protected]
> (Fred the Red Shirt)
> at any time.
Well, geeze, JT, I gave up on _anything_ from _him_ a long time ago
and dumped him down the bit bucket.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mon, Nov 19, 2007, 6:10pm (EST-1) [email protected]
(Gordon=A0Shumway) doth sayeth:
You would think that you sig would give you a clue that you're probably
going to get unwanted e-mail when you post to the usenet with your valid
address. Quit your damn bitchin' and get some of your "learning process"
activated.
What's wrong with my sig? I happen to like cats, they taste like
chicken. My learning process has been activated - I've learned that a
lot more of you apparently don't have a sense of humor than I'd
previously thought.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
J T wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about
> two
> weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why
> someone who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an
> e-mail from then, instead o their responding to the appropriate
> thread, I do not know. If you have a reply to me from a
> rec.woodworking thread, then repy in that thread, so everyone can
> read it, don't feel entitled to just send an e-mail. It ain't
> polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I will, of course, make
> exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS e-mails.
> Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it is by
> e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
The way USENET worked originally was that someone posted, people
replied by email, and the original poster then put up a summary of the
emails. This was back when it was carried on Fidonet and the like and
propagation of messages might take a week or more.
>
>
>
> JOAT
> The whole of life is a learning process.
> - John Keel
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 11:13pm [email protected] (J.=A0Clarke) doth
sayeth:
The way USENET worked originally was that someone posted, people replied
by email, and the original poster then put up a summary of the emails.
This was back when it was carried on Fidonet and the like and
propagation of messages might take a week or more.
Time marches on. Or so they say.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
J T wrote:
> Fri, Nov 16, 2007, 11:13pm [email protected] (J. Clarke) doth
> sayeth:
> The way USENET worked originally was that someone posted, people
> replied by email, and the original poster then put up a summary of
> the emails. This was back when it was carried on Fidonet and the
> like
> and propagation of messages might take a week or more.
>
> Time marches on. Or so they say.
The point is that response to a USENET post via email is not
discourteous, at best it's anachronistic.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mon, Nov 19, 2007, 6:28pm [email protected] (J.=A0Clarke) doth
sayeth:
The point is that response to a USENET post via email is not
discourteous, at best it's anachronistic.
Not always maybe, but sometimes, for sure. Yep, anachronistic,
time marched on, or at least ambled on.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:45:51 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:20:10 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
>wrote:
>
>> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
>>weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
>>who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
>>then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
>>know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
>>repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
>>just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
>>will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
>>e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
>>is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
>
>You're just unclear on this whole internet thing, aren't you.
>
It's all Al Gore's fault, he shouldn't have invented the damn thing..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
EVERY ONE STAND BACK..................................
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a0d219dc-fdf3-4e29-908e-df7f28d7d190@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 9:20 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> > Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
> > weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
> > who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
> > then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
> > know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
> > repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
> > just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
> > will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
> > e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
> > is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
> >
>
> At one time, long long ago, it was commonplace to email a copy
> (referred to
> as a 'courtesy copy') of a Usenet followup. Maybe there was some
> sense to
> it back when Usenet was much slower than email, but that situation
> went
> away about fifteen years ago so that today it is anything but
> courteous.
>
> But I don't agree that it is impolite to send on-topic email to the
> author
> INSTEAD of posting. I would suppose a person sends email when they
> do not want to post something for everyone to see, perhaps including
> their own email address.
>
> Usenet has a header for the author's email address precisely so that
> one
> can send email instead of posting.
>
> So I daresay that if you are adverse to receiving on-topic email
> replies to
> your articles you should say so, perhaps in your .sig, as it is not
> reasonable
> to suppose that otherwise anyone will know that is your preference.
> You
> are not alone in that preference, but it is not by any means typical.
>
> I draw the line at email harvesting for bulk lists (spam), off-topic
> or abusive
> emails. Those have never been acceptable.
>
> You say you will make some exceptions. That's fine but how is anyone
> else
> supposed to determine that their email will be acceptable to you,
> before
> they send it?
>
> --
>
> FF
Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 3:52am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Mike=A0Richardson) doth sayeth:
EVERY ONE STAND BACK..................................
No, no. Not to worry, everyone here is always polite to everyone
else. You should already know that.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:20:10 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
> Another e-mail from someone I don't know. Third one in about two
>weeks. I don't even like geting e-mails from my mother, so why someone
>who I have never heard of before thinks I would welcome an e-mail from
>then, instead o their responding to the appropriate thread, I do not
>know. If you have a reply to me from a rec.woodworking thread, then
>repy in that thread, so everyone can read it, don't feel entitled to
>just send an e-mail. It ain't polite, and I'm nothing if not polite. I
>will, of course, make exceptions in appropriate circumstances, but no BS
>e-mails. Especially, when the e-mail doesn't start out stating that it
>is by e-mail only. Don't e-mail me, I'll e-mail you.
You're just unclear on this whole internet thing, aren't you.
Oh, webtv. You're not really on the internet then, are you?
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
Sat, Nov 17, 2007, 12:45pm (EST+5) [email protected] (LRod) doth
sayeth:
You're just unclear on this whole internet thing, aren't you.
Oh, webtv. You're not really on the internet then, are you?
Clear enough, ran from 9 to 11 main frames for about 9 years -
which is one reason I have a WebTV now.
JOAT
So Many Cats So Few Recipes,
In article <[email protected]>,
J T <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
> Clear enough, ran from 9 to 11 main frames for about 9 years -
>which is one reason I have a WebTV now.
>
>
Oh man, that's rich!
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org