On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:43:43 -0400, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>http://www.popularwoodworking.com/features/fea.asp?id=1093
>
>JOAT
>I am not paranoid. I do not "think" people are after me. I "know" damn
>well they're after me.
Can't you post the single index URL rather than multiple individual
articles, you WebTV ninny? No wonder they're after you.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/features/features.asp
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, el kabong
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Look at your calendar, the year is 2006.
> > ".. significant number of people..."?
>
> Interestingly, we recently did a survey of our newspaper subscribers
> and 60% tell us they are still on dial-up. Extrapolated, that would be
> about 40,000 people based on our paid circulation in western Canada.
>
> Not everyone lives in an urban center...
True. 3 million are on broadband in an urban market. One of the
reasons that Ma Bell was broken up was because of their subsidization
of infrastructure in outlying areas paid for by urban dwellers.
But it's not about who pays what in how JT posts. He just likes doing
it that way.
R
In article <[email protected]>, el kabong
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Look at your calendar, the year is 2006.
> ".. significant number of people..."?
Interestingly, we recently did a survey of our newspaper subscribers
and 60% tell us they are still on dial-up. Extrapolated, that would be
about 40,000 people based on our paid circulation in western Canada.
Not everyone lives in an urban center...
In article <[email protected]>,
RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> But it's not about who pays what in how JT posts. He just likes doing
> it that way.
I wasn't referring to how JOAT posts, I was responding to el kabong's
snark about it being 2006 (and therefore dial-up is somehow no longer
an issue).
Thu, Sep 14, 2006, 8:29pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (el=A0kabong) doth
wonderingly burbleth:
Can't you post the single index URL rather than multiple individual
articles, you WebTV ninny? <snippity snip>
Sure could Buttercup. And ain't about to. Did you ever consider
that there might be a reason why I don't? Of course not you computer
twit. And if you'd been paying attention you'd know.
Sursprising at it may be to you,, a sgnificant number of people
here have to pay for their computer access by the minute. Rather than
posting the whole list, I go thru and pick out what I think people may
be interested in. Sure, maybe they'd like to see some of the other
stuff, and then again, maybe not. This way they can check the subject,
and look, or pass, no extra money out of pocket checking an entire list,
which may hold no interest to t hem. This was established lonnng ago.
Check with one or two of those people paying for access by the minute,
and see if they'd rather I did it my way, or your way.
JOAT
I am not paranoid. I do not "think" people are after me. I "know" damn
well they're after me.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:160920061837198882%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But it's not about who pays what in how JT posts. He just likes doing
> > it that way.
>
> I wasn't referring to how JOAT posts, I was responding to el kabong's
> snark about it being 2006 (and therefore dial-up is somehow no longer
> an issue).
Give the guy a break - he's been like that ever since the guitar hit him in
the head.
B.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:41:56 -0400, "Buddy Matlosz"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Give the guy a break - he's been like that ever since the guitar hit him in
>the head.
>
>B.
>
Good one!! hahaha
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:27:39 -0400, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>Thu, Sep 14, 2006, 8:29pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (el kabong) doth
>wonderingly burbleth:
>Can't you post the single index URL rather than multiple individual
>articles, you WebTV ninny? <snippity snip>
>
> Sure could Buttercup. And ain't about to. Did you ever consider
>that there might be a reason why I don't? >
> Sursprising at it may be to you,, a sgnificant number of people
>here have to pay for their computer access by the minute. Rather than
>posting the whole list, I go thru and pick out what I think people may
>be interested in. Sure, maybe they'd like to see some of the other
>stuff, and then again, maybe not. This way they can check the subject,
>and look, or pass, no extra money out of pocket checking an entire list,
>which may hold no interest to t hem. This was established lonnng ago.
>Check with one or two of those people paying for access by the minute,
>and see if they'd rather I did it my way, or your way.
So you are the self appointed Content Advisor? Get over it.
Look at your calendar, the year is 2006.
".. significant number of people..."?
Thanks for the laugh though.
Thu, Sep 14, 2006, 10:56pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (el=A0kabong)
doth burbleth once more:
So you are the self appointed Content Advisor? Get over it. Look at your
calendar, the year is 2006. ".. significant number of people..."?
Thanks for the laugh though.
Sure do Buttercup. For any plans links I post anyway. It's 2006,
eh? What month? This time around you're trying to disguise yourself
as defunct a cartoon character, eh? Eat recycled food, and have a happy
next life.
JOAT
I am not paranoid. I do not "think" people are after me. I "know" damn
well they're after me.
el kabong wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:27:39 -0400, [email protected] (J T)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thu, Sep 14, 2006, 8:29pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (el kabong) doth
>>wonderingly burbleth:
>>Can't you post the single index URL rather than multiple individual
>>articles, you WebTV ninny? <snippity snip>
>>
>> Sure could Buttercup. And ain't about to. Did you ever consider
>>that there might be a reason why I don't? >
>> Sursprising at it may be to you,, a sgnificant number of people
>>here have to pay for their computer access by the minute. Rather than
>>posting the whole list, I go thru and pick out what I think people may
>>be interested in. Sure, maybe they'd like to see some of the other
>>stuff, and then again, maybe not. This way they can check the subject,
>>and look, or pass, no extra money out of pocket checking an entire list,
>>which may hold no interest to t hem. This was established lonnng ago.
>>Check with one or two of those people paying for access by the minute,
>>and see if they'd rather I did it my way, or your way.
>
>
> So you are the self appointed Content Advisor? Get over it.
> Look at your calendar, the year is 2006.
> ".. significant number of people..."?
> Thanks for the laugh though.
>
Jesus H, did someone miss out last night ??
Some people are continually looking in a gift horse's mouth
John