Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 04:12 Don Bowey trolled: > On 11/16/06 7:30 PM, in article 90809$455d2cc1$4fe45a8$30258(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>Don Bowey wrote: >> >> >>>Life's too short to not have a car you love, or not have excellent wine and >>>beer nearby. >> >>I guess they're acceptable substitutes for >>intelligence in your case. > > > Piffle! > BAH was right, you fools can't even flame worth a damn.
From: unsettled on 17 Nov 2006 04:25 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <455A1B5B.2D136E5(a)earthlink.net>, >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >>>>the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >>>>some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >>>>you need you should contact them because they have >>>>programs to assist those living in poverty needing >>>>their products. >>> >>> >>> Have you ever tried to qualify someone for free drugs? Every one >>>I've tried to help was denied. >> >>Were there different reasons or did they tend to be the same reason? >>If the same, can you say what it was? >> >>/BAH > > > > The only feedback I got was that they were denied. My part of the > outreach program was as an unpaid IT department, but in these cases I > tracked down the websites and printed out all the forms and > instructions. I had more medical problems before they were rejected, and > someone else took over trying to help them. I am still trying to get my > blood sugar back where it belongs, but in a month's time it shot up from > normal, to 495. I haven't been able to go back and work since then. :( > > What do you weigh?
From: T Wake on 17 Nov 2006 05:19 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:inqql2hnpth720hefaq42m6f4neqd410vh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:43:42 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:n1hol2h34lg57imeobnd9btu9e4dmabv9f(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27:00 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> >>> Gave us: >>> >>>>On 11/15/06 7:28 PM, in article >>>>limnl2114gmfvlaar0okbtbic645gcbuoc(a)4ax.com, >>>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:28:04 +0000, Eeyore >>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far >>>>>>>> from a >>>>>>>> population center to get decent DSL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. >>>>>>> You people are starting to get really annoying. >>>>>> >>>>>> DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! >>>>>> >>>>>> Graham >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>>> >>>>> ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. >>>>> That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his >>>>> area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service >>>>> line will do DSL. >>>> >>>>Wrong. >>>> >>>>An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data >>>>Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require >>>>ISDN. >>> >>> What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there >>> is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not >>> capable of providing ADSL service. >> >>As always, you are wrong but continue to insist you are correct. >> > So, it is your contention that ADSL works on non-digitally switched > hardware? Not at all. Is it your contention that an ISDN line must be in place prior to ADSL?
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 06:14 JoeBloe wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > >> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> Gave us: > >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far > >>>>>>> from a population center to get decent DSL. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. > >>>>>> You people are starting to get really annoying. > >>>>> > >>>>> DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! > >>>>> > >>>>> Graham > >>>> > >>>> Wrong. > >>>> > >>>> ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. > >>>> That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his > >>>> area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service > >>>> line will do DSL. > >>> > >>>Wrong. > >>> > >>>An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data > >>>Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require ISDN. > >> > >> What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there > >> is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not > >> capable of providing ADSL service. > > > >As always, you are wrong but continue to insist you are correct. > > So, it is your contention that ADSL works on non-digitally switched > hardware? No-one contended that ! I originally said that ADSL comes down an ordinary twisted pair telephone line. Which it does. I have it working right here. The DSLAM is at the exchange. DSL = digital subscriber line. If you guys want to do it differently in the USA that's fine. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 06:17
JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > >> > As I recall, the pollution controls began being enforced about 1970. By > >> > the end of the decade the air was much cleaner. > >> > >> And not coincidentally, since US sales accounted for the majority of MG > >> sales, they went under essentially at the end of the decade of the 70s. > > > >Eh ? > > Austin-Healey, right? No, they didn't go under. They just stopped making them. > The word for today is : > > * * * S P R I D G E T * * * Eh ? Actually I was talking about MG and they didn't go down until a couple of years ago. http://www.mg-rover.com/static/index.html Graham |