Are We Not Men? (& Women?)

From: Brett <danjo_at_xnet.com>
Date: Mon Jan 26 20:06:47 1998

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Mike Allison wrote:
>
> > The whole point is lists and newsgroups is that the majority are pertinent
> > and one shouldn't have to sort through the impertinent.
> >
> > All of our email addresses are posted, if you want to have long discussions
> > as a group there's no reason you can't do it off line...

First - for Mike - And how do we find out if any one wishes to discuss
this on-line or off-line???

> Very good point. And I'd like to make one more point and then I'll move
> on. I've been subscribed to this list longer than any of the bone-heads
> who are posting off-topic, since its inception in fact (I guess I could be
> considered a charter member). I know what the group was originally
> intended for because I in part helped create that intent.

Sam - in your own words 8-)

> and our own personal acheivements fits in I do not know.

So What! I think I was here before you so it means nothing!

> With the
> exception of the blatantly off-topic crap we've seen in the last week, and
> aside from the OCCASIONAL straying (the kind that is the exception rather
> than the norm) the quality of discussion has remained fairly high. I
> would hate for this discussion group to plunge into the anarchy that one
> would find on any common Usenet newsgroup just because some selfish
> assholes want to talk about their own interests.

Very true 8-) I think we had this discussion before. We always have few
that run off-topic AND THEY ALWAYS clean up by themselves - until you show
up 8-( They would run out of steam on thier own - if you would only learn
patience!

> I'm sorry, but that is
> wholly unacceptable, and I'm not just going to allow it to happen.

Ohhhhhh! I see - This is YOUR list - we been there and did that before
Sam - don't try to start it up again!

> This
> discussion was created for the purposes that are clearly outlined in the
> FAQ. I'm not a jerk. I'm mostly reasonable and don't get offended
> easily, nor do I make it a point to step on anyone's toes for bending the
> rules a little. But what we've seen lately is a total disregard for the
> basic guidelines. In fact, we already went over this and it was commonly
> agreed that we're all here to talk about old computers and closely related
> topics.

Good - all your brain cells aren't gone!

> How discussions of acid trips, stilling alcohol and our own
> personal acheivements fits in I do not know.
>
> ANYHOW....

And now for a list of - gee - personal acheivements!

> I've been picking up a lot of great books lately in thrift stores. I
> found a couple different volumes on the UCSD Pascal P-code system. I got
> the IBM Options and Adaptors Technical Reference Volume 3 (I believe I
> have Vols. 1&2 at home), I got a dBase II manual for the Osborne(!) but
> unfortunately no software. I think my best find was Zork I on 8" floppy
> in the original packaging with all the original inserts.

Nice find actually!

> Let's see...I also got the Radio Shack TRS-80 Applications Software
> Sourcebook. Now, I know that Ward probably knows this, but I didn't
> realize just how many programs were available for the TRS-80. This book
> is pretty big.
>
> I also found some armed forces computer coursework manuals which are
> pretty interesting. I found one called _Introduction to Programming in
> BASIC_ from a Navy traing course. I also found a manual on programming in
> (I forget which language) on a CDC Cyber mainframe. Both of these are
> from the late 70s.

Awww gee - And I got a great personal achievemant story about the early
Navy training that I can't tell - Darn!

BC
Received on Mon Jan 26 1998 - 20:06:47 GMT