Notice that
employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
incompetence?
--
dorayme
On 2007-08-08, dorayme
> Notice that
>
>
>
> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> incompetence?
And in a slightly off-topic aside: what exactly is the man with the
sunglasses doing?
Andrew
--
'Name him not!' said Gandalf, and for a moment
it seemed that a look of pain passed over his face,
and he sat silent, looking old as death.
andrew wrote:
> On 2007-08-08, dorayme
>> Notice that
>>
>>
>>
>> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
>> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
>> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
>> incompetence?
>
> And in a slightly off-topic aside: what exactly is the man with the
> sunglasses doing?
>
> Andrew
Looks like he's deodorizing his favorite red Speedos. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, dorayme
> Notice that
>
>
>
> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> incompetence?
I don't know how things are done in Australia, but I would guess the
fine print would be much more likely intentional for a US company, and
there might be a page or two written in it in terms that lawyers best
understand.
We now have a lot of broadband competition in the US and prices have
greatly dropped in the last two years. My telephone company ATT has
teamed up with Yahoo to offer 1 dialup and 2 DSL plans. The standard
price(not limited time sucker ad price) for the elite plan I have is
now about US$ 35 per month if you use the ATT telephone service, and I
am getting a measured download of about 5 Mbps and an upload of about
650 kbps, if the server is not overloaded or there are not other
problems on the web that slow everything down. Of course you have to
live in a city fairly close to the telephone office to enroll in this
top speed DSL plan. Download is not measured - I can download as much
as I want without speed being reduced. Last night I downloaded a 1.9
GB mpeg2 old classic movie in about 2 hours. Even considering that 1
USD = about 1.2 AD, the Virgin plan seems very expensive for what you
get - well under 1Mbps download and restrictions on download
bandwidth. Of course conditions are quite different in the US and
Australia. Perhaps Virgin needs a little more broadband competition to
bring down prices. Well over half of US computer users(perhaps around
70%) are on broadband of some sort now.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:11:42 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> Notice that
>
>
>
> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> incompetence?
I dunno, the text is pretty noticeable and even prominent; it's not like
they're trying to hide it. Of course we all know your personal
fussbudgetry index is hovering well above zero.
I agree with cyw-whatever, though, that it's not a good deal, -at least in
the US. Furthermore, 512 kbps isn't particularly "hi-speed" for hi-speed
connections, anyway. I'd hold out for something better.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
andrew wrote:
> On 2007-08-08, dorayme
>> Notice that
>>
>>
>>
>> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
>> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate, in
>> respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
>> incompetence?
>
> And in a slightly off-topic aside: what exactly is the man with the
> sunglasses doing?
SECOND RESPONSE:
WAIT! I didn't know that there were rotating images there. All I (and
apparently you) saw was the spraying-his-red-speedos image. Now I see
that in the next one he's a hairdresser working on a chick who's wearing
a red headband thingmy. I *did* think "hairdresser" when I was looking
at the original spraying-his-shorts image, but there wasn't anything
else there to pull that idea together. And "broadband" doesn't exactly
conjure up a normal connection with "hairdresser" -- at least not with
me. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
In article
<1186624566.168348.276840@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz
> On Aug 8, 6:11 pm, dorayme
> > Notice that
> >
> >
> >
> > employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> > broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> > in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> > incompetence?
>
>
> I don't know how things are done in Australia, but I would guess the
> fine print would be much more likely intentional for a US company, and
> there might be a page or two written in it in terms that lawyers best
> understand.
>
> We now have a lot of broadband competition in the US and prices have
> greatly dropped in the last two years. My telephone company ATT has
> teamed up with Yahoo to offer 1 dialup and 2 DSL plans. The standard
> price(not limited time sucker ad price) for the elite plan I have is
> now about US$ 35 per month if you use the ATT telephone service, and I
> am getting a measured download of about 5 Mbps and an upload of about
> 650 kbps, if the server is not overloaded or there are not other
> problems on the web that slow everything down. Of course you have to
> live in a city fairly close to the telephone office to enroll in this
> top speed DSL plan. Download is not measured - I can download as much
> as I want without speed being reduced. Last night I downloaded a 1.9
> GB mpeg2 old classic movie in about 2 hours. Even considering that 1
> USD = about 1.2 AD, the Virgin plan seems very expensive for what you
> get - well under 1Mbps download and restrictions on download
> bandwidth. Of course conditions are quite different in the US and
> Australia. Perhaps Virgin needs a little more broadband competition to
> bring down prices. Well over half of US computer users(perhaps around
> 70%) are on broadband of some sort now.
I think what attracted my daughter and her husband to this plan
was the telephone part of the plan... the dorayme half of that
happy union likes to gab a lot on the phone. They use a dial up
service for internet at the moment.
I agree, it looks a bit expensive for the speed. Here you can
generally get between 1 and 4GB download limit for a month at
reasonable enough speeds (between 1.5 and 6.5 Mbps) for between
$30 and $40 Aust.
--
dorayme
In article
Neredbojias
> I dunno, the text is pretty noticeable and even prominent;
Of course you would think so. Anything that is really idiotic
attracts you. Text that is small point on web pages that does not
resize and every other goddamn thing that is crazy. You never did
slip into that nice comfortable thing for me did you? I meant the
sort of coma that would stop you saying so much that is false for
a long time.
--
dorayme
> I agree with cyw-whatever, though, that it's not a good deal, -at least in
> the US. Furthermore, 512 kbps isn't particularly "hi-speed" for hi-speed
> connections, anyway. I'd hold out for something better.
>
"hi-speed" is relative. When I first started engineering data circuits
anything above 1200 baud was considered "hi-speed." I know some folks
in the podunks that would love to get 512 kbps.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:12:04 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> I dunno, the text is pretty noticeable and even prominent;
>
> Of course you would think so. Anything that is really idiotic
> attracts you. Text that is small point on web pages that does not
> resize and every other goddamn thing that is crazy. You never did
> slip into that nice comfortable thing for me did you? I meant the
> sort of coma that would stop you saying so much that is false for
> a long time.
Er, is it that time of the month again? I will have to adjust my
calendar...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:31:57
GMT William Gill scribed:
>> I agree with cyw-whatever, though, that it's not a good deal, -at
>> least in the US. Furthermore, 512 kbps isn't particularly "hi-speed"
>> for hi-speed connections, anyway. I'd hold out for something better.
>>
> "hi-speed" is relative. When I first started engineering data
> circuits anything above 1200 baud was considered "hi-speed." I know
> some folks in the podunks that would love to get 512 kbps.
Hi, Bill Gill,
I, too, remember when 1200 baud was "fast" -compared to the prevailing 300
baud rate then prevalent. But today's cable speeds are typically like 1+,
2, 4 and even 7 mbps, and some connections are even higher. 512k is very
much at the lo end of the hi-speed spectrum. Sure, if your location limits
you to dsl, go for it, but $60 bucks for a phone and 512k is more than I
pay for a phone with unlimited calling and national coverage _and_ 2+ mbps
internet connection.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:12:04 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> I dunno, the text is pretty noticeable and even prominent;
> >
> > Of course you would think so. Anything that is really idiotic
> > attracts you. Text that is small point on web pages that does not
> > resize and every other goddamn thing that is crazy. You never did
> > slip into that nice comfortable thing for me did you? I meant the
> > sort of coma that would stop you saying so much that is false for
> > a long time.
>
> Er, is it that time of the month again? I will have to adjust my
> calendar...
Naturally, you will do anything to avoid the substantial point
that anyone who thinks it is ok to put in important legal
conditions in God knows how small a point size with no means to
enlarge it is not doing something that is at all good. You prefer
to concentrate as usual on seeing what you can _fish_ from that
gutter which you call your mind and throw it my way.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:56:58
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> I dunno, the text is pretty noticeable and even prominent;
>> >
>> > Of course you would think so. Anything that is really idiotic
>> > attracts you. Text that is small point on web pages that does not
>> > resize and every other goddamn thing that is crazy. You never did
>> > slip into that nice comfortable thing for me did you? I meant the
>> > sort of coma that would stop you saying so much that is false for
>> > a long time.
>>
>> Er, is it that time of the month again? I will have to adjust my
>> calendar...
>
>
> Naturally, you will do anything to avoid the substantial point
> that anyone who thinks it is ok to put in important legal
> conditions in God knows how small a point size with no means to
> enlarge it is not doing something that is at all good. You prefer
> to concentrate as usual on seeing what you can _fish_ from that
> gutter which you call your mind and throw it my way.
Honest, the text looked pretty big and apparent to me. Maybe you have a
small screen; I have a 20 inch one. If that text were html test on my
screen, it would have about a 20-24px font size.
I understand what you're saying about enlarging it, but one could always
use Opera to do that if one could think clearly in the face of one's
irritability.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Scripsit Neredbojias:
> I, too, remember when 1200 baud was "fast" -compared to the
> prevailing 300 baud rate then prevalent.
Oh, what a luxury. My first experience about using a network connection at
home was with terminal that that had a manual switch for selecting between
110 and 300 bit/s.
For comparison, people are _still_ using the Internet over 9600 bit/s GSM
connections. Faster wireless connections are becoming affordable, but 9600
bit/s is really sufficient for purposes like normal (no attachments, please)
e-mail and much of surfing on no-nonsense web pages.
> But today's cable speeds
> are typically like 1+, 2, 4 and even 7 mbps, and some connections are
> even higher.
That's nominal maximum speed. The real speed is something different and
varies. And a connection between a client and a server is usually not faster
than the slowest part of the data path, and a fast connection does not make
an overloaded server any faster.
Well, this was just to put all these speed things into perspecive. Whatever
the technical status of connection speed is, it'll always be better to spend
less bytes in data transfer. I'm pretty sure that when they finally find out
a way to connect my brain directly to the Internet, the speed will first
(for the pioneering phase that might last years) be something lousy, by
today's standards.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
In article
Neredbojias
> Honest, the text looked pretty big and apparent to me. Maybe you have a
> small screen; I have a 20 inch one. If that text were html test on my
> screen, it would have about a 20-24px font size.
>
> I understand what you're saying about enlarging it, but one could always
> use Opera to do that if one could think clearly in the face of one's
> irritability.
You seem to have - as usual - no idea what is being referred to.
Take another look and just try not to look at the html text. Try.
You might actually get lucky and see the small print pic of the
fine details.
--
dorayme
"dorayme"
> Notice that
>
>
>
> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> incompetence?
Better still, this page now seems to be unavailable.
John
andrew wrote:
> On 2007-08-08, dorayme
>> Notice that
>>
>>
>>
>> employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
>> broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
>> in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
>> incompetence?
>
> And in a slightly off-topic aside: what exactly is the man with the
> sunglasses doing?
>
> Andrew
>
Also slightly off-topic: I moused over the left side navigation
in Firefox and it's text disappeared in a way I can't get it back,
even with a shift-reload. It is amazing the lengths people will go
to to make their page visitor-proof.
--
mbstevens
http://www.mbstevens.com
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:50:10
GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> Honest, the text looked pretty big and apparent to me. Maybe you
>> have a small screen; I have a 20 inch one. If that text were html
>> test on my screen, it would have about a 20-24px font size.
>>
>> I understand what you're saying about enlarging it, but one could
>> always use Opera to do that if one could think clearly in the face of
>> one's irritability.
>
> You seem to have - as usual - no idea what is being referred to.
> Take another look and just try not to look at the html text. Try.
> You might actually get lucky and see the small print pic of the
> fine details.
Oh, _that_ text! Well why didn't you say so?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:22:13
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
> Scripsit Neredbojias:
>
>> I, too, remember when 1200 baud was "fast" -compared to the
>> prevailing 300 baud rate then prevalent.
>
> Oh, what a luxury. My first experience about using a network
> connection at home was with terminal that that had a manual switch for
> selecting between 110 and 300 bit/s.
Teletype speed. Luckily, 300 baud pretty much held sway for connecting
to bbses when I started "surfing".
> For comparison, people are _still_ using the Internet over 9600 bit/s
> GSM connections. Faster wireless connections are becoming affordable,
> but 9600 bit/s is really sufficient for purposes like normal (no
> attachments, please) e-mail and much of surfing on no-nonsense web
> pages.
>
>> But today's cable speeds
>> are typically like 1+, 2, 4 and even 7 mbps, and some connections are
>> even higher.
>
> That's nominal maximum speed. The real speed is something different
> and varies. And a connection between a client and a server is usually
> not faster than the slowest part of the data path, and a fast
> connection does not make an overloaded server any faster.
Nope. I still see images load a fraction at a time when the server's
choked.
> Well, this was just to put all these speed things into perspecive.
> Whatever the technical status of connection speed is, it'll always be
> better to spend less bytes in data transfer. I'm pretty sure that when
> they finally find out a way to connect my brain directly to the
> Internet, the speed will first (for the pioneering phase that might
> last years) be something lousy, by today's standards.
I recently heard they were doing some experimental bio-digital direct-
connects in Sweden, but, unfortunately, all the volunteers are ending up
permanently wired.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
John Clayton wrote:
>
> "dorayme"
> > Notice that
> >
> >
> >
> > employs a picture that includes the "fine print" conditions for a
> > broadband plan. There is a question whether this was deliberate,
> > in respect to the fine print, to make it hard to read or just
> > incompetence?
>
> Better still, this page now seems to be unavailable.
> John
Did you just click the broken link, or did you join it together with
the dash and the second line? (It came up broken in two at my end, btw.)
Here's an un-broken version of the above:
http://tinyurl.com/25lh2n
--
Kim André Akerø
- kimandre@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)
> Better still, this page now seems to be unavailable.
No, just an unfortunate line break in the url try:
http://www.virginbroadband.com.au/wirelessbroadband/broadban d-at-home.aspx
On Aug 8, 11:31 pm, William Gill
> > I agree with cyw-whatever, though, that it's not a good deal, -at least in
> > the US. Furthermore, 512 kbps isn't particularly "hi-speed" for hi-speed
> > connections, anyway. I'd hold out for something better.
>
> "hi-speed" is relative. When I first started engineering data circuits
> anything above 1200 baud was considered "hi-speed." I know some folks
> in the podunks that would love to get 512 kbps.
I can remember when about 300 baud was usual for connection of a
terminal to a house mainframe. I used a minicomputer(which was not so
small in physical size and had core memory) to automate the collection
of data from an instrument. It mainly advanced angle by increments of
a few seconds of one degree and determined x-ray intensity at each
angle. The time for data collection at each point was rather long, so
the instrument ran full time. Intensity data was recorded vs angle on
an audio cassette tape on the terminal. I had to program the mini
computer in octal. It controlled and monitored about 20 things
including advancement of a micrometer, cooling water temperature for
the target of the x-ray tube, a scintillation counter, etc. When data
collection was complete, the terminal was switched to the line to the
house mainframe and the data collected on the tape was sent at about
300 baud. This was a case of a reasonable amount of data and huge
computing requirements. The data had to be processed using matrix
inversion of huge 2 dimensional arrays at each point for which a
parameter was varied. The computing demands were so large that my
program caused the whole house computing network to slow down greatly,
and calculations took over 1/2 hour. The computer finally printed out
results on the printer at the computer center. About that time people
started using crude CRT terminals as well as text terminals. Also HD
storage devices were beginning to be used, although they were very
expensive and had very low storage capacity by today's standards.
The internet was then still in the future. Sometimes the computer
center personnel would arrange to connect our house computer to
another computer via telephone. The transfer rate of data via
telephone then was quite small, but I do not recall what it was. Those
who had need for high transfer rate used microwave. At that time, Bell
telephone had microwave towers all over the country for long distance,
data services, TV, etc. Of course this service was very expensive,
because the microwave transmission was line-of- sight, so a huge
number of tall microwave towers had to be built all over the country.
This network of Microwave towers was replaced by C-band and Ku-band
satellites as well as fiber optics lines.
Today the goal is to increase speed enough so that TV can be
transmitted in real time at DVD and recently HD DVD standards as well
as normal web pages, telephone services, etc. This will require fiber
optics directly to the computer, not just via fiber optics to a
distribution line that has a conventional cable leading to each house
or business. This has been done on an experimental basis. When you
consider that over 10 Mbps is needed for DVD quality digital signals,
even more for HD ones, and more bandwith will be required for other
services, it is easy to see that it will be several years before such
services are available in most areas at a price that people will be
willing to pay.
For those who live beyond to reach of broadband now, a service with a
dialup telephone link and a satellite broadband download link is
available all over the US and in other places. Often one located in
areas that broadband does not reach has a small dish or a large dish C
- Ku band antenna for TV that will work without having to buy a new
antenna. Although the service is more expensive that most cable and
DSL delivered broadband, and often is slower in download, if there is
no other choice, many are willing to pay the price. Services with a
satellite link for upload also are available, but these are quite
expensive and are most likely to attract business and news
organization users.
While the city slept, Jukka K. Korpela (jkorpela@cs.tut.fi) feverishly
typed...
> Scripsit Neredbojias:
>
>> I, too, remember when 1200 baud was "fast" -compared to the
>> prevailing 300 baud rate then prevalent.
>
> Oh, what a luxury. My first experience about using a network
> connection at home was with terminal that that had a manual switch
> for selecting between 110 and 300 bit/s.
You were lucky. When I was a lad, we 'ad to type our code onto th'pigeon and
send it off... ;-)
Cheers,
Nige
--
Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk
Mail address will bounce. nigel@DOG.nigenet.org.uk | Take the DOG. out!
"Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!"
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:50:10
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> Honest, the text looked pretty big and apparent to me. Maybe you
> >> have a small screen; I have a 20 inch one. If that text were html
> >> test on my screen, it would have about a 20-24px font size.
> >>
> >> I understand what you're saying about enlarging it, but one could
> >> always use Opera to do that if one could think clearly in the face of
> >> one's irritability.
> >
> > You seem to have - as usual - no idea what is being referred to.
> > Take another look and just try not to look at the html text. Try.
> > You might actually get lucky and see the small print pic of the
> > fine details.
>
> Oh, _that_ text! Well why didn't you say so?
Of course! If the context of the original post was clearly all
about this except to a boji, it does not count as _saying_ so.
Perhaps you have followed that policy of that schmark schmate of
yours who also employs the trick of "not reading my crap" when
caught in a bind. When I get to be Ruler of the World, you and he
will only have my writings to read in your dungeon. You will be
_made_ to learn to recite them from memory.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:04:55 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> > You seem to have - as usual - no idea what is being referred to.
>> > Take another look and just try not to look at the html text. Try.
>> > You might actually get lucky and see the small print pic of the
>> > fine details.
>>
>> Oh, _that_ text! Well why didn't you say so?
>
> Of course! If the context of the original post was clearly all
> about this except to a boji, it does not count as _saying_ so.
> Perhaps you have followed that policy of that schmark schmate of
> yours who also employs the trick of "not reading my crap" when
> caught in a bind. When I get to be Ruler of the World, you and he
> will only have my writings to read in your dungeon. You will be
> _made_ to learn to recite them from memory.
I didn't know you were into s&m, though I guess it figures. Anyway, from
one of your earlier descriptions, I thought you meant the bigger text, not
the teeny weeny text which starts out "Note to self" or something equally
silly. Had you been more accurate, you probably could have avoided causing
this error in the first place.
Suggestion: When you reach the "ruler of the world" plateau, why not adopt
a new honorific such as "Tyrantess Oris" to indicate your status as the
definitive despot of disoriented yakers?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Had you been more accurate, you probably could have avoided causing
> this error in the first place.
You seem not to know the idioms of the English language. I know,
it is so churlish of me to say this but since you and your shmark
mate make such pompous remarks about the primacy of English
conventions, I don't feel too bad. My popularity can hardly get
worse.
Face it Boji, you consistently fail to understand many things
because you are a sexist self-engrossed_yet_gross carelessly
chattering thing.
There is a common meaning of "fine print" conditions. They are
the little printed conditions at the bottom that one can barely
read in newspaper ads. The one ray of hope for readers of a web
page is to enlarge the text. If this is blocked, then it is
something I thought worth remarking on at the time. Naturally, I
should take into account that anything that is said is likely to
have you idiotically bursting in on and misconstruing whatever
you can and generally just spewing forth.
Luckily, I have nothing in my nature that is not concise, to the
point, accurate, troll_less and directly relevant and useful to
all. It is simply not my fault that the boji in earthlings can
not always see this.
--
dorayme
On 2007-08-10, dorayme wrote:
....
> There is a common meaning of "fine print" conditions. They are
> the little printed conditions at the bottom that one can barely
> read in newspaper ads. The one ray of hope for readers of a web
> page is to enlarge the text. If this is blocked, then
... you need the Image Zoom add-on for Firefox.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
In article <6msso4-elq.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson"
> On 2007-08-10, dorayme wrote:
> ...
> > There is a common meaning of "fine print" conditions. They are
> > the little printed conditions at the bottom that one can barely
> > read in newspaper ads. The one ray of hope for readers of a web
> > page is to enlarge the text. If this is blocked, then
>
> ... you need the Image Zoom add-on for Firefox.
Is it better than the Opera zoom feature? One can - slightly
unpleasantly - read it with Opera.
But really, the issue was not me, rather I was the bearer of bad
news.
I think we have just about squeezed the life out of this thread,
the only thing remaining is a few more Punch & Judy on stage
smacking between Boji and me.
(btw. I rather fancy myself as being Punch.
From an authoritative source:
"The stereotypical view of Punch casts him as a deformed,
child-murdering, boji-beating psychopath who commits appalling
acts of violence and cruelty upon all those around him and
escapes scot-free this is greatly enjoyed by small children"
).
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:59:16
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Had you been more accurate, you probably could have avoided causing
>> this error in the first place.
>
> You seem not to know the idioms of the English language. I know,
> it is so churlish of me to say this but since you and your shmark
> mate make such pompous remarks about the primacy of English
> conventions, I don't feel too bad. My popularity can hardly get
> worse.
>
> Face it Boji, you consistently fail to understand many things
> because you are a sexist self-engrossed_yet_gross carelessly
> chattering thing.
A bonafide display of a refined man's sexually-elevated probations is
hardly sexist. Now displaying my elevated sex pro bono, -that would be
sexist.
However, my thing doesn't chatter. You must be watching too many of them
adult cartoons on The 'Net.
> There is a common meaning of "fine print" conditions. They are
> the little printed conditions at the bottom that one can barely
> read in newspaper ads. The one ray of hope for readers of a web
> page is to enlarge the text. If this is blocked, then it is
> something I thought worth remarking on at the time. Naturally, I
> should take into account that anything that is said is likely to
> have you idiotically bursting in on and misconstruing whatever
> you can and generally just spewing forth.
>
> Luckily, I have nothing in my nature that is not concise, to the
> point, accurate, troll_less and directly relevant and useful to
> all.
Yes, I'm sure phrases like "shmark mate", "that schmark schmate of
yours", and "schmuck" are most edifying to the majority of those
newsgrouping souls unfortunate enough to encounter your "relevancy"
first-hand.
> It is simply not my fault that the boji in earthlings can
> not always see this.
>
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> > Luckily, I have nothing in my nature that is not concise, to the
> > point, accurate, troll_less and directly relevant and useful to
> > all.
>
> Yes, I'm sure phrases like "shmark mate", "that schmark schmate of
> yours", and "schmuck" are most edifying to the majority of those
> newsgrouping souls unfortunate enough to encounter your "relevancy"
> first-hand.
Yeah, yeah, edification, schmedification, whatever...
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:52:47 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> > Luckily, I have nothing in my nature that is not concise, to the
>> > point, accurate, troll_less and directly relevant and useful to
>> > all.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure phrases like "shmark mate", "that schmark schmate of
>> yours", and "schmuck" are most edifying to the majority of those
>> newsgrouping souls unfortunate enough to encounter your "relevancy"
>> first-hand.
>
> Yeah, yeah, edification, schmedification, whatever...
How like a woman to avoid the issue of her faux pas.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > Yeah, yeah, edification, schmedification, whatever...
>
> How like a woman to avoid the issue of her faux pas.
You are really one of a very special kind, dear Boji, are you
not? Without the evidence of the brain material I have now
repeatedly asked you to send a sample of for analysis, it is as
likely as not, given your interest in lower things, that you have
no idea whatsoever what a faux pas is. I am pretty sure you
suppose it to be a sort of breaking of wind.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:41:54 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > Yeah, yeah, edification, schmedification, whatever...
>>
>> How like a woman to avoid the issue of her faux pas.
>
> You are really one of a very special kind, dear Boji, are you
> not? Without the evidence of the brain material I have now
> repeatedly asked you to send a sample of for analysis, it is as
> likely as not, given your interest in lower things, that you have
> no idea whatsoever what a faux pas is. I am pretty sure you
> suppose it to be a sort of breaking of wind.
No, it's French for "a mistake". I realize I used the singular form in a
plural situation, but since I singularized the nominative and don't really
speak French, anyway...
Hey, you never got back to me about Kangaroo Day. Do any, er, hoppin'?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Hey, you never got back to me about Kangaroo Day.
Kangaroo Day? What are you babbling about?
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:11:17 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> Hey, you never got back to me about Kangaroo Day.
>
> Kangaroo Day? What are you babbling about?
Dontcha celebrate Kangaroo Day thare? We celebrate Groundhog Day 'round
these here parts.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Dontcha celebrate Kangaroo Day thare? We celebrate Groundhog Day 'round
> these here parts.
No, there is no Kangaroo Day here. Australians like to celebrate
every defeat, every debacle, every tragedy and happily enjoy the
time off when the Q of E gets one year older (it happens once a
year in case you are wondering. I understand that Groundhog
happens daily but seems yearly)
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:47:11
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Dontcha celebrate Kangaroo Day thare? We celebrate Groundhog Day
>> 'round these here parts.
>
> No, there is no Kangaroo Day here. Australians like to celebrate
> every defeat, every debacle, every tragedy and happily enjoy the
> time off when the Q of E gets one year older (it happens once a
> year in case you are wondering. I understand that Groundhog
> happens daily but seems yearly)
Once a year on 2 Feb. I believe how it goes is that if the little critter
sees his shadow, there'll be 6 more weeks of winter. If he doesn't see
his shadow, the notion is that there won't be but it's really undefined.
If he sees a female groundhog, things spring-up immediately, however.
I've heard of Q and A, what's Q and E? -Question and enigma?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:47:11
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> Dontcha celebrate Kangaroo Day thare? We celebrate Groundhog Day
> >> 'round these here parts.
> >
> > No, there is no Kangaroo Day here. Australians like to celebrate
> > every defeat, every debacle, every tragedy and happily enjoy the
> > time off when the Q of E gets one year older (it happens once a
> > year in case you are wondering. I understand that Groundhog
> > happens daily but seems yearly)
>
> Once a year on 2 Feb.
>
You have not seen Groundhog Day?
> I've heard of Q and A, what's Q and E? -Question and enigma?
Queen of England
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:43:31 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> >> Dontcha celebrate Kangaroo Day thare? We celebrate Groundhog Day
>> >> 'round these here parts.
>> >
>> > No, there is no Kangaroo Day here. Australians like to celebrate
>> > every defeat, every debacle, every tragedy and happily enjoy the
>> > time off when the Q of E gets one year older (it happens once a
>> > year in case you are wondering. I understand that Groundhog
>> > happens daily but seems yearly)
>>
>> Once a year on 2 Feb.
>>
>
> You have not seen Groundhog Day?
Yep.
>> I've heard of Q and A, what's Q and E? -Question and enigma?
>
> Queen of England
Oh.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> > You have not seen Groundhog Day?
>
> Yep.
I still have no idea if you have seen the film?
Here are the two possible interpretations:
(1) Yep, you have seen it.
(2) Yep, the statement, "You have not seen it" is true
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:14:32 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> > You have not seen Groundhog Day?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> I still have no idea if you have seen the film?
>
> Here are the two possible interpretations:
>
> (1) Yep, you have seen it.
>
> (2) Yep, the statement, "You have not seen it" is true
Er, sorry, I thought you were asking if I had seen Groundhog Day the day.
Thought it was a little peculiar.
Anyway, I _have_ seen the film, but it was such a long time ago, I barely
remember it. -A Bill Murrey vehicle with the li'l critter poppin' in and
out of his hole? (I may be confused it with "Caddyshack" somewhat.) To be
honest, I'm not that much of a BM fan, although I did kind of enjoy
"Meatballs".
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:14:32 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > You have not seen Groundhog Day?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > I still have no idea if you have seen the film?
> >
> > Here are the two possible interpretations:
> >
> > (1) Yep, you have seen it.
> >
> > (2) Yep, the statement, "You have not seen it" is true
>
> Er, sorry, I thought you were asking if I had seen Groundhog Day the day.
> Thought it was a little peculiar.
I was asking you that. What do you now suppose I was asking you?
Whether Daffy Duck was your uncle? Geez! (to use your favourite
expression).
What the was peculiar about it? The film story is about the only
thing I ever associate with "groundhog". For me, it pretty well
means endless repetition of life. But just a minute! Are you
implying that I am peculiar in some way? Now hang on there
Boji...
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:17:18
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> > You have not seen Groundhog Day?
>> >>
>> >> Yep.
>> >
>> > I still have no idea if you have seen the film?
>> >
>> > Here are the two possible interpretations:
>> >
>> > (1) Yep, you have seen it.
>> >
>> > (2) Yep, the statement, "You have not seen it" is true
>>
>> Er, sorry, I thought you were asking if I had seen Groundhog Day the
>> day. Thought it was a little peculiar.
>
> I was asking you that. What do you now suppose I was asking you?
> Whether Daffy Duck was your uncle? Geez! (to use your favourite
> expression).
Geesh, woman! ...Groundhog Day - THE DAY! _Not_ the movie but the day
itself which is Groundhog Day. Ergo, I thought you were asking me if I
had seen THE DAY in order to be short or flippant or cutsie, or God knows
what.
> What the was peculiar about it?
The peculiarity was in you asking me if I had seen THE DAY. Of course,
since you were really asking me if I had seen the movie, this might have
seemed peculiar to you. However, since you appear to read on a level
about par with Jukka's diplomacy, I'll bet a lot of things seem peculiar
to you...
> The film story is about the only
> thing I ever associate with "groundhog". For me, it pretty well
> means endless repetition of life. But just a minute! Are you
> implying that I am peculiar in some way? Now hang on there
> Boji...
Well, pork sausage makes me think of groundhog in a way...
Btw, "geez" _isn't_ my favourite word. Under an American auspices, it's
still not my favorite word.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> >> Er, sorry, I thought you were asking if I had seen Groundhog Day the
> >> day. Thought it was a little peculiar.
> >
> > I was asking you that. What do you now suppose I was asking you?
> > Whether Daffy Duck was your uncle? Geez! (to use your favourite
> > expression).
>
> Geesh, woman! ...Groundhog Day - THE DAY! _Not_ the movie but the day
> itself which is Groundhog Day. Ergo, I thought you were asking me if I
> had seen THE DAY in order to be short or flippant or cutsie, or God knows
> what.
>
> > What the was peculiar about it?
>
> The peculiarity was in you asking me if I had seen THE DAY.
The real peculiarity is you thinking that I would ask you if you
can see something which is not even the sort of thing an ordinary
earthling can see. A day is period of time.
And don't address me as "woman". Have some respect. In return, I
will not put out a rumour about you being Daffy Duck's pet frog.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:51:18
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> Er, sorry, I thought you were asking if I had seen Groundhog Day
>> >> the day. Thought it was a little peculiar.
>> >
>> > I was asking you that. What do you now suppose I was asking you?
>> > Whether Daffy Duck was your uncle? Geez! (to use your favourite
>> > expression).
>>
>> Geesh, woman! ...Groundhog Day - THE DAY! _Not_ the movie but the
>> day itself which is Groundhog Day. Ergo, I thought you were asking
>> me if I had seen THE DAY in order to be short or flippant or cutsie,
>> or God knows what.
>>
>> > What the was peculiar about it?
>>
>> The peculiarity was in you asking me if I had seen THE DAY.
>
> The real peculiarity is you thinking that I would ask you if you
> can see something which is not even the sort of thing an ordinary
> earthling can see. A day is period of time.
Well, I was judging on the basis of some of your past missives. One never
knows what one can expect...
> And don't address me as "woman". Have some respect. In return, I
> will not put out a rumour about you being Daffy Duck's pet frog.
What's wrong with "woman"? (Er, the term, not the physical creature. I
don't have hours and hours to respond to reams of eclectic data.) Guys
say, "Hey, man,..." all the time and there's seldom any objection to that.
If you're ashamed of your sex, take it up with God or get the pertinent
surgical attachment. If you go the latter route, though, your attitude
will have to change, too.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> > The real peculiarity is you thinking that I would ask you if you
> > can see something which is not even the sort of thing an ordinary
> > earthling can see. A day is period of time.
>
> Well, I was judging on the basis of some of your past missives. One never
> knows what one can expect...
>
As usual, you vaguely refer to this and that without specifying
anything really. When have I ever said anything that would give
rise to any concerns that would justify you thinking that I would
think that you might be able to see a period of time?
> > And don't address me as "woman". Have some respect. In return, I
> > will not put out a rumour about you being Daffy Duck's pet frog.
>
> What's wrong with "woman"?
It is narrow minded and impertinent to say this to a creature
from another planet, that's why. Your absurd remarks about
operations for me have been snipped. I feel I have a license now
to spread the rumour that you are Daffy duck's pet frog.
Expect a visit by Donald Duck who will introduce himself as
Officer "Bud" White but you will see through this. He will
discuss with you the propriety of being his pianist rival's pet
frog (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Donald has a foul temper on
occasions. I will be most glad not to be there when he
'discusses' this little matter with you.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:03:10
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > The real peculiarity is you thinking that I would ask you if you
>> > can see something which is not even the sort of thing an ordinary
>> > earthling can see. A day is period of time.
>>
>> Well, I was judging on the basis of some of your past missives. One
>> never knows what one can expect...
>>
>
> As usual, you vaguely refer to this and that without specifying
> anything really. When have I ever said anything that would give
> rise to any concerns that would justify you thinking that I would
> think that you might be able to see a period of time?
You're looking at the situation with too much specificity. It's not that
what you said led me to expect any one particular thing, it's that what
you said led me to expect many odd non-particular things.
>> > And don't address me as "woman". Have some respect. In return, I
>> > will not put out a rumour about you being Daffy Duck's pet frog.
>>
>> What's wrong with "woman"?
>
> It is narrow minded and impertinent to say this to a creature
> from another planet, that's why.
Okay, she-thing, so what do extra-terrestrial alien females like to be
called?
> Your absurd remarks about
> operations for me have been snipped.
You should be grateful I didn't propose a lobotomy.
> I feel I have a license now
> to spread the rumour that you are Daffy duck's pet frog.
>
> Expect a visit by Donald Duck who will introduce himself as
> Officer "Bud" White but you will see through this. He will
> discuss with you the propriety of being his pianist rival's pet
> frog (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Donald has a foul temper on
> occasions. I will be most glad not to be there when he
> 'discusses' this little matter with you.
The last time I discussed anything with a duck, I was drunk and confused
by its suggestive waddle.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.