Sorry, but enough is enough. I not only KF'ed google groups but all
crossposts. If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. For any others tired of
the flood of spamming, Blinky's site lives on:

http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usene...lters_ex1.html

To kill crossposts, see your newsreader client manual.

nb

notbob wrote:

> Sorry, but enough is enough. I not only KF'ed google groups but all
> crossposts. If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> care-- speak up and I'll make an exception.

I'm not seeing any spam. If your news provider doesn't run cleanfeed or
other filter at the server, then they aren't doing their job.

I use <http://news.individual.net> and have a spam-free experience for
10 euros/year. A few cross-post filters for the trolls, and I'm in
pretty good shape.




Brian

--
Day 207 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> notbob wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but enough is enough. I not only KF'ed google groups but all
>> crossposts. If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
>> care-- speak up and I'll make an exception.
>
> I'm not seeing any spam. If your news provider doesn't run cleanfeed or
> other filter at the server, then they aren't doing their job.
>
> I use <http://news.individual.net> and have a spam-free experience for
> 10 euros/year. A few cross-post filters for the trolls, and I'm in
> pretty good shape.
>
It must be time to remind you that notbob is an idiot.

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from notbob > contains these words:
>
> Blinky's site lives on:
>
>> http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usene...lters_ex1.html
>
> I miss Blinky
>

I can see why you would. You in particular.

On 2009-08-28, cybercat > wrote:
>
> "Default User" > wrote in message

>> 10 euros/year. A few cross-post filters for the trolls, and I'm in
>> pretty good shape.

> It must be time to remind you that notbob is an idiot.

Which reminds me, I forgot to set up the "loser" section of my score
file.

Hiya, Cyba.

nb

On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
> ..... If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....

This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
them. That's delusional. -aem

On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
>
> > *..... *If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> > care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
>
> This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> them. *That's delusional. * * -aem

Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
where even text-only used significant bandwidth? My 2400 baud modem
just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
was for?

--Bryan

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Aug 28, 1:01 pm, aem > wrote:
>
>>On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ..... If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
>>>care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
>>
>>This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
>>them. That's delusional. -aem
>
>
> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> where even text-only used significant bandwidth? My 2400 baud modem
> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
> was for?

No, it's not a bandwidth issue. It's more an "I don't want to read or
even look at one more post by this blathering moron" issue. There are
individuals upon whom I am unwilling to waste even a single "click" of
the forefinger. Killfiles are one of the great things about usenet.
Seriously, who wouldn't like to be able to apply a "STFU" application to
certain individuals in other aspects of their lives.

On 2009-08-28, Kathleen > wrote:

> Seriously, who wouldn't like to be able to apply a "STFU" application to
> certain individuals in other aspects of their lives.

Actually, these options do exist in one form or another, it's just
most civilized societies consider them illegal.

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-08-28, cybercat > wrote:
> >
> > "Default User" > wrote in message
>
> >> 10 euros/year. A few cross-post filters for the trolls, and I'm in
> >> pretty good shape.
>
> > It must be time to remind you that notbob is an idiot.

It might be time to remind cybercat that I regretfully added her to my
killfile some time back.

> Which reminds me, I forgot to set up the "loser" section of my score
> file.

Definitely an important thing for this newsgroup. Even with NIN doing a
great job of eliminating spam, it doesn't fix the problem of so little
useful content, and so much bickering and infighting and just plain
dumbassery[1].

But that's a whole 'nother tale.



1. This is a technical term, and does not constitute grouchiness.

Brian

--
Day 207 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

On 2009-08-28, Stu > wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® >
> wrote:
>
> -->On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:

> -->> This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> -->> them. *That's delusional. * * -aem

It "implies" nothing and is not delusional. It's merely good
housekeeping. I'm tired of wading through dozens of headers of
nonesense and spam and crossposts from the trolls in uk.*. Simple as
that. Apperently, since I didn't see your original post, I must
assume you use google. I neither condone nor condemn google or ppl
who use it. It's just the origin of way too much spam and since
KF'ing it, 100% of the spam across a dozen newsgroups I read (some
much worse than here) has disappeared. Again, that simple. If that
doesn' bother you, it certainly doesn't bother me.

nb

"aem" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
>> ..... If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
>> care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
>
> This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> them. That's delusional. -aem

An excellent point!

On 28 Aug 2009 19:09:18 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-28, cybercat > wrote:
>> >
>> > "Default User" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> 10 euros/year. A few cross-post filters for the trolls, and I'm in
>> >> pretty good shape.
>>
>> > It must be time to remind you that notbob is an idiot.
>
>It might be time to remind cybercat that I regretfully added her to my
>killfile some time back.
>
>> Which reminds me, I forgot to set up the "loser" section of my score
>> file.
>
>Definitely an important thing for this newsgroup. Even with NIN doing a
>great job of eliminating spam, it doesn't fix the problem of so little
>useful content, and so much bickering and infighting and just plain
>dumbassery[1].
>
>But that's a whole 'nother tale.
>
>
>
>1. This is a technical term, and does not constitute grouchiness.
>
>Brian

Like you I use NIN and see almost no real spam. Since I use Agent
5.0, I am able to filter out subthreads. I use that instead of
delete. Delete only removed the first messages, not all of the
follow-ups. I also have 2 views set up, "ignored" and "not ignored."
I keep messages for 10 days and right now there are 5490 total
messages. "Ignored" view is 2545 and the "not ignored" is 2945. A
week or so ago the balance was reversed.

For those of you who are inclined to respond to cross-posted messages,
see if you can set you news reader to warn you that the message is
cross-posted so that you can send your response to the group that it
came from. Agent allows that.

I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:02:43 -0400, The Cook >
wrote:

>I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.

Nine Inch Nails?


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

The Cook wrote:


> For those of you who are inclined to respond to cross-posted messages,
> see if you can set you news reader to warn you that the message is
> cross-posted so that you can send your response to the group that it
> came from. Agent allows that.

That would be good. Unfortunately, they often do the opposite. They
drop the cross-post and respond to the troll only in this group. That
defeats my filter for certain newsgroups. Ah well.




Brian

--
Day 207 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

aem wrote:

>> ..... If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
>> care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
>
> This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> them. That's delusional. -aem

I don't know about that. Most of the time when I reply to a post, I have the
expectation that the person to whom I'm replying will read what I wrote. Of
course, given the frequency with which my NSP drops posts, I might not see
replies to *my* posts.

Bob

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:29:28 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:02:43 -0400, The Cook >
>wrote:
>
>>I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.
>
>Nine Inch Nails?

Obviously you haven't read or don't remember other threads about
spamming. NIN is news.individual.net. It is a German server, no
binaries, no spam. The exact amount depends on the exchange rate at
the time of sign up or renewal.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

The Cook wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:29:28 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:02:43 -0400, The Cook >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.
>> Nine Inch Nails?
>
> Obviously you haven't read or don't remember other threads about
> spamming. NIN is news.individual.net. It is a German server, no
> binaries, no spam. The exact amount depends on the exchange rate at
> the time of sign up or renewal.

So in other words, they are like news.eternal-september.org, but charge
for it, right?

I see only a couple, or three spams per day. Otherwise the service is
excellent.

My ISP (Charter) offers a usenet server through the paid service,
although not well advertised or used I think... and it does have some of
the binary groups. But I still use the news.eternal-september.org
service as it is just as up to date, costs nothing, and is less buggy
(is more reliable).

Bob

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:53:47 -0400, The Cook >
wrote:

>Obviously you haven't read or don't remember other threads about
>spamming.

Of course I have. Can't avoid them.

>NIN is news.individual.net.

Why not just say so and dispense with the cutesy acronym?

>It is a German server, no
>binaries, no spam. The exact amount depends on the exchange rate at
>the time of sign up or renewal.

My server keeps spam to a whisper *and* carries binaries.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
...
> The Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:29:28 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:02:43 -0400, The Cook >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.
>>> Nine Inch Nails?
>>
>> Obviously you haven't read or don't remember other threads about
>> spamming. NIN is news.individual.net. It is a German server, no
>> binaries, no spam. The exact amount depends on the exchange rate at
>> the time of sign up or renewal.
>
> So in other words, they are like news.eternal-september.org, but charge
> for it, right?
>
> I see only a couple, or three spams per day. Otherwise the service is
> excellent.

Teranews does a good job too. I paid $3.95 for it 12 years ago.

"The Cook" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:29:28 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:02:43 -0400, The Cook >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I feel that the $15/year for NIN is worth every penny.
>>
>>Nine Inch Nails?
>
> Obviously you haven't read or don't remember other threads about
> spamming. NIN is news.individual.net. It is a German server, no
> binaries, no spam. The exact amount depends on the exchange rate at
> the time of sign up or renewal.
> --
> Susan N.
>

All you had to do was spell it out. Don't blame others because you can't be
bothered to type a few extra letters.

In article
>,
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
> >
> > > *..... *If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> > > care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
> >
> > This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> > them. *That's delusional. * * -aem
>
> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> where even text-only used significant bandwidth? My 2400 baud modem
> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
> was for?

It's like the channel selector and "off" button on the satellite
receiver for my tv. If I tried to watch every channel, or even
everything on one channel, that would be my whole life.

There are too many posts on this newsgroup for me to be able to read
them all. I thus killfile authors who don't post anything worthwhile,
and killfile threads that don't interest me. That gives me more time to
read the posts that I want to read.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?

If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
difficult to be polite.

> My 2400 baud modem
> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
> was for?


2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.

On Aug 28, 1:29*pm, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
>
> > > *..... *If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> > > care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
>
> > This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> > them. *That's delusional. * * -aem
>
> Killfiling seems so silly. *Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> where even text-only used significant bandwidth? *My 2400 baud modem
> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? *Is that what it
> was for?
>
> --Bryan

Killfiling is for people suffering from delusions that do not want
others from disturbing their specious confidence in those delusions!

John Kuthe...

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> > Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> > where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>
> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
> difficult to be polite.
>
> > My 2400 baud modem
> > just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
> > was for?
>
>
> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.

Life *did* used to be different. I started out with a 300 baud modem.
My terminal had no lower case and no "delete" key. If a list took more
than one screen, watch carefully, because once it scrolled off the top,
it was *gone*.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith >
wrote:

-->Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
-->
-->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
-->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
-->
-->If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
-->difficult to be polite.
-->
-->> My 2400 baud modem
-->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
-->> was for?
-->
-->
-->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.

I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually at
bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:00:14 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

-->In article
>,
--> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
-->
-->> On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:
-->> > On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
-->> >
-->> > > *..... *If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
-->> > > care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
-->> >
-->> > This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
-->> > them. *That's delusional. * * -aem
-->>
-->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
-->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth? My 2400 baud modem
-->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
-->> was for?
-->
-->It's like the channel selector and "off" button on the satellite
-->receiver for my tv. If I tried to watch every channel, or even
-->everything on one channel, that would be my whole life.
-->
-->There are too many posts on this newsgroup for me to be able to read
-->them all. I thus killfile authors who don't post anything worthwhile,
-->and killfile threads that don't interest me. That gives me more time to
-->read the posts that I want to read.

Like culling the flock

On 2009-09-12, ffu > wrote:

> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually at
> bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.

That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.

nb

In article >,
ffu > wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:00:14 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> -->In article
> >,
> --> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> -->
> -->> On Aug 28, 1:01*pm, aem > wrote:
> -->> > On Aug 28, 8:33 am, notbob > wrote:
> -->> >
> -->> > > *..... *If you are in gg or a uk group and wanna be seen --if you
> -->> > > care-- speak up and I'll make an exception. ....
> -->> >
> -->> > This implies that someone would give a shit whether you killfile
> -->> > them. *That's delusional. * * -aem
> -->>
> -->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
> -->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth? My 2400 baud modem
> -->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
> -->> was for?
> -->
> -->It's like the channel selector and "off" button on the satellite
> -->receiver for my tv. If I tried to watch every channel, or even
> -->everything on one channel, that would be my whole life.
> -->
> -->There are too many posts on this newsgroup for me to be able to read
> -->them all. I thus killfile authors who don't post anything worthwhile,
> -->and killfile threads that don't interest me. That gives me more time to
> -->read the posts that I want to read.
>
> Like culling the flock

Not exactly. And I'd like to change what I wrote above, from "don't
post anything worthwhile" to "don't post things that I am interested in".

I'm not "culling" someone else's flock, I'm just making a personal
choice as to where to spend my time. As an example, if a menu at a
restaurant has 100 items, and I choose one, I wouldn't dream of telling
the server to take the other 99 items off the menu.

My killfile is my personal choice as to where to spend my time. It is
not intended as a guide to anyone else, or as a condemnation of
someone's posts (I'll do that separately, if I think that it is needed).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-12, ffu > wrote:
>
>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually
>> at
>> bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.
>
> That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
> set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
> upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.

This whole thread seems like a "Mine is smaller than yours" contest.

Felice

"Felice" wrote:
>"notbob" wrote:
>>ffu wrote:
>>
>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually
>>> at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.
>>
>> That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
>> set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
>> upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.
>
>This whole thread seems like a "Mine is smaller than yours" contest.
>
>Felice
>

Yes, comparing their IQs.

ffu wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith >

> -->
> -->
> -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>
> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually at
> bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.


I cam into it state of the art.... 600 baud. Then I upgraded to 1200,
2400 14400...56000 then DSL. When I first got into the BBS thing
around 1987 <?> a modem was about $250 for the state of the art and 600
had just come out. Every year or two for the next few years the newer
faster modems would come on the market at the same price and the old
ones were cheap. After they hit 56K the prices plummeted.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> ffu wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith
>> >
>
>> -->
>> -->
>> -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>
>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually
>> at
>> bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.
>
>
> I cam into it state of the art.... 600 baud. Then I upgraded to 1200, 2400
> 14400...56000 then DSL.


I put up my first webpage in the early 90's on a 1200 baud connection. Text
only, it took about a minute for the single page to load.

I had to take a class to learn to write html and that first page probably
took me at least 20 hours to compose and correct and correct and correct
until it was finally on the web.

George L

Dave Smith wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>
> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
> difficult to be polite.
>
>> My 2400 baud modem
>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
>> was for?
>
>
> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.

No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 11 Sep 2009 07:41:39p, ffu told us...
>
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> -->Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>> -->
>> -->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the
>> days -->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>> -->
>> -->If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
>> -->difficult to be polite.
>> -->
>> -->> My 2400 baud modem
>> -->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what
>> it -->> was for?
>> -->
>> -->
>> -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>
>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
>> usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting
>> edge.
>>
>
> My first computer, a Kaypro 10, had an internal 300 baud modem. Apart from
> Usenet, Fidonet, etc., I was a member on several interactive bulletin
> boards. In conversaston mode, I could usually type faster than the replies
> I was receiving. I soon upgraded to an external 2400 baud modem.
>
My Osborne One had a 300 baud external, remember the ones you put the
phone in the cradle? As an old (read very old)teletype operator I could
also type faster than the replies plus I already knew the shorthand we
used back in the day. I upgraded to an external 2400 baud modem and,
eventually went to 24K, then 35K, then to 56K. I couldn't even imagine
the high-speed DSL modem I'm running nowadays. Ain't this modern stuff
wonderful. I do love computers, it beats sending semaphore signals any day.

Felice wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-09-12, ffu > wrote:
>>
>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update usually
>>> at
>>> bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting edge.
>> That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
>> set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
>> upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.
>
> This whole thread seems like a "Mine is smaller than yours" contest.
>
> Felice
>
>
HE he thought the same thing and was wondering if in the carrier pigeon
thread it would get to -but I wrote my messages with a quill

George Shirley wrote:
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Fri 11 Sep 2009 07:41:39p, ffu told us...
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> -->Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>> -->
>>> -->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the
>>> days -->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>> -->
>>> -->If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
>>> -->difficult to be polite.
>>> -->
>>> -->> My 2400 baud modem
>>> -->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what
>>> it -->> was for?
>>> -->
>>> -->
>>> -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>>
>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
>>> usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting
>>> edge.
>>
>> My first computer, a Kaypro 10, had an internal 300 baud modem. Apart
>> from Usenet, Fidonet, etc., I was a member on several interactive
>> bulletin boards. In conversaston mode, I could usually type faster
>> than the replies I was receiving. I soon upgraded to an external 2400
>> baud modem.
>>
> My Osborne One had a 300 baud external, remember the ones you put the
> phone in the cradle? As an old (read very old)teletype operator I could
> also type faster than the replies plus I already knew the shorthand we
> used back in the day. I upgraded to an external 2400 baud modem and,
> eventually went to 24K, then 35K, then to 56K. I couldn't even imagine
> the high-speed DSL modem I'm running nowadays. Ain't this modern stuff
> wonderful. I do love computers, it beats sending semaphore signals any day.


Should try Morse then

.- .-.. .-.. / - .... .. ... / - .- .-.. -.- / .- -... --- ..- - / ---
..-.. -.. / .-.. --- .-- / ... .--. . . -.. / -- --- -.. . -- ... / .- -.
-.. / ... . -- .- .--. .... --- .-. . / / / / - .-. -.-- / -- --- .-.
.... . / /

Di-dah Di-dah-di-dit Di-dah-di-dit, Dah Di-di-di-dit Di-dit Di-di-dit,
Dah Di-dah Di-dah-di-dit Dah-di-dah, Di-dah Dah-di-di-dit Dah-dah-dah
Di-di-dah Dah, Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-di-dit Dah-di-dit, Di-dah-di-dit
Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dah,

Di-di-dit Di-dah-dah-dit Dit Dit Dah-di-dit, Dah-dah Dah-dah-dah
Dah-di-dit Dit Dah-dah Di-di-dit, Di-dah Dah-dit Dah-di-dit, Di-di-dit
Dit Dah-dah Di-dah Di-dah-dah-dit Di-di-di-dit Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dit
Dit, , , , Dah Di-dah-dit Dah-di-dah-dah, Dah-dah Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dit
Di-di-dit Dit, ,

evil grin

"Phil..c" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
...
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Fri 11 Sep 2009 07:41:39p, ffu told us...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -->Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>> -->
>>>> -->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the
>>>> days -->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>>> -->
>>>> -->If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it
>>>> is
>>>> -->difficult to be polite.
>>>> -->
>>>> -->> My 2400 baud modem
>>>> -->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what
>>>> it -->> was for?
>>>> -->
>>>> -->
>>>> -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>>>
>>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
>>>> usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting
>>>> edge.
>>>
>>> My first computer, a Kaypro 10, had an internal 300 baud modem. Apart
>>> from Usenet, Fidonet, etc., I was a member on several interactive
>>> bulletin boards. In conversaston mode, I could usually type faster than
>>> the replies I was receiving. I soon upgraded to an external 2400 baud
>>> modem.
>>>
>> My Osborne One had a 300 baud external, remember the ones you put the
>> phone in the cradle? As an old (read very old)teletype operator I could
>> also type faster than the replies plus I already knew the shorthand we
>> used back in the day. I upgraded to an external 2400 baud modem and,
>> eventually went to 24K, then 35K, then to 56K. I couldn't even imagine
>> the high-speed DSL modem I'm running nowadays. Ain't this modern stuff
>> wonderful. I do love computers, it beats sending semaphore signals any
>> day.
>
>
> Should try Morse then
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / - .... .. ... / - .- .-.. -.- / .- -... --- ..- - / ---
> .-.. -.. / .-.. --- .-- / ... .--. . . -.. / -- --- -.. . -- ... /
> .- -. -.. / ... . -- .- .--. .... --- .-. . / / / / - .-. -.-- / -- ---
> .-. ... . / /
>
> Di-dah Di-dah-di-dit Di-dah-di-dit, Dah Di-di-di-dit Di-dit Di-di-dit,
> Dah Di-dah Di-dah-di-dit Dah-di-dah, Di-dah Dah-di-di-dit Dah-dah-dah
> Di-di-dah Dah, Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-di-dit Dah-di-dit, Di-dah-di-dit
> Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dah,
>
> Di-di-dit Di-dah-dah-dit Dit Dit Dah-di-dit, Dah-dah Dah-dah-dah
> Dah-di-dit Dit Dah-dah Di-di-dit, Di-dah Dah-dit Dah-di-dit, Di-di-dit Dit
> Dah-dah Di-dah Di-dah-dah-dit Di-di-di-dit Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dit Dit, , ,
> , Dah Di-dah-dit Dah-di-dah-dah, Dah-dah Dah-dah-dah Di-dah-dit Di-di-dit
> Dit, ,


Doo-dah, doo-dah. Oh dee doo-da day.

George L

Phil..c wrote:


> Should try Morse then


-.-. .- .-. .-. .. . .-. / .--. .. --. . --- -. ... / .-. ..- .-.. . /
....-.-


;-)
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

ChattyCathy wrote:
> Phil..c wrote:
>
>
>
>> Should try Morse then
>>
>
>
> -.-. .- .-. .-. .. . .-. / .--. .. --. . --- -. ... / .-. ..- .-.. . /
> ...-.-
>
>
> ;-)
>


-.-. . .-.. .-.. / .--. .... --- -. .


Becca