"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 9/8/2013 5:42 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> What is the ticker?
>
> It's that part of the window on the right side that constantly scrolls.
> Various conversations, but none to me so I rarely pay attention. Those are
> your friends conversations with other people.

Hmmm... We must have different versions too! On the right of mine are just
ads.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:58:03 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> Oh, so... there are still trolls who impersonate Admins on FB? Doesn't
> sound like it is as secure as you think. That makes me feel soooo much
> better. LOL

Secure?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:16:44 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 9/8/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
> >> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
> >> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
> >> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
> >> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
> >> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> >
> > I had one of those control freaks once in a chat room..."Templeton" who
> > thought he was king of the world. Cracked me up with his level of
> > self-importance.
> >
> > Cheri
>
> I know, right? They think they're so important. "I'm the moderator, I
> can do what I want but you can't say what you want." Give me a break.
>

The rfc on fb moderators keep a low profile. They only want to keep
from being as nasty as rfc on usenet is.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 14:03:52 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
> > web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator jumped
> > all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given proper
> > attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like a God
> > Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in their
> > pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>
> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.

I would like it better if they closed the group and made it by
invitation/request only. As it is anyone in the group can add any
Tom, Dick or Hairy to it.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:09:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
> > On 9/8/2013 5:42 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> >> What is the ticker?
> >
> > It's that part of the window on the right side that constantly scrolls.
> > Various conversations, but none to me so I rarely pay attention. Those are
> > your friends conversations with other people.
>
> Hmmm... We must have different versions too! On the right of mine are just
> ads.

I don't even get ads, thanks to ad block plus. The sidebar that shows
who's online is the only thing on the right for me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 9/8/2013 6:30 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:16:44 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>>>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>>>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>>>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>>>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>
>>>
>>> I had one of those control freaks once in a chat room..."Templeton" who
>>> thought he was king of the world. Cracked me up with his level of
>>> self-importance.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> I know, right? They think they're so important. "I'm the moderator, I
>> can do what I want but you can't say what you want." Give me a break.
>>
>
> The rfc on fb moderators keep a low profile. They only want to keep
> from being as nasty as rfc on usenet is.
>
>
I don't find RFC on usenet to be anywhere near as nasty as it was years
ago. k/f the trolls, don't feed them. I'll admit I get drawn into the
drama at times, but I try not to. I don't need a net-nanny.

Jill

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 15:09:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>> > On 9/8/2013 5:42 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is the ticker?
>> >
>> > It's that part of the window on the right side that constantly scrolls.
>> > Various conversations, but none to me so I rarely pay attention. Those
>> > are
>> > your friends conversations with other people.
>>
>> Hmmm... We must have different versions too! On the right of mine are
>> just
>> ads.
>
> I don't even get ads, thanks to ad block plus. The sidebar that shows
> who's online is the only thing on the right for me.

I haven't tried AdBlock with this computer. It worked well on my old one
with IE but it totally screwed up Chrome. It wouldn't work at all.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:00:56 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 5:42 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> What is the ticker?
>>
>> It's that part of the window on the right side that constantly scrolls.
>> Various conversations, but none to me so I rarely pay attention. Those
>> are your friends conversations with other people.
>
> I don't even have that. I see "Pages I might like" and "Suggested
> Friends/People you may know" on the right side of the screen. And foc
> course the constant begging for me to give them my email password to
> use the Friend Finder.
>
> -sw

Weird how we all get different versions. Sometimes my friend will start
asking me something about her page and it makes no sense to me because what
she is seeing is totally different than what I have on my page. Wonder how
many versions there are?

Jill forgot what she looks like in the mirror:

> I'm rather glad the snooty ones like Terwilliger and his fan club would
> rather spend time on FB.

When a leathery harridan living in an oceanside gated golf community calls
you snooty, you *know* you're doing something right!

Get the stick out of your ass, Jill, and get a clue: The reason I spend more
time on Facebook now is that I can no longer access Usenet from work, but I
am able to get to Facebook.

I know you have a hard time remembering what it's like to work for a living,
but for most of us, there's a certain amount of time involved. I rarely even
get online in my spare time: I have a LIFE instead.

Bob

Ophelia wrote:

> I went onto FB once. Never been back, regardless of pleas from children
> and grandkids. I suppose I am still on on there somewhere but I've heard
> nothing now for many a moon Just the way I prefer it

I think that's the correct attitude to take: I see nothing wrong with
signing up for Facebook and then only signing in when you *want* to sign in.
OF COURSE Facebook doesn't have its users' best interests at heart! As
pointed out many times, the users are not Facebook's customer base, they're
Facebook's PRODUCT. Don't give them any information you wouldn't want to be
public knowledge. Create a "throwaway" e-mail account that is only used for
Facebook if you like, although I simply filter the e-mails I get from
Facebook so I can quickly scan the subject line in case something interests
me. There's no reason to be afraid or irritated; your level of participation
is completely up to you.

Bob

Clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz blathered ignorantly:

> Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the cooking
> section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't take long
> (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the gate via email
> that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I never posted anything,
> I was subscribed for less than six hours. I will never again darken the
> doors of those know nothing sicko facebook freaks. Why pray tell would
> anyone want to make all their personal bizniz available to everyone on the
> planet, only reason I can fathom is that NONE of them face book freaks
> have a life.

You can read the RFC on Facebook group without any kind of subscription. The
posts are public. You can only POST there if you're subscribed.

Your story stinks of falsehood. (Or maybe it's just the filthy hands you
used to type the post.)

Bob

sf wrote:

"The rfc on fb moderators keep a low profile. They only want to keep from
being as nasty as rfc on usenet is."

Far as I know, the moderators haven't kicked anybody out of that group.
Peter "Hughes" (a.k.a. Captain Peter Swallows) flounced out on her own and
has apparently not come back. Swallows *is* still on Facebook -- as you well
know, since she's on your list of friends. (With friends like that, who
needs enemas?)

Bob

On 9/8/2013 2:58 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/8/2013 2:55 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:43:08 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2013 12:45 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15:03 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2013 7:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Several months ago I subscribed to facebook just to check out the
>>>>>> cooking section and to see what all the hoopla was about. It didn't
>>>>>> take long (about an hour) when I was informed by the keeper of the
>>>>>> gate via email that I was not wanted there. So I unsubscribed. I
>>>>>> never posted anything, I was subscribed for less than six hours. I
>>>>>> will never again darken the doors of those know nothing sicko
>>>>>> facebook
>>>>>> freaks. Why pray tell would anyone want to make all their personal
>>>>>> bizniz available to everyone on the planet, only reason I can fathom
>>>>>> is that NONE of them face book freaks have a life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously?? I might unsub just based on that if it turns out to be
>>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> I seriously doubt one of the Admins of RFC FB sent that message.
>>>>
>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks?
>>
>> My point was that a real rfc on fb administrator would not do that, so
>> it was someone impersonating an administrator.
>>
> Oh, so... there are still trolls who impersonate Admins on FB? Doesn't
> sound like it is as secure as you think. That makes me feel soooo much
> better. LOL
>
>>> I once belonged to a > web-based cooking forum (not at all related to
>>> RFC). The moderator
>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had given
>>> proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge. It's like
>>> a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power. It's all in
>>> their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>>
>> Haven't we seen that tried here quite often and to the point that
>> people have been run off?
>
> I can think of a few people. I won't name the ones I'm reminded of.
> They simply sounded like fools to many of us. It was their choice to
> leave. We didn't want to listen to the constant drama all the time.
> (hence my k/fling Julie)
>
> That kind of nastiness was why rfc on fb
>> was created, but it looks like someone is pulling off a variation of
>> it there too.
>>
> I've killfiled most of the obvious trolls, idiots and nymshifters.
> They're the people who are trying to kill the ng all the while saying
> someone else is doing it.

So you've killfiled Spin and Marty?

Why no, you clearly have not.

> sf, you seem to like to respond to "casa whoever". Get over it, it's
> trolling ane encourages replies from the other folks you think of as
> trolls.

Iow, you're fine with tossing me out based upon the fact that Spin and
Marty frog me, how perfectly hypocritical of you.

> The people who were allegedly "run off" rfc, why they left or where they
> went? RFC has always been a contentious and opinionated newsgroup.
> That's why it has always been known as the Chaotic Kitchen.
>
> People leave RFC for a lot of reasons, as with any ng. Sometimes people
> die. Or they simply lose interest. If they chose to go to FB, okay.
> Some people no longer care to sit in front of a computer.
>
> Margaret Suran's Birthday is tomorrow. She'll be 87 years old. I sent
> her a card. She hasn't posted here in a long while. But she's a good,
> longtime RFC friend. She's sent me a number of cookbooks over the
> years. Happy birthday, Margaret!
>
> Jill

Your manifest hypocrisy defines you, truly.

On 9/8/2013 3:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>
> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.

Just remember, this is the same person who has bragged about the size of
her own killfile, so "control" is very much a part of her life.

On 9/9/2013 9:45 AM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Jill forgot what she looks like in the mirror:
>
>> I'm rather glad the snooty ones like Terwilliger and his fan club
>> would rather spend time on FB.
>
> When a leathery harridan living in an oceanside gated golf community
> calls you snooty, you *know* you're doing something right!
>
> Get the stick out of your ass, Jill, and get a clue: The reason I spend
> more time on Facebook now is that I can no longer access Usenet from
> work, but I am able to get to Facebook.
>
> I know you have a hard time remembering what it's like to work for a
> living, but for most of us, there's a certain amount of time involved. I
> rarely even get online in my spare time: I have a LIFE instead.
>
> Bob

She is richly endowed with attitude for sure...

On 9/9/2013 2:00 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 17:19:40 -0400, Cheryl wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/2013 12:33 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> You can sign up for fake account and at least read the various cooking
>>> groups to which some of us subscribe. A lot of us old-timers are also
>>> friends for our personal accounts (and that's where it can get nasty!)
>>
>> Yeah, and some have even seen my toes.
>
> You really need to get some sun on those feet, Whitey.
>
> -sw
>
I no longer care about being tan. I use sunscreen. My mom has had
to have so many skin cancer things removed from her body from too much
sun when she was younger. And I inherited her very fair skin, so no
thanks.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> Jill forgot what she looks like in the mirror:
>
> > I'm rather glad the snooty ones like Terwilliger and his fan club would
> > rather spend time on FB.
>
> When a leathery harridan living in an oceanside gated golf community calls
> you snooty, you *know* you're doing something right!
>
> Get the stick out of your ass, Jill, and get a clue: The reason I spend more
> time on Facebook now is that I can no longer access Usenet from work, but I
> am able to get to Facebook.
>
> I know you have a hard time remembering what it's like to work for a living,
> but for most of us, there's a certain amount of time involved. I rarely even
> get online in my spare time: I have a LIFE instead.
>
> Bob

Holy cow! So much for nice Bob. ;-o

G.

On 9/9/2013 4:55 PM, Gary wrote:
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>> Jill forgot what she looks like in the mirror:
>>
>>> I'm rather glad the snooty ones like Terwilliger and his fan club would
>>> rather spend time on FB.
>>
>> When a leathery harridan living in an oceanside gated golf community calls
>> you snooty, you *know* you're doing something right!
>>
>> Get the stick out of your ass, Jill, and get a clue: The reason I spend more
>> time on Facebook now is that I can no longer access Usenet from work, but I
>> am able to get to Facebook.
>>
>> I know you have a hard time remembering what it's like to work for a living,
>> but for most of us, there's a certain amount of time involved. I rarely even
>> get online in my spare time: I have a LIFE instead.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Holy cow! So much for nice Bob. ;-o
>
> G.
>
You thought Bob was nice? Ha! Apparently his employer doesn't know
since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
their time & money by being on FB. Figures.

Jill

"casa contenta" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/8/2013 3:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>
>> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.
>
> Just remember, this is the same person who has bragged about the size of
> her own killfile, so "control" is very much a part of her life.

I didn't brag about it. It's very small now.

On 9/9/2013 3:43 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "casa contenta" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/8/2013 3:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>>>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>>>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>>>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>>>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>>
>>> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.
>>
>> Just remember, this is the same person who has bragged about the size
>> of her own killfile, so "control" is very much a part of her life.
>
> I didn't brag about it. It's very small now.

I was referring to Jill, not you; sorry if I didn't make that clear.

On 2013-09-09 5:33 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>> Holy cow! So much for nice Bob. ;-o
>>
>> G.
>>
> You thought Bob was nice? Ha! Apparently his employer doesn't know
> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
> their time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>
>
He could only access it from work?? Wow. That is sad.
One of the problems with having to get new systems is that my old
filters died in the computers. If memory serves me right, he was one of
the first to be KFed in this group. I don't bother with the odd teen who
drops by and posts something idiotic, but being a food group, cereal
assholes get plonked at my end.

"casa contenta" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/9/2013 3:43 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "casa contenta" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 9/8/2013 3:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>>>>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>>>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>>>>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>>>>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>>>>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.
>>>
>>> Just remember, this is the same person who has bragged about the size
>>> of her own killfile, so "control" is very much a part of her life.
>>
>> I didn't brag about it. It's very small now.
>
> I was referring to Jill, not you; sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Oh... Sowwy. My bad.

On 9/9/2013 4:22 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "casa contenta" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 9/9/2013 3:43 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "casa contenta" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 9/8/2013 3:03 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares what some Admin/moderator thinks? I once belonged to a
>>>>>> web-based cooking forum (not at all related to RFC). The moderator
>>>>>> jumped all over me because she said a recipe wasn't *mine*. I had
>>>>>> given proper attribution for the recipe but NO, she was in charge.
>>>>>> It's like a God Complex - they think they've got some sort of power.
>>>>>> It's all in their pathetic, need to control everything minds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. One reason why I dislike most moderated groups.
>>>>
>>>> Just remember, this is the same person who has bragged about the size
>>>> of her own killfile, so "control" is very much a part of her life.
>>>
>>> I didn't brag about it. It's very small now.
>>
>> I was referring to Jill, not you; sorry if I didn't make that clear.
>
> Oh... Sowwy. My bad.

Not a problem. If you use a killfile I've not heard you brag about it.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:01:55 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> I simply filter the e-mails I get from
> Facebook so I can quickly scan the subject line in case something interests
> me.

Why haven't you turned off FB notifications? That was one of the
first things I did.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:14:17 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> Far as I know, the moderators haven't kicked anybody out of that group.
> Peter "Hughes" (a.k.a. Captain Peter Swallows) flounced out on her own and
> has apparently not come back. Swallows *is* still on Facebook -- as you well
> know, since she's on your list of friends. (With friends like that, who
> needs enemas?)

Yeah. Based on the way he responds, I'm rethinking that.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:15:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I haven't tried AdBlock with this computer. It worked well on my old one
> with IE but it totally screwed up Chrome. It wouldn't work at all.

I've had it on Chrome ever since I heard about it with no problem
what-so-ever.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2013-09-09 15:45:28 +0000, Bob Terwilliger said:

> I rarely even get online in my spare time: I have a LIFE instead.

Is that as good as everybody says?

Jill blathered as ignorantly as she could:

> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
> their time & money by being on FB. Figures.

My employer doesn't care whether I use Usenet or not, as long as the
equipment works and the missions are supported. The thing that changed was
that my office moved into a top-secret environment, so now all my Internet
access at work is through an Air Force computer. (Before the move we had
commercial Internet access, and we could bring our own computers in to
work.) The military computers don't have any newsreader software. I *could*
participate using Google Groups, but the bandwidth is so crappy that it
would be an exercise in frustration -- much like listening to you trying to
count past ten.

Bob

sf wrote:

> Why haven't you turned off FB notifications? That was one of the first
> things I did.

It's a LOT faster for me to read Subject lines of an e-mail listing than it
is to load the Facebook page. As in 10 seconds compared to 10 minutes.

Bob

Dave Smith tried to trump Jill's ignorance:

>> You thought Bob was nice? Ha! Apparently his employer doesn't know since
>> he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste their
>> time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>
> He could only access it from work?? Wow. That is sad.

In what is written above, where does it say I could ONLY access Usenet from
work?

Doesn't say that? Oh, then you must be a ****ing idiot.

Bob

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:15:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried AdBlock with this computer. It worked well on my old one
>> with IE but it totally screwed up Chrome. It wouldn't work at all.
>
> I've had it on Chrome ever since I heard about it with no problem
> what-so-ever.

Wouldn't work for me.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:01:55 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>> I simply filter the e-mails I get from
>> Facebook so I can quickly scan the subject line in case something
>> interests
>> me.
>
> Why haven't you turned off FB notifications? That was one of the
> first things I did.

Me too!

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> Jill blathered as ignorantly as she could:
>
>> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
>> > their time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>
> My employer doesn't care whether I use Usenet or not, as long as the
> equipment works and the missions are supported. The thing that changed
> was that my office moved into a top-secret environment, so now all my
> Internet access at work is through an Air Force computer. (Before the
> move we had commercial Internet access, and we could bring our own
> computers in to work.) The military computers don't have any newsreader
> software. I *could* participate using Google Groups, but the bandwidth is
> so crappy that it would be an exercise in frustration -- much like
> listening to you trying to count past ten.
>
> Bob

Just thinking of way back where I could use any Internet computer, and call
up terminal, and use Unix Pine and Lynx OMG ! Unfortunately, I tried going
into Kinkos to use computer, and could not call up terminal. Awful.

Greg

On 9/10/2013 9:06 PM, gregz wrote:
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>> Jill blathered as ignorantly as she could:
>>
>>> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
>>>> their time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>>
>> My employer doesn't care whether I use Usenet or not, as long as the
>> equipment works and the missions are supported. The thing that changed
>> was that my office moved into a top-secret environment, so now all my
>> Internet access at work is through an Air Force computer. (Before the
>> move we had commercial Internet access, and we could bring our own
>> computers in to work.) The military computers don't have any newsreader
>> software. I *could* participate using Google Groups, but the bandwidth is
>> so crappy that it would be an exercise in frustration -- much like
>> listening to you trying to count past ten.
>>
>> Bob

Terwilliger would expect us to believe a top-secret Air Force/military
environment would allow him to access Facebook while at work? ROFLMAO!
Anyone else buying into this?

Jill

On 9/10/2013 9:14 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>
> Terwilliger would expect us to believe a top-secret Air Force/military
> environment would allow him to access Facebook while at work? ROFLMAO!
> Anyone else buying into this?
>

Of course we believe it. My son is on a training course in a secure
facility. He can use his personal laptop in his room and can only use
his cell phone in his room, outside or in designated areas. And he is
not even top secret.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:14:23 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/10/2013 9:06 PM, gregz wrote:
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>>> Jill blathered as ignorantly as she could:
>>>
>>>> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to waste
>>>>> their time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>>>
>>> My employer doesn't care whether I use Usenet or not, as long as the
>>> equipment works and the missions are supported. The thing that changed
>>> was that my office moved into a top-secret environment, so now all my
>>> Internet access at work is through an Air Force computer. (Before the
>>> move we had commercial Internet access, and we could bring our own
>>> computers in to work.) The military computers don't have any newsreader
>>> software. I *could* participate using Google Groups, but the bandwidth is
>>> so crappy that it would be an exercise in frustration -- much like
>>> listening to you trying to count past ten.
>>>
>>> Bob
>
>Terwilliger would expect us to believe a top-secret Air Force/military
>environment would allow him to access Facebook while at work? ROFLMAO!
> Anyone else buying into this?
>
>Jill
why not? A high school dropout was given top secret clearance and he
ended up hacking a bunch of top dogs accounts and stealing secrets to
share with the world. I hear he is living in Russia now.
Janet US

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/10/2013 9:06 PM, gregz wrote:
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>>> Jill blathered as ignorantly as she could:
>>>
>>>> since he can't access Usenet from work anymore he's found a way to
>>>> waste
>>>>> their time & money by being on FB. Figures.
>>>
>>> My employer doesn't care whether I use Usenet or not, as long as the
>>> equipment works and the missions are supported. The thing that changed
>>> was that my office moved into a top-secret environment, so now all my
>>> Internet access at work is through an Air Force computer. (Before the
>>> move we had commercial Internet access, and we could bring our own
>>> computers in to work.) The military computers don't have any newsreader
>>> software. I *could* participate using Google Groups, but the bandwidth
>>> is
>>> so crappy that it would be an exercise in frustration -- much like
>>> listening to you trying to count past ten.
>>>
>>> Bob
>
> Terwilliger would expect us to believe a top-secret Air Force/military
> environment would allow him to access Facebook while at work? ROFLMAO!
> Anyone else buying into this?

Well, seeing as how my husband is ex military, no! Now maybe if they have
Wifi and he brings in his own computer from home and uses it on his lunch
hour... But on their computer? Not a chance!

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...

> why not? A high school dropout was given top secret clearance and he
> ended up hacking a bunch of top dogs accounts and stealing secrets to
> share with the world. I hear he is living in Russia now.
> Janet US

The fact that someone manages to do something doesn't mean that it is
allowed. I had a government job on a military base. We were only allowed
to use the computers for work. And that is all that I did. Won't say that
I didn't take liberties with the TV. Got caught watching Oprah when it
should have been on the golf channel. Also got caught reading books that
were not golf related. We did have to go online to access stuff on the JIN
computer. But one of the other computers could also go online. Some of my
coworkers knew this and did do it on occasion. No FB in those days.
Whether they got caught and whether if they did they got repercussions from
it, I do not know.

But the computers we were allowed to use had been dumbed down to the point
that we could only do that which was needed for the job.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:59:58 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 19:15:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't tried AdBlock with this computer. It worked well on my old
>>>> one
>>>> with IE but it totally screwed up Chrome. It wouldn't work at all.
>>>
>>> I've had it on Chrome ever since I heard about it with no problem
>>> what-so-ever.
>>
>> Wouldn't work for me.
>
> That's because you have so much spyware and adware installed on your
> computer.
>
> Can we say Swagbucks? And lord knows what else.

Nope. This computer is totally clean. Only things I have put on it are
Swagbucks and the stuff for the various stores that I shop at. Like Target.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 03:10:42 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>I rebuild and clean computers like yours in my spare time for friends.
>Every tool bar you have is adware/spyware and interferes with the
>normal operation of your browser (and computer). But you LOVE
>shopping on line so you are oblivious that you are their perfect
>target. You're not alone, though. So carrion (obfood).

Ain't that the truth, I do the same for my friends.