Re: smilies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Pop-4
squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:

> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
> generate the following:? :
>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>  
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>      
>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>  
>>>>>        
>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>      
>>>
>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>
>>  
>
> well - like the young'uns say about us:
> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>
> reg
>
> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
> young ones!
Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
high price to pay for maturity. :)

--
(^\pop/^)
I'm lost... I've gone to look for myself.
If I should return before I get back, keep me here.
--
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

squaredancer
On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
generate the following:? :

> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>  
>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>> generate the following:? :
>>    
>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>            
>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>
>>>>> reg
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>
>> reg
>>
>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>> young ones!
>>    
> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>
>  
naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Pop-4
squaredancer said the following on 8/17/2009 6:02 AM:

> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
> generate the following:? :
>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>  
>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>    
>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about                                              
>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems.
>>>>>>>>>> I remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>                                        
>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a
>>>>>>>>> gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big
>>>>>>>> jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one
>>>>>> in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>                
>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>
>>> reg
>>>
>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>> young ones!
>>>    
>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is
>> a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>
>>  
> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>
> reg
I don't feel sorry having to blow out the candles... I feel sorry for
whoever stayed up all night to light them.

--
(^\pop/^)
I'm lost... I've gone to look for myself.
If I should return before I get back, keep me here.
--
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by squaredancer
squaredancer wrote:

> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
> generate the following:? :
>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>  
>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>    
>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>
>>> reg
>>>
>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>> young ones!
>>>    
>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
>> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>
>>  
> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>
> reg
Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

squaredancer
On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> squaredancer wrote:
>  
>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>> generate the following:? :
>>    
>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>
>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>>> young ones!
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
>>> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>
>> reg
>>    
> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>  

*lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
squaredancer wrote:

> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
> generate the following:? :
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>  
>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>    
>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>
>>>>> reg
>>>>>
>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>>>> young ones!
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
>>>> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>
>>> reg
>>>    
>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>  
>
> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.

Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

PhillipJones
Ron Hunter wrote:

> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>> to generate the following:? :
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>    
>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>        
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big
>>>>>>>>>>> jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen....
>>>>>>>>> one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old
>>>>> is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>    
>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>>  
>>
>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
>> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>
> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>
Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
$1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.

What are they now about 25 bucks??

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.    "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net           http://www.vpea.org
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>    
>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen....
>>>>>>>>>> one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old
>>>>>> is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>
>>>>> reg
>>>>>    
>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>>>  
>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
>>> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>
> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>
> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>
I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
seemed to just what he purported to be.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 18.08.2009 18:39, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> squaredancer wrote:
>  
>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
>> generate the following:? :
>>    
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>>>>> young ones!
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
>>>>> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>          
>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>>  
>>>      
>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
>> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>    
>
> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>
>  
Tuesday evening is "Cinema Day" here where I live - costs €4 a ticket
(about US$ 5.65)
This Hicktown is so small, I can even /walk/ to the cinema house!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Pop-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter said the following on 8/18/2009 8:12 PM:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get
>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>    
>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>  
>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>> work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>>
>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>
>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>
> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
> and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
> Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
> saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
> the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
> seemed to just what he purported to be.
That I remember too... I lived in a small town and my 25 cents got: 9
cents for the movie, 5 cents for popcorn, 5 cents for a drink, 5 cents
for a candy bar with a penny left over for the gum machine. They didn't
clear out the theater after the movie so I stayed for the second showing
which started immediately after the first.

--
(^\pop/^)
I'm lost... I've gone to look for myself.
If I should return before I get back, keep me here.
--
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get
>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>    
>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>  
>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>> work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>>
>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>
>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>
> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
> and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
> Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
> saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
> the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
> seemed to just what he purported to be.

My mother took me to see my first ever movie it was snow White and was a
Matinee and your price is about right. we couldn't afford the pop corn
it was all we could do to scrounge up the tick prices.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.    "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net           http://www.vpea.org
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by squaredancer
squaredancer wrote:

> On 18.08.2009 18:39, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
> generate the following:? :
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>  
>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>    
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud modems. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a gear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big jump
>>>>>>>>>>>> upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the messages
>>>>>>>>>>> (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen.... one in
>>>>>>>>>> fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the young! ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that the
>>>>>>> young ones!
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old is a
>>>>>> high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>          
>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>
>>>>> reg
>>>>>    
>>>>>        
>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
>>> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>>    
>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>
>>  
> Tuesday evening is "Cinema Day" here where I live - costs €4 a ticket
> (about US$ 5.65)
> This Hicktown is so small, I can even /walk/ to the cinema house!
>
> reg
Well, the theater is one of the fanciest ones around.  They have to pay
for those fancy digital projectors, the high-back reclining seats, and
the stadium seating with 48 inch setbacks.  It has 18 theaters, 3D
projection capability, and is on three levels, and is attached to a
major shopping mall (high rent).  I have to admit it is nice to have
full surround sound, and a perfect 'print' of a movie that has been
running at that theater for over a month.  It's worth the $7.50.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get
>>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>>  
>>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>>> work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>>>
>>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>>
>>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>>
>> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
>> and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
>> Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
>> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
>> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
>> saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
>> the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
>> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
>> seemed to just what he purported to be.
>
> My mother took me to see my first ever movie it was snow White and was a
> Matinee and your price is about right. we couldn't afford the pop corn
> it was all we could do to scrounge up the tick prices.
>
When I was a senior in high school, I was in the Honor Society, and the
school paid for us to travel to Houston and see the release of The
Alamo, starring John Wayne.  We were handed tickets, and I almost
fainted when I found out they cost $6.50 each!  That was in 1960, so I
guess $7.50 isn't too bad.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

caver1-6
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>> to generate the following:? :
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>    
>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>        
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a big
>>>>>>>>>>> jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users can
>>>>>>>>> type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the screen....
>>>>>>>>> one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get them"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being old
>>>>> is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>    
>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the alternative.
>>>  
>>
>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of work
>> ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>
> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>


Heck I can remember paying 25cents to get in. Sometimes free if you
snuck in. ;{)


--
caver1
To always be in the dark.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

BJ-20
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get
>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>    
>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>  
>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>> work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>>
>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>
>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>
> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
> and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
> Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
> saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
> the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
> seemed to just what he purported to be.

Same here . . . for .25 cents.  Remember a lot of those cowboy and
Indian movies, plus the news ("MovieTone"?), plus "Flash Gordon" with
Buster Crabbe.

Lived in Apple Valley, CA, for almost 20 years, and got to know Roy
Rodgers, who had a home there.  He used to hang out at the Victorville
bowling alley, and was always . . . TOASTED.  (Beer I think).  I
remember he was always a "cheerful" drunk, not nasty.  But the guy
always had a red face, either from years of heavy drinking or years of
being in the sun, or both.

His museum used to be in Victorville (I think they've moved it now), and
Trigger (stuffed, of course) was on display in there.  Dale was a bible
thumper sort, and the two were an interesting pair.  She must've
tolerated his drinking shenanigans because the guy was really a charmer.
Nice fellow.

BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ron Hunter
BJ wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter
>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop to
>>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is.  They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud.    It involved changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired.  Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/  when you get
>>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>>> alternative.
>>>>>>  
>>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>>> work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>>>>
>>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>>
>>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>>
>> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the movie,
>> and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
>> Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys always won.  Roy
>> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.  Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
>> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I
>> saw him riding in a parade in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for
>> the third time, they tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He
>> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always
>> seemed to just what he purported to be.
>
> Same here . . . for .25 cents.  Remember a lot of those cowboy and
> Indian movies, plus the news ("MovieTone"?), plus "Flash Gordon" with
> Buster Crabbe.
>
> Lived in Apple Valley, CA, for almost 20 years, and got to know Roy
> Rodgers, who had a home there.  He used to hang out at the Victorville
> bowling alley, and was always . . . TOASTED.  (Beer I think).  I
> remember he was always a "cheerful" drunk, not nasty.  But the guy
> always had a red face, either from years of heavy drinking or years of
> being in the sun, or both.
>
> His museum used to be in Victorville (I think they've moved it now), and
> Trigger (stuffed, of course) was on display in there.  Dale was a bible
> thumper sort, and the two were an interesting pair.  She must've
> tolerated his drinking shenanigans because the guy was really a charmer.
> Nice fellow.
>
> BJ
I know that the old guys that worked with him (Sons of the Pioneers)
REALLY loved him like a brother.  They all got teary-eyed when they
talked about Lennie.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Irwin Greenwald-4
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 8/18/2009 6:12 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter
>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop to
>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop to
>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop
>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to be more clear: it's fine to me to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those two, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to send HTML mails. But can I somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell TB to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I throughly AGREE Sir. And the other day someone was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >slow the I'Net is. They should remember what it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like just a few >years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaah, the good old days of IRC, Usenet, text email and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompuServe forums. I only go as far back as 9600 baud
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modems. I remember getting my first 28800 one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking it was lightning fast :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a 55 Baud Teletype and was happy to add the speedup
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion to take it to 75 Baud. It involved changing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gear and something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 55s were coal-fired. Switching to electricity gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> big jump upward in speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We couldn't afford coal - ours were wind-up ;-) I'm 72 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes this new i-net is too fast for me to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages (they load so fast)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there is so much truth in that statement.... how many users
>>>>>>>>>>> can type/read as fast as the darned stuff gets on the
>>>>>>>>>>> screen.... one in fifty of us ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>>> My son is the one in fifty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Young whippersnapper :-) I'm jealous - youth is wasted on the
>>>>>>>>> young! ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well - like the young'uns say about us:
>>>>>>>> "Parents have one problem... they are so /OLD/ when you get
>>>>>>>> them"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older that
>>>>>>>> the young ones!
>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot. Being
>>>>>>> old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned birthdays!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reg
>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>> alternative.
>>>> *lol* ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years of
>>>> work ahead of you?? yeah, old age has its advantages.
>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie... sigh.
>>>
>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and that
>> would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were less than a
>> $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and That's when movie
>> prices started climbing. Even it was about 5 bucks. now by the time I
>> hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>
>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>>
> I can recall going to the movies with .25. Twenty cents for the movie,
> and 5 cents for a coke. Good, wholesome movies with lots of cowboys and
> Indians, and bad guys in black hats. The good guys always won. Roy
> Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable. Hopalong Cassidy and Whip
> Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also favorites. Gene Autry was too, until I
> saw him riding in a parade in Houston. When he fell off the horse for
> the third time, they tied him on. Kinda dampened my regard for him. He
> had a real alcohol abuse problem for a long time. Roy Rogers always
> seemed to just what he purported to be.

A nickel for the old movie house; dime for the new one.  Hot dog
w/mustard & sauerkraut five cents; cream soda a dime at the deli next
door.  Only problem was getting an adult to take you in to the theater.

Irwin

--
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by BJ-20
BJ wrote:

> His museum used to be in Victorville (I think they've moved it now), and
> Trigger (stuffed, of course) was on display in there.  Dale was a bible
> thumper sort, and the two were an interesting pair.  She must've
> tolerated his drinking shenanigans because the guy was really a charmer.
> Nice fellow.

A friend lived at Jess Ranch and played bridge (or maybe Bingo, it was a while
back) with Dale every once in a while.  She said she was very nice.

--
Cheers, Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's
safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.        --Unknown
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Ken Whiton
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
*-* On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, at 09:46:32 -0400,
*-* In Article <[hidden email]>,
*-* Phillip Jones wrote
*-* About Re: smilies

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron
>>>>> Hunter to generate the following:? :
>
>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  pop
>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>
>>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:

          [ ... ]

>>>>>>>>> fu to moz.gen for a discussion on the merits of being older
>>>>>>>>> that the young ones!
>
>>>>>>>> Old age needs so little, but it needs that little a lot.
>>>>>>>> Being old is a high price to pay for maturity. :)
>
>>>>>>> naaaa - old age is the price of having had so many darned
>>>>>>> birthdays!
>
>>>>>> Old age seems to be a lot of grief, until you consider the
>>>>>> alternative.
>
>>>>> *lol*  ya mean like, being 25 again.... and having 40-50 years
>>>>> of work ahead of you??  yeah, old age has its advantages.
>
>>>> Yeah, like having to pay ONLY $7.50 to get into a movie...  sigh.
>
>>> Don't recall movies being $7.50 50 years a ago. I am 60 now and
>>> that would have meant I was 10 at the time. back the moves were
>>> less than a $1.00. Now 40 years ago I would have been 20 and
>>> That's when movie prices started climbing. Even it was about 5
>>> bucks. now by the time I hit 25 they had gone to $7.50.
>>>
>>> What are they now about 25 bucks??
>
>> I can recall going to the movies with .25.  Twenty cents for the
>> movie, and 5 cents for a coke.  Good, wholesome movies with lots of
>> cowboys and Indians, and bad guys in black hats.  The good guys
>> always won.  Roy Rogers and Dale Evans were always reliable.
>> Hopalong Cassidy and Whip Wilson, and Lash LaRue were also
>> favorites.  Gene Autry was too, until I saw him riding in a parade
>> in Houston.  When he fell off the horse for the third time, they
>> tied him on.  Kinda dampened my regard for him.  He had a real
>> alcohol abuse problem for a long time.  Roy Rogers always seemed to
>> just what he purported to be.
>
> My mother took me to see my first ever movie it was snow White and
> was a Matinee and your price is about right. we couldn't afford the
> pop corn it was all we could do to scrounge up the tick prices.

     Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was originally
released in 1937/1938, so what you saw must have been a re-release.
According to the Disney Archives, "The film was reissued eight times,
in 1944, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1975, 1983, 1987, and 1993, and released on
video in 1994"
(<http://disney.go.com/vault/archives/movies/snow/snow.html>), so I'm
guessing that what you saw was the 1958 release, when you'd have been
nine years old.

                                        Ken Whiton
--
    FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: [hidden email] (remove the obvious to reply)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: smilies

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Irwin Greenwald-4
Irwin Greenwald wrote:

> On 8/18/2009 6:12 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>> On 17.08.2009 14:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter
>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 12:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop to
>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>> squaredancer said the following on 8/16/2009 4:52 AM:
>>>>>>>>> On 16.08.2009 02:17, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop to
>>>>>>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>> caver1 said the following on 8/15/2009 3:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2009 09:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused pop
>>>>>>>>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev said the following on 8/14/2009 8:15 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:19PM +0200, d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d d wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MaX wrote:

<snip>

> A nickel for the old movie house; dime for the new one.  Hot dog
> w/mustard & sauerkraut five cents; cream soda a dime at the deli next
> door.  Only problem was getting an adult to take you in to the theater.
>
> Irwin
>

Irwin, your cream soda....was brownish??  Here in Aus, we have two
types, Creamy Soda is brownish and yum, Creaming Soda is red and yuk!!

Daniel
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12