NASA Shuttle pics

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
(in article ):

It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.

It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
problem. Get an adequate newsreader.


And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood.

Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
might be able to detect exactly how much I care.

It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
else.

It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
you. You no like? Me no care.


It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".

You are.


So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.

I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses me.
I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted. When
I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than you
do now.



"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):

Lee wrote:

"B. Hedd" wrote in
:


What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?



Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
to
me.

Ron Monroe wrote:
It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.

And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
else.

It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".

So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):


Lee wrote:


"B. Hedd" wrote in
:



What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?


Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
to
me.





I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
))
Win-Win situation.
All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
posting there.
A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
in the misc group.

JRW

hielan' laddie wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
(in article ):


It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.


It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
problem. Get an adequate newsreader.

For someone that tells others not to tell others what to do, you sure do
a good job yourself. Look in the window McBeth.

And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood.


Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
might be able to detect exactly how much I care.

And with that attitude you reveal yourself as a very selfish person. No
doubt you have few friends with an attitude like yours.
Maybe a whisky bottle as a friend aye matey.....

It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
else.


It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
you. You no like? Me no care.

Maybe the next highland storm will knock out your service forever. We
can only hope.

It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".


You are.

You don't whine. You just go on and on with your inconsiderate selfishness.

So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses me.
I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted. When
I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than you
do now.


"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):


Lee wrote:


"B. Hedd" wrote in
:



What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?


Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
to
me.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:16:21 -0400, JRW wrote
(in article ):

hielan' laddie wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
(in article ):


It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going
through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos,
and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for
other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.


It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
problem. Get an adequate newsreader.

For someone that tells others not to tell others what to do, you sure do
a good job yourself. Look in the window McBeth.

So don't get an adequate newsreader. You'll get sympathy, and assistance,
from me if you have a problem and a proper newsreader. You get no sympathy if
you don't have an adequate newsreader, and the assistance will be limited to
advice to get an adequate newsreader. You no like? Me no care.


And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood.


Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
might be able to detect exactly how much I care.

And with that attitude you reveal yourself as a very selfish person. No
doubt you have few friends with an attitude like yours.
Maybe a whisky bottle as a friend aye matey.....

Perhaps I hadn't made clear the exact depth of my contempt for those who
_willingly_ stick to MSOE when there are so many better alternatives, and who
further insist that the rest of the world remain at their level.

All you need do is add one line to your killfilters. If you are incapable of
doing that, then you are even more contemptible.


It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for
everyone
else.


It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
you. You no like? Me no care.

Maybe the next highland storm will knock out your service forever. We
can only hope.

Not at all likely.


It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".


You are.

You don't whine. You just go on and on with your inconsiderate selfishness.

Cry me a river.


So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses
me.
I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted.
When
I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than
you
do now.


"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):


Lee wrote:


"B. Hedd" wrote in
:



What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?


Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
to
me.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:11:23 +0200, JRW wrote:

Ron Monroe wrote:
It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.

And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
else.

It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".

So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):


Lee wrote:


"B. Hedd" wrote in
:



What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?


Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
to
me.





I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
))
Win-Win situation.
All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
posting there.
A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
in the misc group.

What's the ****ing difference? If you don't want them, don't download
them. NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO!
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A man was sipping a drink in a bar when he noticed an attractive woman seated beside him. His interest must have been obvious because the bartender suddenly loomed over him and said, "Don't get any ideas about that girl, bud. That's
my wife."
The fellow replied, "Who's getting ideas? I just came in for a piece of beer."

Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have great
access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get our usenet thru our
isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours retention or so many
posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a lot of the other great
posts off my server as I see the replies to them but the original posts got
flooded out..... It is not a matter of just not downloading..... It is
just plain inconsiderate.......

Dallas

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:11:23 +0200, JRW wrote:

Ron Monroe wrote:
It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going
through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to
look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos,
and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for
other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in
your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill.
You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything
out.

And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly?
how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so,
I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for
everyone
else.

It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for
themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".

So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article ):


Lee wrote:


"B. Hedd" wrote in
:



What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them?
Or
do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month
or
so?

Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?


Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.

I'm just curious as to what you do with them.



I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know,
the
way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle
cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use
them
to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings,
the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple
enough
to
me.





I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
))
Win-Win situation.
All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
posting there.
A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
in the misc group.

What's the ****ing difference? If you don't want them, don't download
them. NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO!
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A man was sipping a drink in a bar when he noticed an attractive woman
seated beside him. His interest must have been obvious because the
bartender suddenly loomed over him and said, "Don't get any ideas about
that girl, bud. That's
my wife."
The fellow replied, "Who's getting ideas? I just came in for a piece of
beer."

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:47 -0400, Dallas wrote
(in article r95qk.247840$TT4.77816@attbi_s22):

Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have great
access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get our usenet thru our
isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours retention or so many
posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a lot of the other great
posts off my server as I see the replies to them but the original posts got
flooded out..... It is not a matter of just not downloading..... It is
just plain inconsiderate.......

You might want to have a word with some of the laddies on your side. They
seem to think that the best way to get co-operation is to lie about and
insult those of us on the other side. In my experience this tends to harden
attitudes. Certainly it has hardened mine.

A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
_free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a newsfeed...
thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be dropping
USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
USENET... period.

hielan' laddie wrote in
:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:47 -0400, Dallas wrote
(in article r95qk.247840$TT4.77816@attbi_s22):

Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have
great access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and
cannot afford access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get
our usenet thru our isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours
retention or so many posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a
lot of the other great posts off my server as I see the replies to
them but the original posts got flooded out..... It is not a matter
of just not downloading..... It is just plain inconsiderate.......

You might want to have a word with some of the laddies on your side.
They seem to think that the best way to get co-operation is to lie
about and insult those of us on the other side. In my experience this
tends to harden attitudes. Certainly it has hardened mine.

A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under
$30, and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and
MTNW are _free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs
for a newsfeed... thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs
are going to be dropping USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best
find a cheap feed which is independent of your ISP, and be quick about
it, or you may lose access to USENET... period.



Thanks laddie. BTW, that New Yawk asshole is Andrew Cuomo with Upchuck
Shumer as facilitator.

Dallas, I am on a fixed income as well. And FRUGAL (read - "cheap").

Check TeraNews. They have a free account program. Costs three bucks to
set up, tho'. It also limits you to a certain amount per month (I forget
the amount), but again, it is free.

Xnews is the third and last news reader I've used. It does all I want and
need. As well, IT'S FREE!!

Stay the hell (PLEASE!!!) away from MicroSoft Outlook Express. You are
begging for problems. And you'll be pulled over to the dark side. For the
sake of the Empire, USE THE FORCE! Whoops, I digress.

You do this, and you'll have friends here (we aren't going anywhere, much
to the chagrin of many) who'll help you learn how to operate your stuff to
it's full potential... including RARs, PARs, splits, zips, and (shudder)
YEnc!

....or you can compute on the Tandy-64 level like some knuckleheads.
Alan? Alan? Wither thou goest, oh Alan? Busy on the dating sites?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
_free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a newsfeed...
thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be dropping
USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
USENET... period.

RoadRunner dropped EVERYTHING at the end of June. They no longer
provide ANY access to usenet. Verizon took out the entire
alt.hierarchy, and other major providers followed.

Thank you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, you meddling,
nanny-state Nazi.

laddie: what's MTNW? Always ready to check out a new reader.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:26:58 -0400, Casey Tompkins wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
_free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a
newsfeed...
thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be
dropping
USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
USENET... period.

RoadRunner dropped EVERYTHING at the end of June. They no longer
provide ANY access to usenet. Verizon took out the entire
alt.hierarchy, and other major providers followed.

Thank you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, you meddling,
nanny-state Nazi.

laddie: what's MTNW? Always ready to check out a new reader.


MTNW is MT-NewsWatcher. The 'MT' originally stood for 'Multi-Thread'. The
original Newswatcher was one of the first newsreaders for Macs, written by
John Norstad of Northwestern University. He allowed free use of the basic NW
code, so long as anything produced using it was free. Many other programmers
used the NW code to build their own newsreaders; the two best were Brian
Clarke's YA-NW (Yet Another Newswatcher) and Simon Fraser's MTNW. After a
long, involved, bout of politicing which largely revolved around Clarke's
asking for a 'donation' of $20 for YA-NW, YA-NW was withdrawn from
circulation, with Clarke departing the scene, swearing that he didn't have to
take this abuse... and, indeed, just plain swearing. About two years later
Clarke released Thoth, a shareware newsreader which he swore had no NW code
in it, but which looked awfully like YA-NW. He had another hissy-fit and
pulled that from circulation, too. The original Newswatcher, upgraded for OS
X and now called Newswatcher-X, and MTNW, both still free, are still
available. MTNW is the best free newsreader available for the Mac, and
possibly the best free newsreader available, period. It's been in continuous
development for a decade. A really good way to get yourself into serious
trouble would be to go to the comp.sys.mac.* hierarchy and say something bad
about MTNW.