17 Sep
2004
17 Sep
'04
4:09 a.m.
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane Charlie. Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody trying
to tell us something?
Joe
17 Sep
17 Sep
4:36 a.m.
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane
Charlie. Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody trying
to tell us something?
Joe
Umm, "Move West"?
g.
4:37 a.m.
>> Hurricane Jeanne
>> is expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday.
>> Is somebody trying to tell us something?
Perhaps that everyone should be getting ready for Karl?????
>> One of the reports I was reading claimed that
this is
>> supposed to be the norm for the Florida area, and that
>> you have just been lucky for the last few decades and
>> haven't really had as many storms as you should have.
1953 to 2003 has been the lowest hurricane in recorded history. Granted the
records get scetchy prior to the mid 1800's but the numbers have seen
indicate that this year is NOT above a long term historical norm. The
question is not so much is this year anomolus in terms of history, but
rather the start of a long term trend [think of the impact on the economy
down there if it is.....]
David
5:15 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 12:09 -0400, Joe R. wrote:
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane
Charlie. Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody trying
to tell us something?
It has to be a terrorist plot. Time for the War on Hurricanes?
18 Sep
18 Sep
9:57 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk>
It has to be a terrorist plot. Time for the War on
Hurricanes?
It IS a terrorist plot. Unfortunately, they are targeting the wrong Bush
(for the unaware, Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother, is Governor of Florida).
Glen
0/0
17 Sep
17 Sep
7:05 a.m.
Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or is it, dont vote
Joe R. wrote:
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane Charlie.
Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody trying
to tell us something?
Joe
7:24 a.m.
Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was that or vote for the
Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's electrion is
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even remember when there was actually
a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
Joe
At 02:05 PM 9/17/04 -0500, you wrote:
Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or
is it, dont vote
Joe R. wrote:
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane
Charlie. Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody trying
to tell us something?
Joe
7:43 a.m.
Joe R. wrote:
Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was that
or vote for the
Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's electrion is
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even remember when there was actually
a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
That would have been Ross Pierot.
Doc
20 Sep
20 Sep
10:08 a.m.
According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from Mr.
Bush's backers.
So who were you really voting for ?
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was that
or vote for the
Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's electrion
is
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even
remember when there was
actually
a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
Joe
At 02:05 PM 9/17/04 -0500, you wrote:
>Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or is it, dont vote
>
11:26 a.m.
Does this have something to do with classic computers? If not, you're on the
wrong list.
Lyle
On Monday 20 September 2004 15:08, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot
of funding from Mr.
Bush's backers.
So who were you really voting for ?
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was
that or vote for the
Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's electrion
is
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even
remember when there was
actually
> a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
>
> Joe
>
> At 02:05 PM 9/17/04 -0500, you wrote:
> >Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or is it, dont vote 
21 Sep
21 Sep
5:28 a.m.
OK, Kerry's web server runs on Apache/Linux and George's runs on IIS. Nader,
though saying he doesn't like computers, runs Apache/Linux, and Badnarik
runs Linux and FreeBSD.
To make it more classic-computer related, Nader's site still runs Apache
1.3, and up until 17-Nov-2000, ran BSD/OS (Gasp!)
My vote's still for HAL:
http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/04-09-04-cam…
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle Bickley" <lbickley(a)bickleywest.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas(a)onetel.com>om>; "General
Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
Does this have something to do with classic computers?
If not, you're on
the
wrong list.
Lyle
On Monday 20 September 2004 15:08, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
Mr.
> Bush's backers.
> So who were you really voting for ?
>
> Geoff.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>
> > Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was that or vote for the
> > Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's
electrion
is
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even
remember when there was
actually
> a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
>
> Joe
>
> At 02:05 PM 9/17/04 -0500, you wrote:
> >Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or is it, dont vote 
6:21 a.m.
At 01:28 PM 9/21/2004, you wrote:
My vote's still for HAL:
http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/04-09-04-cam…
Hal's, "There is a message for you ..." is my email queue cue.
<chagrined
grin>
Ed K.
20 Sep
20 Sep
12:29 p.m.
At 11:08 PM 9/20/04 +0100, you wrote:
According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot
of funding from Mr.
Bush's backers.
And???
So who were you really voting for ?
Nader. What's more I was voting against Bush AND Gore.
Joe
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. It was
that or vote for the
Republican carpet bagger or the Democratic moron. This year's electrion
is
shaping up to be just as bad. I can't even
remember when there was
actually
a candidate that I really wanted to vote for.
Joe
At 02:05 PM 9/17/04 -0500, you wrote:
>Maybe God didn't like the way Floridians vote....or is it, dont vote
>
1:20 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot
of funding from Mr.
Bush's backers.
So who were you really voting for ?
Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical than you
think.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
22 Sep
22 Sep
4:56 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
Festival
Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things Bush's
way.
Geoff.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
Mr.
Bush's
backers.
So who were you really voting for ?
Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical than you
think.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
23 Sep
23 Sep
12:56 a.m.
At 05:56 AM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
Festival
Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things Bush's
way.
Exit polls have CONSISTANTLY shown that Nader takes more votes away from
the Republican than from the Democrats. I've heard CLAIMS that the
republicans secretly finance Nader but I neve seen any proof and I don't
beleive the claims.
Joe
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
Mr.
Bush's backers.
So who were you really voting for ?
Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical than you
think.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
10:37 a.m.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1307810,00.html
That's one of the articles , make your own mind up.
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas(a)onetel.com>om>; "General
Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
from
At 05:56 AM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
>To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
><cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
>Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>>
>> > According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
>Mr.
>> > Bush's backers.
>> > So who were you really voting for ?
>>
>> Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical
than
you
>> think.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
>Festival
>
>Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
>lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things
Bush's
way.
Exit polls have CONSISTANTLY shown that Nader takes more votes away the Republican than from the Democrats. I've
heard CLAIMS that the
republicans secretly finance Nader but I neve seen any proof and I don't
beleive the claims.
Joe
24 Sep
24 Sep
2:11 a.m.
I read it. I'd heard that the Guardian was biased and now I have proof.
For example the article claims that a recount in Florida in 2000 gave the
election to Gore. That is simply untrue, there were literally dozens of
recounts done at different tiems and by different groups and agencies. They
were also done under all different conditions (count hanging chats, don't
count hanging chats, count military votes, don't count military votes,
count absentee ballots, don't count absentee votes, etc etc etc. Only ONE
recount at exactly one point in time and under optimal Democratic
conditions (such as not counting the absentee ballots) gave the majority to
Gore. ALL of the other recounts gave the majority to Bush. The LAST
recount was done weeks after the election and including ALL of the military
and absentee ballots said that Bush won over Gore by over 3200 votes.
That's not mentioned anywhere in the Guardian's report is it? They also
failed to mention that the Democratic party tried desperately to have ALL
of the military and absentee votes for Florida thrown out since they knew
that the military voted overwhelmly for Bush. My wife was working out of
state and one of those absentee ballots was her's so we paid a lot of
attention to what was going on here. Apparently a lot more than the
Gaurdian did. You need to find a less biased source of news!
Joe
At 11:37 PM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1307810,00.html
That's one of the articles , make your own mind up.
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas(a)onetel.com>om>; "General
Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
from
At 05:56 AM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
>To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
><cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
>Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>>
>> > According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
>Mr.
>> > Bush's backers.
>> > So who were you really voting for ?
>>
>> Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical
than
you
>> think.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
>Festival
>
>Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
>lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things
Bush's
way.
Exit polls have CONSISTANTLY shown that Nader takes more votes away the Republican than from the Democrats. I've
heard CLAIMS that the
republicans secretly finance Nader but I neve seen any proof and I don't
beleive the claims.
Joe
2:25 a.m.
I find it interesting that the Democrats are now claiming the Gore won
the popular vote but lost the electorial vote. Gore DID NOT win the
popular vote either.
Joe R. wrote:
I read it. I'd heard that the Guardian was
biased and now I have proof.
For example the article claims that a recount in Florida in 2000 gave the
election to Gore. That is simply untrue, there were literally dozens of
recounts done at different tiems and by different groups and agencies. They
were also done under all different conditions (count hanging chats, don't
count hanging chats, count military votes, don't count military votes,
count absentee ballots, don't count absentee votes, etc etc etc. Only ONE
recount at exactly one point in time and under optimal Democratic
conditions (such as not counting the absentee ballots) gave the majority to
Gore. ALL of the other recounts gave the majority to Bush. The LAST
recount was done weeks after the election and including ALL of the military
and absentee ballots said that Bush won over Gore by over 3200 votes.
That's not mentioned anywhere in the Guardian's report is it? They also
failed to mention that the Democratic party tried desperately to have ALL
of the military and absentee votes for Florida thrown out since they knew
that the military voted overwhelmly for Bush. My wife was working out of
state and one of those absentee ballots was her's so we paid a lot of
attention to what was going on here. Apparently a lot more than the
Gaurdian did. You need to find a less biased source of news!
Joe
At 11:37 PM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1307810,00.html
That's one of the articles , make your own mind up.
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas(a)onetel.com>om>; "General
Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
from
At 05:56 AM 9/23/04 +0100, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
>To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
><cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:20 AM
>Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
>
>
>
>
>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>According to my Observer newspaper , Nader gets a lot of funding from
>>>
>>>
>Mr.
>
>
>>>Bush's backers.
>>>So who were you really voting for ?
>>>
>>>
>>Read between the lines. Ask yourself, "why?" It's more cynical
than
>>
>>
you
>>think.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
>>
>>
>Festival
>
>Yes I know , the paper said that they're funding Nader because he pulls a
>lot of Democrat votes rather than Republican , thus swinging things
>
>
Bush's
way.
Exit polls have CONSISTANTLY shown that Nader takes more votes away
the Republican than from the Democrats. I've
heard CLAIMS that the
republicans secretly finance Nader but I neve seen any proof and I don't
beleive the claims.
Joe
2:58 a.m.
>>>> "Jim" == Jim Isbell
<millenniumfalcon(a)cableone.net> writes:
Jim> I find it interesting that the Democrats are now claiming the
Jim> Gore won the popular vote but lost the electorial vote. Gore
Jim> DID NOT win the popular vote either.
Maybe he did, maybe not, I don't really remember. It's irrelevant;
the constitution says that it doesn't work that way.
If that ever changes, then candidates will run their elections VERY
differently. You'll never see a candidate in New Hampshire again, for
example.
paul
9:22 a.m.
From this side of the pond the view is that your
President Bush is the most
corrupt in modern times - his well documented draft -
dodging only supports
that view. I have more faith in our Guardian/ Observer newspapers than any
of your organs run by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
His Sun "newspaper" over here is the subject of much scorn.
If you want Bush , you have my sympathies.
Wait till the oil runs out ( the war in Iraq was about oil remember ? ),
you're gonna be in the piggies.
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
To: "Geoffrey Thomas" <geoffreythomas(a)onetel.com>om>; "General
Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe it!!! Jeanne
I read it. I'd heard that the Guardian was biased and now I have proof.
For example the article claims that a recount in Florida in 2000 gave the
election to Gore. That is simply untrue, there were literally dozens of
recounts done at different tiems and by different groups and agencies.
They
were also done under all different conditions (count
hanging chats, don't
count hanging chats, count military votes, don't count military votes,
count absentee ballots, don't count absentee votes, etc etc etc. Only ONE
recount at exactly one point in time and under optimal Democratic
conditions (such as not counting the absentee ballots) gave the majority
to
Gore. ALL of the other recounts gave the majority to
Bush. The LAST
recount was done weeks after the election and including ALL of the
military
and absentee ballots said that Bush won over Gore by
over 3200 votes.
That's not mentioned anywhere in the Guardian's report is it? They also
failed to mention that the Democratic party tried desperately to have ALL
of the military and absentee votes for Florida thrown out since they knew
that the military voted overwhelmly for Bush. My wife was working out of
state and one of those absentee ballots was her's so we paid a lot of
attention to what was going on here. Apparently a lot more than the
Gaurdian did. You need to find a less biased source of news!
Joe
18 Sep
18 Sep
9:45 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe R." <rigdonj(a)cfl.rr.com>
Damm! We took a direct hit with hurricane
Charlie. Then a NEAR miss
with hurricane Frances. (It took 4 1/2 > DAYS < to pass through!) Then
another narrow miss with hurricane Ivan. I just looked at the weather
forecast and now there's another one headed this way! Hurricane Jeanne is
expected to hit the east coast of Florida around Monday. Is somebody
trying
to tell us something?
Yes, and to me the message is very clear: Glen, leave Florida.
Glen
0/0
7707
days inactive
7714
days old
23 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
acme＠gbronline.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
geoffreythomas＠onetel.com -
jbmcb＠hotmail.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
millenniumfalcon＠cableone.net -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
Pres＠macro-inc.com -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com