PIR interfering with wireless network

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:27:43 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uoz0rfzv4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uox20xc74buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uov9vsfd4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as
I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

Replying in silly places won't work with me. Opera colour codes things.

I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater.

I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the
sig
seperator snip guideline


Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a
time ..........

Making it last longer gives more satisfaction. So many rules too little
time.

Why limit yourself?

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.uouhiyua4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...

















































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells
size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Excuse me, are you reading that paper you're sitting on?

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

JF

 

[krw]

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...>

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no

"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

---
Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying
to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in
the "from" frame.

It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to
break and clicking.

After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without
the sequence indicator showing up.

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

JF

 

[krw]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:45:16 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

---
Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying
to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in
the "from" frame.

That depends on the newsreader and the way it's set up. In any case
*his* settings are wrong, though he insists on continuing, like a
spoiled child.

It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to
break and clicking.

Easier to ignore his crap.

After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without
the sequence indicator showing up.

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Exactly. Why bother with those who don't care about standards or their
readers.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

JF

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A New York man was forced to take a day off from work to
appear for a minor traffic summons. He grew increasingly
restless as he waited hour after endless hour for his case to be
heard.

When his name was called late in the afternoon, he stood
before the judge, only to hear that court would be adjourned for
the next day and he would have to return the next day.

"What for?" he snapped at the judge.

His honor, equally irked by a tedious day and sharp query
roared, "Twenty dollars contempt of court. That's why!"

Then, noticing the man checking his wallet, the judge relented.
"That's all right. You don't have to pay now."

The young man replied, "I'm just seeing if I have enough for two
more words."

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"These stretch pants come with a warranty of one year or 500,000 calories... whichever comes first."

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

---
Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying
to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in
the "from" frame.

It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to
break and clicking.

After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without
the sequence indicator showing up.

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Yesterday scientists in the USA revealed that beer contains small traces of female hormones.
To prove their theory they fed 100 men 12 pints of beer and observed that 100% of them started talking nonsense and couldn't drive.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:


He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

__,='`````'=/__
'// (o) \(o) \ `' _,-,
//| ,_) (`\ ,-'`_,-\
,-~~~\ `'===' /-, \==```` \__
/ `----' `\ \ \/
,-` , \ ,.-\ \
/ , \,-`\`_,-`\_,..--'\
,` ,/, ,>, ) \--`````\
( `\`---'` `-,-'`_,< \ \_,.--'`
`. `--. _,-'`_,-` | \
[`-.___ <`_,-'`------( /
(`` _,-\ \ --`````````|--`

-`_,-`\,-` , |
`_,' , /\ /

` \/\,-/ `/ \/`\_/V\_/
( ._. ) ( .__. )
| | | |
\,---_| |_---./
ooOO(_) (_)OOoo

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense.

---
Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on
USENET is a bad thing.

The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to
bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that
the pattern be followed.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top.

---
Then fix the post by arranging it properly, reply to it either inline or
bottom, and ask that the recipient follow suit.

JF

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:41:57 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense.

---
Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on
USENET is a bad thing.

The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to
bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that
the pattern be followed.

I agree with you that we should all post at the bottom. But I'm not going to take mny time to rearrange someone else's mistake. It's not THAT big a deal.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

!
M
/ \
{ }
{ }
{ }
# #
:_____:
|| ||
|!___!|
| ___ |
|/###\|
!{###}!
||###||
||!!!||
/111\/|!!!|\/111\
| !|@@@|! |
| !|@@@|! |
|---O-!\###/!-O---|
|_____! --- !_____|
{|-----! - !-----|}
q! ! ||| ! !p
( | |\ /| | )
/\ q | -- | |_| | -- | p /\
/ \ { | | } / \
| | : ( || | \ / | || ) : | |
| | : <\------- / W \ -------/> : | |
| |!!/ ! || /\ /\ || ! \!!| |
| _^^ ( || || || || ) ^^_ |
-</ \ || \\ // || / \>-
<// ! || \\ // || ! \\>
_-</||___-------| || \\ // || |-------___||\>-_
/ || \ || --- || / || \
o<|| ||______------|||___ ___|||------______|| ||>o
\ |__-- ____________/ ! ! \____________ --__| /
\ |____---| ! \ U / ! |---____| /
\| | _______ ! ! ! ! _______ | |/
\ _____---| |--=| | | |=--| |---_____ /
"" |\|----| |----|/| ""
/||! ! ! !||\
_/Y ||! ! ! !|| Y\_
__/ ||!____! !____!|| \__
/ ||||####||####||| \
| \| |||| |||| |/ |
| / ==== ==== \ |
\___---' \!!/ \!!/ '---___/
[$$$$] [$$$$]
#### ####
###### ######
###############

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.

---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:


He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?


JF

 

[krw]

In article <fki3p4pote5ndg80nfif4i3op0eical605@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top.

---
Then fix the post by arranging it properly, reply to it either inline or
bottom, and ask that the recipient follow suit.

I reply post-fix or preferably in-fix, then delete all the stuff
the OP munged. Hopefully they;ll get the message, though they're
usually a pig-headed self-important moron like the PHucker.

 

[krw]

In article <0oi3p45gfoeb1e14nbg6jgaje5jgd9d7nr@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.

---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?

Because he's an arrogant Brit, like the Dumb Donkey.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.

---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?

What causes the problem is irrelevant. You may aswell say the invention of the motor vehicle cause Mr Bloggs to die yesterday, so let's all go sue Henry Ford.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

They say confuscious does his crosswords with a pen.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:


He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A nice, calm and respectable lady went into the pharmacy, right up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said, “I would like to buy some cyanide.”The pharmacist asked, “Why in the world do you need cyanide?”
The lady replied, “I need it to poison my husband.”
The pharmacists eyes got big and he exclaimed, “Lord have mercy!
I can’t give you cyanide to kill your husband! That’s against the law!
I’ll lose my license! They’ll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen. Absolutely not! You CANNOT have any cyanide!”
The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacist’s wife.
The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied, “Well now. That’s different. You didn’t tell me you had a prescription.”