In article ,
says...

X ` Man wrote:
On 12/17/11 7:28 PM, Happy JH wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:32:45 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 12/17/11 5:23 PM, Happy JH wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:18:44 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 12/17/11 4:13 PM, Happy JH wrote:

You are likely bitter about not getting into the military, they
thought
you were too stupid.


Now, *that* is funny. Yeah, I'm bitter about not being drafted,
and sent
to vietnam. Right. That's it.

What a frippin' moron you are. Bitter about *not* getting the
military.
Snerk.Snerk.Snerk.

Harry, do you think you'd still be as fascinated by firearms if
you'd spent some time in the
military?


I don't know, John. Do you think you'd be as fascinated by little
pockmarked balls if you hadn't spent some time in the military?

Most likely. The little buggers have got my weight down and my
cholesterol down. Unless you've been
on a hell of a diet, golf would probably help you also!

You're basing this on our two brief encounters at the marina eight
years
ago? From the photos you've posted here, you look like an HIV-positive
male before any of the drugs were discovered...thin, frail, and
brittle.

That's simply your perception. Last time on the scale I weighed 184
lbs. At 75.5", I'm just about
where I should be. Now, if I were grossly overweight, I'd look at
someone with my build and think he
was an HIV-positive male before drugs - thin, frail, and brittle.

But, like I say, it's a matter of perception. Walking 15-20 miles a
week would do wonders for you.

BTW, I've seen the pic of your fingers.

Wow...you've seen photos of my fingers and that tells you...nothing.
No wonder we got our butts kicked in Vietnam.


*That's* a lame response!

-HB

Well, he has to deflect from the fact that he's a nasty fat slob. And a
coward.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:34:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

On 12/17/11 7:28 PM, Happy JH wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:32:45 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 12/17/11 5:23 PM, Happy JH wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:18:44 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 12/17/11 4:13 PM, Happy JH wrote:

You are likely bitter about not getting into the military, they thought
you were too stupid.


Now, *that* is funny. Yeah, I'm bitter about not being drafted, and sent
to vietnam. Right. That's it.

What a frippin' moron you are. Bitter about *not* getting the military.
Snerk.Snerk.Snerk.

Harry, do you think you'd still be as fascinated by firearms if you'd spent some time in the
military?


I don't know, John. Do you think you'd be as fascinated by little
pockmarked balls if you hadn't spent some time in the military?

Most likely. The little buggers have got my weight down and my cholesterol down. Unless you've been
on a hell of a diet, golf would probably help you also!

You're basing this on our two brief encounters at the marina eight years
ago? From the photos you've posted here, you look like an HIV-positive
male before any of the drugs were discovered...thin, frail, and brittle.

That's simply your perception. Last time on the scale I weighed 184 lbs. At 75.5", I'm just about
where I should be. Now, if I were grossly overweight, I'd look at someone with my build and think he
was an HIV-positive male before drugs - thin, frail, and brittle.

But, like I say, it's a matter of perception. Walking 15-20 miles a week would do wonders for you.

BTW, I've seen the pic of your fingers.

Wow...you've seen photos of my fingers and that tells you...nothing. No
wonder we got our butts kicked in Vietnam.

Well, I suppose it's possible to have pudgy fingers and not be overall pudgy. I once hit my thumb
with a hammer. It quickly became quite pudgy.

Most of the folks with whom I worked in Vietnam didn't have pudgy fingers. Maybe Kerry did.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 12/17/11 5:56 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/12/2011 1:51 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/17/11 3:46 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/17/2011 3:44 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/12/2011 1:11 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 17/12/2011 8:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/17/11 10:04 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 12/17/2011 7:05 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/17/11 3:58 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 16/12/2011 1:17 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/16/11 1:57 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 16/12/2011 6:09 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/16/11 6:38 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 12/15/11 9:10 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/12/2011 12:26 PM, North Star wrote:


I remember when we got our first office pc...
Only designated people were allowed near it and no one was
allowed to
eat, drink or smoke in it's vicinity.





Back then they were union North American made and cost
$8000 in
old
1980
dollars, which according to the government inflation
calculator is
$22K
today.

Back then was 1982 or 1983 for IBM's first PC, and they
weren't
anywhere
near $8000 in US or Canadian dollars. They were less than a
quarter of
that amount, and only some parts in them were
"American-made."
Further,
IBM wasn't unionized. In fact, about the only large-scale
supplier of
PC's who was unionized back in the early to middle "PC" days
was
AT&T
and even those boxes were merely assembled from parts made
outside
the
USA.

I bought one of the first IBM PC's sold to consumers in our
area,
from a
dealer in Northern Virginia.

So, as usual, you are full of crap. Like your shower buddy,
iSnotty,
you
have no real knowledge of actual history in any area.


Addendum...bought my first IBM PC in 1982, apparently, a few
months
after they were introduced in 1981. Paid $1650 in 1982
dollars, not
$8000 or anything near that.


http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex...c25_birth.html

Says $1,565 as list for striped bare. However everything
else is
extra.
Monitor, software, hard drive storage, second floppy, memory,
modem,
printer, even shipping with Canadian pricing it was $8000. Even
the
"Basic" and assembler packages cost extra. Even the ST506 hard
drive
controller was extra. As was the power supply upgrade if you
wanted
hard
drives.

So $1,565 is like buying a car without the windshield, seats,
steering
wheel and wheels. For Canadians, taxes and duties extra.

So blow it out your ass there harryk fleabagger. The real cost
of a
usable system was $8000.


I paid $1650. Didn't buy overpriced monochrome PC monitor.
Bought with
one floppy, bought second floppy later. Dealer gave me software.
Sorry....your claim of $8000 or anywhere near it is bull****.

Funny, you want to store a 5 mb DB in 1982, it was going to cost
you a
lot more than $1500 for computer and drive....

http://ns1758.ca/winch/winchest.html

While Micky mouses like you were toying with 32K RAM and 360K
floppies
it just wasn't good enough and I required 10 mb hard drives, and
printer. And while you probably used pirated copy of MS-DOS,
sorry,
that
wouldn't work where I worked. MS-DOS was an extra charge. So was
the
compilers, BASIC and graphics software. Yes, graphics, while you
were
toying with 24 lines of 64 characters I was

More on Itty Bitty Machine pricing....

http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5150.html

But you add maxed out memory and double floppies, $3000, $1600
hard
drive, $1000 modem plus some software it didn't take long.
Printers and
a plotter with autocad were not cheap either.

To be honest, I can't remember the exact price tag but it was
over
$8000
in 1982 dollars.


The point was about the early IBM PCs, **** for brains, and that
was
what I was basing my pricing on. My first PC didn't have a hard
drive
and I had no need for compilers. I used the PC for word processing
and a
little bit of databasing. LEss than $2000 would get you everything
you
needed to do what I was doing, less than 25% of the $8000 you
claimed.

A compiling accountant...what a laugh.


If you used brown bag brand word processing you might save a few
sheckles. Must have been difficult word processing without a
monitor
though. Unless you had a Smith Corona TTY to handle your I.O. Not
everyone had one of those kicking around in their basements.
BOTTOM LINE IS, YOU ARE A LIAR.


You're still here, flajim? Why?

I didn't say I didn't have a monitor. I said I didn't buy IBM's
overpriced green non-graphics monitor. I bought a much less
expensive
amber monitor that with the proper third-party video card allowed
monochome graphics. I didn't like IBM's first color monitors,
either...

But I'll give you a C- for your efforts to poke here, a grade
probably
higher than you ever got in high school, except for "shop." No
wonder
you went into the navy...no aptitude for anything that required
abstract
thinking. Perfect military fodder.

You are likely bitter about not getting into the military, they
thought
you were too stupid.

No, he's a coward. He ran away to a third rate college.

good point, too stupid and cowardly.

I can just imagine the blubbering and crying as he was begging his daddy
to buy him in to that third rate college... Must have been
disgusting...


And from what accredited university did you graduate? You didn't have
the brains or grades to get into an open enrollment community college
and ended up working as an unskilled laborer at a warehouse.

Impressive.

Lots of butt kissing puke learners get through Yale, Harvard and others.
They teach conformance, manipulation and fraud golden handshake
evaluations.

Best to judge a person on how they walk through life, not the schools
they went to or who's butt their are sniffing.

Trouble is your nose is always up a union or loser butt, your own.

Another mook who couldn't get into a university, eh?

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/oR82kN


------------------------------------------------------
Actually the Ivy League schools are probably the worst for research these
days. Big problem is no $$$ for research if it goes against the theory de
jour. And those schools are probably the worst for wanting no upset apple
carts. Most mooks can get in to a university. Learning and graduation are
different. Sad thing is the grammar and high schools are failing! 48% need
remedial math and 78% need remedial English upon entering the CSU system.
May be reversed as to the math and English numbers but was the posting in
the local papers last week. And Harry, you do not seem to be highly
successful with your education. I do not see Google searches with your name
as political speechwriter or advisor.

On 12/21/11 12:06 AM, Califbill wrote:
Actually the Ivy League schools are probably the worst for research
these days. Big problem is no $$$ for research if it goes against the
theory de jour. And those schools are probably the worst for wanting no
upset apple carts. Most mooks can get in to a university. Learning and
graduation are different. Sad thing is the grammar and high schools are
failing! 48% need remedial math and 78% need remedial English upon
entering the CSU system. May be reversed as to the math and English
numbers but was the posting in the local papers last week. And Harry,
you do not seem to be highly successful with your education. I do not
see Google searches with your name as political speechwriter or advisor.


Thank you, Bilious...that's one of the funniest responses I've read this
year in rec.boats.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/oR82kN