Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / March 2006
Too many groundless accusations have been hurled around here lately.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
David - 21 Mar 2006 00:38 GMT Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I was recently a victim of lynch mob mentality over some outrageous thread that was started by an unknown perpetrator.
Grow up, people, and start acting like civilized adults. Remember the Golden Rule, if nothing else...
It's no frickin' wonder that I dump on this group so often. So MANY posters are incredibly rude and vicious.
STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!!!!
Dave
Langerhans - 21 Mar 2006 00:45 GMT > Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning > names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dave Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself.
David - 21 Mar 2006 01:03 GMT > Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY, DIMWITTED MORON!
Dave
J. David Anderson - 21 Mar 2006 01:15 GMT >> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. > > The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY, > DIMWITTED MORON! > > Dave Don't you regard the inclusion of "dimwitted" as superfluous? How many intelligent morons do you think exist?
Regards
David
 Signature To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.
All other mail is automatically deleted.
Wes Groleau - 21 Mar 2006 04:39 GMT > Don't you regard the inclusion of "dimwitted" as superfluous? How many > intelligent morons do you think exist? Maybe he thinks he's one ?
 Signature Wes Groleau
"A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." -- Ron Allen
David - 21 Mar 2006 05:17 GMT >> Don't you regard the inclusion of "dimwitted" as superfluous? How many >> intelligent morons do you think exist? > > Maybe he thinks he's one ? I can't respond, as this is off-topic.
Dave
Ozgirl - 21 Mar 2006 10:19 GMT > >> Don't you regard the inclusion of "dimwitted" as superfluous? How many > >> intelligent morons do you think exist? > > > > Maybe he thinks he's one ? > > > I can't respond, as this is off-topic. Lol, but you so want to, don't you :) It's a true test, trying to keep ones lips zipped, or in this case, fingers duct taped :)
David - 21 Mar 2006 16:44 GMT >>>>Don't you regard the inclusion of "dimwitted" as > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > trying to keep ones lips zipped, or in this case, fingers > duct taped :) I'm doing ok. No need for duct tape at this. :)
dave
Peter C - 22 Mar 2006 18:43 GMT The title of the Thread was also interesting..."Too many groundless accusations ...". How many groundless accusations would he think were acceptable ?
Susan - 22 Mar 2006 18:54 GMT > The title of the Thread was also interesting..."Too many groundless > accusations ...". > How many groundless accusations would he think were acceptable ? Four.
Susan
Ma¢k - 23 Mar 2006 01:37 GMT On 22 Mar 2006 09:43:22 -0800, "Peter C" <peter.corbally@btinternet.com> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
>The title of the Thread was also interesting..."Too many groundless >accusations ...". >How many groundless accusations would he think were acceptable ? who makes them would be more of a problem than the actual number made.
 Signature Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Alan S - 21 Mar 2006 05:18 GMT >>> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >David Dave believes there is at least one that he sees when he shaves.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg
 Signature Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Ozgirl - 21 Mar 2006 01:18 GMT > > Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. > > The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY, > DIMWITTED MORON! I mentioned Sally days ago.
David - 21 Mar 2006 01:18 GMT > I mentioned Sally days ago. Feeling guilty about something? Assuming that's what I'm talking about?? Huh?
dave
Ozgirl - 21 Mar 2006 01:25 GMT > > I mentioned Sally days ago. > > > Feeling guilty about something? Assuming that's what I'm talking > about?? Huh? Not feeling guilty. But I am the one throwing out Sally's name into the arena. And the only one today, as per your comment:
"> The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY,"
David - 21 Mar 2006 01:33 GMT > Not feeling guilty. But I am the one throwing out Sally's > name into the arena. And the only one today, as per your > comment: > > "> The thread subject is in reference to something going on > TODAY," That's right. Today. so why did you say "days ago"??? I was only referring to today's tempest. Days ago is old news. Let's stick with what's going on today, shall we?
Dave
Ozgirl - 21 Mar 2006 02:03 GMT > > Not feeling guilty. But I am the one throwing out Sally's > > name into the arena. And the only one today, as per your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > referring to today's tempest. Days ago is old news. Let's stick with > what's going on today, shall we? Ok, I'll bite, who other than me has mentioned names today?
Langerhans - 21 Mar 2006 01:38 GMT >> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. > > The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY, > DIMWITTED MORON! > > Dave I see that, true to form, you're bringing out the childish name calling on your first reply. And you have the temerity to lecture others on how to act like "civilized adults", and call _them_ "incredibly rude"? Then you sanctimoniously proclaim "It's no frickin' wonder that I dump on this group so often." Can you spell HYPOCRITE ? I know you can.
Did the focus of this newsgroup take an unexpected turn away from you?
Did the mutual apologies not satisfy your poor hurt feelings?
Did you need to resurrect the past to have yet another excuse to tell other people how to act and post? "Victim of a lynch mob mentality"? Puh-leeez!
Are you truly so self-involved that you can't find some obscure URL from some obscure newspaper to troll with? At least your attempts at justifying some cockamamie story from the 'Timbuktu Gazette and Weekly Shopper' was mildly humorous.
Your whole wounded drama queen routine is only sad. No, make that pathetic.
David - 21 Mar 2006 01:48 GMT >>> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Your whole wounded drama queen routine is only sad. No, make that pathetic. wounded? I mentioned one thing in passing, and you are going on by the paragraph about it. Get over it.
The reason for the thread was for something unrelated to me, you brain damaged simpleton.
dave
Langerhans - 21 Mar 2006 02:11 GMT >>>> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > dave Attempt to deflect attention from facts: D-
Childish insults: C-
Watching BAD twist in his own wind: Priceless
David - 21 Mar 2006 04:04 GMT Alan S - 21 Mar 2006 05:20 GMT >The reason for the thread was for something unrelated to me, you brain >damaged simpleton. Dave, Dave. You really should stop projecting your own inner fears.
Get help, man.
Alan, T2, Australia.
Beav - 22 Mar 2006 14:20 GMT >> Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. > > The thread subject is in reference to something going on TODAY, DIMWITTED > MORON! And you wonder why people dump on you? I'd want a f.cking ladder!
 Signature Beav OMF#19 VN 750 Zed Thou
mail is beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com (with the obvious changes)
Ma¢k - 21 Mar 2006 03:13 GMT On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:45:02 -0600, Langerhans <langerhans@example.net> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
>> Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning >> names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Are you STILL whining? That was 2 days ago. Time to get over yourself. ironic, the 2 most vicious posters in the group right now are fighting with each other and both are pretending to be morally superior to everyone else.
That was good for a belly laugh.
 Signature Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
W.M.McKee - 21 Mar 2006 02:54 GMT >Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning >names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Dave Hi Dave,
In truth, you have a valid point, I think. And yet, Jan has a point, too.... You guys are all great!
To the extent that we name names and point fingers in these situations, we run the risk of committing an injustice upon an innocent person. That really has caused you some pain, I can see. I personally hold you in high regard, by the way, and so do many others. I don't think anyone ever seriously suspected you as the culprit, even though some do not always agree with you, as you certainly ought to know. ;-)
The problem arises when people get so pissed off that they overreact, sometimes inappropriately.
The trolls are useless comic acts who have no substance whatsoever. We all know that. They are analogous to terrorists on the internet! Always remember, a fundamental principle of terrorism is that it all ultimately depends upon acceptance of responsibility. Without acceptance of responsibility, the terroristic acts are seen as just so much insanity.
If the person(s) who have posted the recent garbage do not accept responsibility, then we should all dismiss her, or him, or maybe the gender challenged it, as mentally ill. If the screw ball does make himsef ( herself) known, then maybe we shall learn more of their motives.... Seriously, I doubt we will ever know who they really are... In the meantime, Jan's detective work with headers does have some interest in providing clues.
How's the cold, Dave? I do hope it is getting better...:-)
Will, T2
David - 21 Mar 2006 03:57 GMT >>Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning >>names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Will, T2 Who is Jan, Will?
My cold is better,thanks. I'm still not fine, probably about 50% better.
Dave
W.M.McKee - 21 Mar 2006 04:18 GMT >> If the person(s) who have posted the recent garbage do not accept >> responsibility, then we should all dismiss her, or him, or maybe the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Dave I'm sorry, Dave, Jan is Ozgirl... I thought you knew. She really is a most interesting woman and a valuable contributor on here imho, as are you ...
Take care, man....
Will, T2
David - 21 Mar 2006 04:16 GMT >>> If the person(s) who have posted the recent garbage do not accept >>>responsibility, then we should all dismiss her, or him, or maybe the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Will, T2 she's ok, we just disagree sometimes. When I agree, I don't always write a post.
Dave
Alan S - 21 Mar 2006 05:23 GMT >Who is Jan, Will? Do you read any Kipling, Dave? Heard of Kim's game? It's about observation.
Most people planning a character attack take the trouble to at least study the character they are attacking.
Cheers, Ozguy
Uncle Enrico - 21 Mar 2006 06:22 GMT This thread is a kick in the pants. I can't decide whether I hate or love it.
Ma¢k - 22 Mar 2006 02:07 GMT >This thread is a kick in the pants. I can't decide whether I hate or love >it. save your emotions for people.
 Signature Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Loretta Eisenberg - 21 Mar 2006 14:56 GMT I dont partifcipate in the Madness David, I wonder who threw the first stone. If we all go along we can get along. How about this being the first day of all our new lives on asd Treat those who treat us with respect and civility.with respect and civility.
Loretta
-- In tribute to the United States of America and the State of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and terrorism.
David - 21 Mar 2006 16:51 GMT > I dont partifcipate in the Madness David, I wonder who threw the first > stone. If we all go along we can get along. How about this being the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and > terrorism. Works for me. In fact, I've already made it public that I intend not to participate in OT arguments. I WILL however, continue to discuss diabetic issues and debate them vigorously when I feel that misinformation has been floated about. I'll stick to the facts and avoid the personal issues, as those fall under the heading of "off topic".
Loretta, If I fail to follow those guidelines, I invite you to give me a friendly swat. <g>
Dave
Loretta Eisenberg - 22 Mar 2006 19:50 GMT Dave,. I am taking you at your word, I believe that your word means something to you, so I have the fly swatter ready if you fall off the wagon:-)
Loretta
-- In tribute to the United States of America and the State of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and terrorism.
David - 22 Mar 2006 21:31 GMT > Dave,. I am taking you at your word, I believe that your word means > something to you, so I have the fly swatter ready if you fall off the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > :) So far I have ignored several rude posts both here and on MHD since I made my pledge. :)
You are more than welcome to remind me if I backslide, Loretta.
dave
Cheri - 22 Mar 2006 22:52 GMT Good for you David. :-)
-- Cheri
David wrote in message ...
>> Dave,. I am taking you at your word, I believe that your word means >> something to you, so I have the fly swatter ready if you fall off the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >dave Paul M. Cook - 21 Mar 2006 16:06 GMT > Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning > names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!!!! You sure do complain an awful lot. Even my cooking group is hotter than this one and yet you are constantly whining about something.
I suggest you are the one with the problem. If it doesn't measure up to your standards their are newsletters you can subscribe to as well as a host of MSN groups.
Paul
David - 21 Mar 2006 16:52 GMT >>Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning >>names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Paul I refer you to another thread I started just after this one. That's all I have to say to you at this point, Paul.
Dave
Paul M. Cook - 21 Mar 2006 21:10 GMT > >>Unless there is positive proof, I suggest that EVERYONE stop mentioning > >>names when they suspect a post is from someone familiar and unliked. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I refer you to another thread I started just after this one. That's all > I have to say to you at this point, Paul. Whatever. I've only been reading this group for a few months and yet you seem to be the biggest malcontent on it as far as I can see. You can take the high road all you want to but I find it a bit disingenuous considering who starts the fires around here.
Paul
Susan - 21 Mar 2006 21:15 GMT > Whatever. I've only been reading this group for a few months and yet you > seem to be the biggest malcontent on it as far as I can see. You can take > the high road all you want to but I find it a bit disingenuous considering > who starts the fires around here. Fair enough. But he appears to have committed to changing that. You appear to have committed to baiting more of the same.
Got anything to say or to ask about diabetes, rather than about the behavior of another poster?
Susan
Paul M. Cook - 21 Mar 2006 22:59 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Got anything to say or to ask about diabetes, rather than about the > behavior of another poster? To be honest I don't ask a lot of questions because by the time I have one, somebody else has asked the same question and a wealth of information follows. That is why I like this group. I've learned more here than my endo could ever teach me even if she had the time.
I call them as I see them and will continue to do so especially when a poster solicits opinions about themselves and their actions. If somebody asks for my thoughts, they'll get them and they'd better be ready for it.
An annoying whiner is what I see and one who brings more conflict than content. That's my 2 cents.
Paul
Anil - 21 Mar 2006 23:33 GMT Paul,
Some times you need the noise to get the bigger picture. I too have been a relatively new comer here. But I come with my own idea of what I want from here and how I want to contribute. I tend to look at the bigger picture simply because I was not born in US.
Diabetes has many tentacles. We as a society may as well have created this disease by promoting a certain life style. But we tend to take responsibility and address it at individual level. But we are also helped by those who don't have it.
Along the same lines we participated in an unpopular war in 60s. There were after effects that were tough on the nation. But many of us took the responsibly to help out folks affected by it to deal with the trauma.
My point is get your self comfortable here. Poke around. As you have already discovered there is a lot to learn here. And then there is internet too. For the most part if you are not too unlucky you will get a good answer. If you stay calm, even a bite here and there may not seem too much if you see the bigger picture. So go easy on pointing fingers.
Just a simplistic advice from another newbie. Most of the time folks who are fighting here know each other to know what it is all about so they either don't mind or don't care!
Diabetes is not a easy one to deal with especially if you have to deal with it for most of your life time. I too try to keep that awareness always in front of me. We come here as much to get help as to be of help. And no it would not always obvious as to how to be of help. Sometimes doing nothing may well be the best help.
Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here...
Anil T2
Paul M. Cook - 21 Mar 2006 23:54 GMT > Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... Advice taken but with a few grains of salt: I am not a newbie to the Internet nor newsgroups - the first of which I joined in 1989 before the 'net was public, I am a newbie to diabetes, I was not born yesterday.
Regards, Paul
Anil - 22 Mar 2006 00:08 GMT I did not mean to say you are new to either new to Internet of the NG, I just was strictly talking within the context of this NG. Sorry if some how I came across to you as some one "talking from the high horse". I do look forward to your contributions!
Regards,
Anil
Paul M. Cook - 22 Mar 2006 04:58 GMT > I did not mean to say you are new to either new to Internet of the NG, > I just was strictly talking within the context of this NG. Sorry if > some how I came across to you as some one "talking from the high > horse". I do look forward to your contributions! Not a problem, just being direct.
Paul
J. David Anderson - 22 Mar 2006 01:47 GMT >>Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... > > Advice taken but with a few grains of salt: I am not a newbie to the > Internet nor newsgroups - the first of which I joined in 1989 before the > 'net was public, I am a newbie to diabetes, I was not born yesterday. Are you sure?
If you believe that the "net* wasn't public before 1989 then I think that maybe you were born quite recently. <g>
I have been using the net since the sixties (in the Military) and since the early eighties privately. I think that you may be confusing the advent of the WWW with the *net*.
Regards
David
 Signature To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.
All other mail is automatically deleted.
Paul M. Cook - 22 Mar 2006 04:45 GMT > >>Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you believe that the "net* wasn't public before 1989 then I think > that maybe you were born quite recently. <g> I rather think it is you who is clueless. The Internet wasn't public in 1989. I was a college administrator at the time. Prior to this, in college as a student, I worked on implementing one of the original RFC specs for DARPA, specifically the TCP protocol.
In 1989, as you surely know, the Internet was accessible by the military, colleges, universities and research institutions only.
> I have been using the net since the sixties (in the Military) and since > the early eighties privately. I think that you may be confusing the > advent of the WWW with the *net*. Nope. The World Wide Web was made public in 1991. The net was made commercial in 1994. I was referring specifically to newsgroups which were first established in 1979.
What you referred to was the original ARPANET, founded in 1969. More likely you are thinking CompuServe or perhaps Prodigy which were 2 examples of private subscription services.
Paul
Ricavito - 22 Mar 2006 05:15 GMT > What you referred to was the original ARPANET, founded in 1969. More likely > you are thinking CompuServe or perhaps Prodigy which were 2 examples of > private subscription services. > > Paul Omigod, does that bring back memories! My first computer was an "Adam". It had a tape drive. I used to do online banking on it backin the 1980s believe it or not. I remember it took forever to find data because every search meant it had to rewind and start from the beginning.
I remember Prodigy too, although I was barely ever savvy enough to figure out how to make posts. I remember there were sites like some kind of bulletin board.
Ricavito, really dating herself
J.C. Hartmann - 22 Mar 2006 05:36 GMT The Internet wasn't public in 1989.
Much of this discussion hinges on what you define as the Internet.
In the mid-70s, I accessed newsgroups via a number of networked BBSs using a Teletype Model 33 and a 110 baud modem.
In 1981, GENIE offered newsgroups and e-mail on a much more stable platform. Access was dial-up at 300 baud on a Teletype 43.
In 1983, I got my first Uunet account which dialed up a Virginia POP overnight to swap e-mail and news. Instead of a dumb terminal, we used a PDP11, a VAX, and an AT&T 3B2 via a stack of Telebit modems at 9600 baud. Uunet was the government contractor who provided the backbone for ARPANET.
If you define the Internet as a network that used TCP/IP, then your timetable is correct.
Back to diabetes,
Jim
Paul M. Cook - 22 Mar 2006 05:59 GMT > The Internet wasn't public in 1989. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Back to diabetes, Nice to see a fellow dinosaur. I worked on a lot of DEC iron, PDPs 11 and 10, the former under RSTS, DECSystems 10 and 20 where I learned Assembly. Try 36 bit Assembly language for a "starter" language! Then there was VAX VMS where I learned networking protocols starting with DECNET. Also AT&T Unix where most of the TCP/IP work was done as well as CDC Cybers under a cranky OS called NOS which linked our sister universities.
Then we have some real old stuff like Kermit which made life bearable in multi-mainframe installations.
Memories!
Paul
J. David Anderson - 22 Mar 2006 06:15 GMT >>>>Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I rather think it is you who is clueless. The Internet wasn't public in > 1989. I guess then that my earlier posts, archived on Google (was Deju Vu) dated 1984 are imaginary. In fact I guess that all non-military, commercial research, or educational Google posts archived before 1989 must be imaginary.
How remiss of Google, making up posts. They must have been bored at the time.
I was a college administrator at the time. Prior to this, in college
> as a student, I worked on implementing one of the original RFC specs for > DARPA, specifically the TCP protocol. > > In 1989, as you surely know, the Internet was accessible by the military, > colleges, universities and research institutions only. I know nothing of the kind.
I was accessing the net in 1984 via CSIROnet until 1988 when I switched to connect.com.au and then Pegasus Networks in 1989. CSIROnet had their own backbone and allowed public access to anyone prepared to pay their fees. Not many would, in those days it was an enormous amount of money, you had to be a very determined enthusiast. When connect.com.au kicked off I was one of their beta subscribers at a much reduced $12.00 per hour plus bandwidth loading. Pegasus Networks in Northern NSW then started, using connect.com.au for access and did an even better deal on costing. I stayed with them until 1994.
>>I have been using the net since the sixties (in the Military) and since >>the early eighties privately. I think that you may be confusing the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > commercial in 1994. I was referring specifically to newsgroups which were > first established in 1979. You made no mention of newsgroups or of 1979. You claimed that the net was not "public" in 1989.
> What you referred to was the original ARPANET, founded in 1969. No, I was referring to your erroneous claim that the net was not publicly available in 1989. There weren't a lot of private individuals around on the net in the early eighties, the costs were too high, but there were a small group of us, many who were amateur radio hobbyists, like me, who were fascinated with the new technology. We all tended to know each other, not like now.
More likely
> you are thinking CompuServe or perhaps Prodigy which were 2 examples of > private subscription services. Never had anything to do with compuserve or Prodigy. I am in Australia.
My initial experience was with ARPANET while in San Francisco on working up trials on an Australian warship (Charles F. Adams class) built in the US for the Australian Navy. I was a very young Midshipman (Ensign) at the time. In the eighties public access was available but at huge cost, more than $60.00 per hour, until the late eighties when the access rates started to fall. Prior to that you could access through connect.com.au, aunet, biznet.com.au, pro-net, plus various local government or campus libraries and local councils. Plus the Fido-net gateway of course.
I used CSIROnet when in Canberra, and connect.com.au elsewhere. All of this prior to 1989. It was quite different - access was via acoustic coupled 300 baud modems in the early days. Frustratingly slow at those early hourly rates. I initially used a C/PM based "luggable", then the CBM 8000 series came out and I stuck with that until the Amiga, followed by the Macintosh. I still have all four - start a museum one day.
What it all boils down to is that I, and many that I know, are members of the public and have been accessing the net for twenty plus years. While the balance of net users may have tended toward commercial or educational (the Military were pretty much out of it by then) and there wasn't yet a commercial drive to promote private access, it was still available at a cost. In 1988/89 it began to become commercially popular, access cost dropped and promotion started and the whole thing started to fall apart. Except for the high costs, I preferred the earlier version.
Regards
David
 Signature To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.
All other mail is automatically deleted.
Paul M. Cook - 22 Mar 2006 07:16 GMT > >>>>Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... > >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > You made no mention of newsgroups or of 1979. You claimed that the net > was not "public" in 1989. OK, one more time. I said I joined my first newsgroup in 1989 before the Internet was made public. That is what I stated. You clearly pointed out that the Internet was in fact not public in 1989. Public access did not begin until the InterNIC and the NSF backbone consortium (thank you Al Gore) was implemented. You describe a host of (expensive) private subscription services which had some very limited Internet access, mostly NNTP, SMTP and POP. That is not public access as we enjoy it today. Public access began for real in 1994 with the release of Mosaic and the connecting of various private member services like CServe across the original backbone provided by MCI, AT&T, Sprint, UUnet, BBN-Planet and others. BUT - commercialization - aka public access - was not truly available until 1994 when the military removed itself from the Internet.
Paul
J. David Anderson - 22 Mar 2006 10:12 GMT >>>>If you believe that the "net* wasn't public before 1989 then I think >>>>that maybe you were born quite recently. <g> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Internet was made public. That is what I stated. You clearly pointed out > that the Internet was in fact not public in 1989. No, I pointed out that private access was very expensive in the early eighties, not that it was not public.
Public access did not
> begin until the InterNIC and the NSF backbone consortium (thank you Al Gore) > was implemented. Wrong.
You describe a host of (expensive) private subscription
> services which had some very limited Internet access, mostly NNTP, SMTP and > POP. That is not public access as we enjoy it today. I think that I have your number now. You don't like to be wrong, do you?
You are now qualifying with "not public access as we enjoy it today". I agree, very little from the past is "as we enjoy it today", but that doesn't change the fact that *the public* could access the net prior to your 1994 claim.
Many on here have over the years mentioned accessing newsgroups prior to 1994. Are they all deluded and clueless too?
I don't think that we have anything further to discuss. It is rather pointless debating with someone who modifies their position at will or views decides that their personal determination of expense is a valid criterion for designating something publicly available or not.
I'll agree that public access, although available, was not "as we enjoy it today". Happy?
Regards
David
 Signature To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.
All other mail is automatically deleted.
Jenny - 22 Mar 2006 15:41 GMT >>>>> If you believe that the "net* wasn't public before 1989 then I think >>>>> that maybe you were born quite recently. <g> >>>> >>>> I rather think it is you who is clueless. The Internet wasn't >>>> public in >>>> 1989. This is even sillier than people squabbling about diabetes.
Take it to misc.old.geezers <g>
--Jenny (also a dinosaur who sent her first email in 1980.)
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood Sugar Under Control
Paul M. Cook - 22 Mar 2006 17:47 GMT > >>>>If you believe that the "net* wasn't public before 1989 then I think > >>>>that maybe you were born quite recently. <g> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > I'll agree that public access, although available, was not "as we enjoy > it today". Happy? Well I don't like to be wrong when I am in fact right, no. My whole professional career revolves around ARPANET, and the Internet. I even have a Grace Hopper "nanosecond" which she handed out at a speech I attended when I worked for the Defense Department. My college Pascal instructor was a grad student of Niklaus Wirth. So computers, networks and the Internet are a huge part of my experience and I feel quite lucky for that.
Oh, and Al Gore really did contribute a great deal. :)
Paul
Beav - 22 Mar 2006 14:26 GMT >>>>>Oh oh...I am not following my own advice here... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I guess then that my earlier posts, archived on Google (was Deju Vu) Actually Deja News, IIRC
 Signature Beav OMF#19 VN 750 Zed Thou
mail is beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com (with the obvious changes)
Susan - 22 Mar 2006 00:11 GMT > To be honest I don't ask a lot of questions because by the time I have one, > somebody else has asked the same question and a wealth of information > follows. That is why I like this group. I've learned more here than my > endo could ever teach me even if she had the time. Nuthin wrong with that.
> I call them as I see them and will continue to do so especially when a > poster solicits opinions about themselves and their actions. If somebody [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Paul Hooookaaaay, Paul. I think yer all paid up now. :-)
Susan
|
|
|