|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ebeb
Date: Jan 30, 2007 00:43
Hello group.
Great prices and support await you as you travel into the beautiful world of premium nntp access.
They give you access to some of the best groups others may not carry.
Take a look, I know you'll love it as much as I do.
They offer some of the best premium newsgroup access anywhere.
Convenient thumbnail indexes
Very long retention
2,000,000 new posts each day
Posting allowed!
Streaming audio and video
Thanks! I hope to see you at http://newsdude.net soon. Bye for now.
Ciysizipmag putci fomnu ti feyru razgesajta. Ov i omju ipnegapwob i oy oblazulrus
...
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alexander JohannesAlexander Johannes
Date: Jan 28, 2007 20:00
Last-modified: 2006-11-03 (revision 1.3)
Posting-frequency: weekly
URL: http://www.de-soc-mac.de/die_Gruppen
Die Newsgruppen
===============
Folgende Gruppen existieren in der _de.comp.sys.mac.*_-Hierarchie:
de.comp.sys.mac.misc -- Diskussion zum Mac
------------------------------------------
*Charta:* Diese Gruppe dient zur Diskussion aller Fragen zu Mac-Systemen
(Hardware und Software), sofern sie nicht in einer spezielleren Gruppe
behandelt werden.
*Themen dieser Gruppe sind:*
1. Mac-Hardware aller Art, vom 1984er Ur-Apple Macintosh über Mac-Clones bis
hin zu den aktuellen Apple-Produkten.
2. Fragen und Informationen zu Geräten, die im und am Mac betrieben werden
können und Probleme im Zusammenspiel dieser Geräte mit dem Mac.
3. Jegliche Software (Betriebssysteme und Anwendungen), die auf Macs läuft.
*Status:* Die Gruppe ist unmoderiert.
|
| Show full article (5.62Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Oliver BroseOliver Brose
Date: Jan 27, 2007 11:07
Ben Gurion schrieb:
Na ja, ich hab schon Schlimmeres gesehen. Viel Schlimmeres.
> Von der iDee jeden iDioten zum HTML-Mail-Trog zu führen mal ganz
> abgesehn..
Das ist allerdings etwas, was mich auch anficht. Diese ganze "mit uns
setzen sie tolle HTML Emails an" Nummer nervt. Viel zu viele Menschen
sind bereits jetzt der Auffassung, daß es in Ordnung wäre, HTML-Mails zu
verschicken. Wenn auf die (sinngemäße) Frage "Was haben Sie mir denn da
für einen kaputten Dreck geschickt?" als Antwort "Hm? Das ist einfach
nur unsere Firmenvorlage" kommt, schnall' ich ab. Von den
geschmacklichen Entgleisungen im Privatbereich fange ich gar nicht erst
an. Zum Glück sieht man davon kaum mehr was, wenn man Eudora auf
Töten... äh... Text stellt.
Oliver
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MI5VictimMI5Victim
Date: Jan 25, 2007 13:24
>Very unstructured, no proof whatsoever. So why should anyone
>take it seriously? If I said to you, "my next door neighbour eats
>babies", how much credibility would you attach to that?
Well, cos it's true. I was hoping that someone "in the know" would
appear and make some self-revealing comments, but that hasn't
happened. Everyone's keeping quiet. What a pity.
>>This is an agglomeration of articles and replies previously
>>posted to Usenet, so it's a bit hard to read. This posting
>>describes a campaign of character assassination initiated
>Who's character is being assassinated? It isn't clear from the post.
>Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook
>himself? He's certainly able to hold his own on the issue you cite.
Mine, mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top
of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one stone
at the Beck trial - they simultaneously put words into the mouth
of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and repeated exactly,
word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me.
|
| Show full article (10.22Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: MI5VictimMI5Victim
Date: Jan 25, 2007 13:12
From: speedc@ cs.man.ac.uk (C Speed)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Date: Tue Aug 1 10:23:46 1995
>OK, so instead of my posting the same tedious stuff every day,
>why don't you actually read the contents, and make a meaningful
>reply? Something more constructive than those silly little
>jokes about paranoia perhaps? Like what objectively can you do
>to break the conspiracy open, if one exists :-) ? If somebody
>did it to you, what would you do?
But we've *done* that. I certainly have at least. Way back when you
originally started posting and your posts were neither tediously repetitve
nor stupidly long.
But whenever anyone makes any good suggestions you ignore them and start
posting from the begining again. You don't want us to help you - so what do
you want? If you really wanted help you would listen to peoples suggestions
and respond to them. Is this just an attention thing?
But I'll try again, because I'm a fool like that.
|
| Show full article (9.64Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: MI5VictimMI5Victim
Date: Jan 25, 2007 12:59
Date: Sat May 13 21:41:57 1995
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.uk
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
>:some pirate radio station in London in 1991, started listening to
>
>Conclusive proof if ever I heard it.
>
>Of course you were the only person in the office in the whole of Britain
Yeah, but this is the point. Each incident is easily and automatically
deniable along the lines you're taking. But when this happens every
time, and when you get independent corroboration from other people,
then there's no escaping it. For example, immediately after I lost
my job in 91 I went into the local garage to get some work done on the
car, and one of the blokes there said to the other, "so what do you
think of it then? it's getting killed on the radio isn't it"
Now again, you look at that and no proff; you can ask them what they're
referring to and they can say they're talking about something else.
|
| Show full article (6.70Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: MI5VictimMI5Victim
Date: Jan 25, 2007 12:47
From: speedc@ cs.man.ac.uk (C Speed)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Date: Fri May 12 04:34:26 1995
>Yes, I realize that. But after five years I think I can tell the difference
>between reality and unreality. Look, in the part of London where I used
>to live, I went back there over Easter, and I got recognized walking
>down the street by people I had never seen before. That's happened
>quite a few times and I am at a complete loss to explain it.
That is what happens in big cities. Hell, it scared me to death when I first
started working in Manchester. People keep talking to me on the streets,
even if its just to say hello, and I've no idea who they are. This happens
to most people, don't worry about it.
>>paranoid, whoops I mean suspicious, I would call in one of those bug
>>detection teams which have those machines that pick up the transmitted
>That's exactly what we did. We went to a competent, professional detective
>agency in London, paid them over 400 quid to debug our house. They found
>nothing.
Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs to be found?
|
| Show full article (5.68Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MI5VictimMI5Victim
Date: Jan 25, 2007 12:35
From: pao1@ ukc.ac.uk (P.A.Orrock)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: BBC's Hidden Shame
Reply-To: pao1@ ukc.ac.uk (P.A.Orrock)
Date: Tue May 9 05:54:20 1995
>have laws that protect the individual from harassement -
>you can't just threaten people willy nilly. There are laws
>against that. And if someone lies about you in the press
>or tv then you have recourse to libel/slander etc. laws.
Yup, agreed
>True, Britain has no 'privacy' laws as such, but isn't that
>a good thing? As of this moment, the govt. are considering
>a privacy law, but it is unlikely to succeed. Why? Because any
>such law would benefit the priviledged and those in power.
>Privacy laws, while supposedly protecting the individual, help
>those in power hide their mistakes/scandals. They stop the press
>etc. investigating. Privacy laws are undemocratic - they prevent
>the people from keeping an eye on govt.
Agreed again.
|
| Show full article (6.12Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
