I feel good that Slow Code doesn't have a ham license and is poisoning
the ham bands like he does the newsgroups. What's your call Slow Code?


On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:23:00 GMT, matt vk3zmw
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Then make a couple CW contacts this weekend.

You'll get up from your rig afterwards and feel pretty good about being a
ham again.

SC

Actually, just make a couple of contacts in any mode. Too many stations
sit unused week after week, month after month...

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 05:49:49 -0500, john wrote:
I feel good that Slow Code doesn't have a ham license and is poisoning
the ham bands like he does the newsgroups. What's your call Slow Code?


On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:23:00 GMT, matt vk3zmw
wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Then make a couple CW contacts this weekend.

You'll get up from your rig afterwards and feel pretty good about being a
ham again.

SC

Actually, just make a couple of contacts in any mode. Too many stations
sit unused week after week, month after month...


Top posting is a sign of inexperience. You are probably a newbie on the
net. Go to news.groups and read the FAQ on Usenet etiquette first. After
that, come back here and post properly and I will give you my call.

SC

Slow Code wrote:

SC
Actually, just make a couple of contacts in any mode. Too many stations
sit unused week after week, month after month...

Top posting is a sign of inexperience. You are probably a newbie on the
net. Go to news.groups and read the FAQ on Usenet etiquette first. After
that, come back here and post properly and I will give you my call.

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the same quoted
material as we progressed through a thread. Bottom posting forced everyone on
the newsgroup to fully download every article waisting tons of our very limited
bandwidth and time. Top posting allowed you to get right to the meat of the
article in the first few seconds of downloading... and it allowed you the option
of continuing to footnotes if you really needed to.

You newbies have dozens of ways of trying to impose your will on the group.
Most of your so called rules of etiquette are simply you following the bottom
posting convention that was set up as a default on internet explorer. Rn,
trn, tin, and other premicrosloth news readers defaulted to top posting.

You are so spoiled by high bandwidth and large amounts of memory that you
think that a posting arrives at your machine in its full length instantly..
and for all practical purposes, it does.

I can go either way. I do, however, get very tired of having to scroll through
the same old quoted crap at the top of post after post... just to get to the bottom
and find the highly informative, but typical, "me too" tacked onto the end.

-Chuck

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Slow Code wrote:

SC
Actually, just make a couple of contacts in any mode. Too many stations
sit unused week after week, month after month...

Top posting is a sign of inexperience. You are probably a newbie on the
net. Go to news.groups and read the FAQ on Usenet etiquette first. After
that, come back here and post properly and I will give you my call.

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET, so don't bother to backpedal by
claiming dialup speeds. (And of course Usenet didn't even begin until
the 80's, shortly after ARPANET had ended.)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.

Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the University
of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost thousands of dollars
per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that to the backbones of today
which are measured in terrabits per second. These 56K backbones were
connected to mainframe computers that acted as concentrators, and provided
connections to other mainframes, and to thousands of users on timesharing
systems. Yes, I have that right, *thousands* of users shared a single 56K
backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer room)
were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but those who
were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old bell 103,
110 to 300 baud modems.

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,

Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.

If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)

so don't bother to backpedal by

I'm sorry, I don't backpedal for idiots. I don't brake for them either.

claiming dialup speeds. (And of course Usenet didn't even begin until
the 80's, shortly after ARPANET had ended.)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.

Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere, doesn't
mean you can understand what you have read.

-Chuck

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:40:08 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the
same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.

Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the University
of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost thousands of dollars
per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that to the backbones of today
which are measured in terrabits per second. These 56K backbones were
connected to mainframe computers that acted as concentrators, and provided
connections to other mainframes, and to thousands of users on timesharing
systems. Yes, I have that right, *thousands* of users shared a single 56K
backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer room)
were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but those who
were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old bell 103,
110 to 300 baud modems.

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,

Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.

So you think that 1000 users at your location were always using
ARPANET simultaneously? Please don't tell me that someone gave you an
engineering degree, because you obviously didn't understand the course
work.

If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.

Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere, doesn't
mean you can understand what you have read.

Comer's books on TCP/IP are standards, and they don't involve a wiki.
They happen to be in my library of reference textbooks, and they
happen to be standard references kept in all university libraries.

The claim about slow speeds on ARPANET and Usenet is quite stupid.
ARPANET and Usenet did not exist at the same time. ARPANET didn't use
TCP/IP protocol, and it gave way to what is now called the Internet
when TCP/IP became the standard packet delivery protocol. Shortly
after that, the message posting system called Usenet was formalized to
run on the Internet and on several other message delivery systems
(such as UUCP). So your reference to ARPANET is simply irrelevant.
ARPANET and Usenet never coexisted, making the claims about 300 bps
and other speed limitations total BS intended to impress the ignorant.

Enough said. Conversation ended. You don't seem to be worth any
followup messages until you do some additional reading.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:40:08 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the
same quoted
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.
Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the University
of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost thousands of dollars
per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that to the backbones of today
which are measured in terrabits per second. These 56K backbones were
connected to mainframe computers that acted as concentrators, and provided
connections to other mainframes, and to thousands of users on timesharing
systems. Yes, I have that right, *thousands* of users shared a single 56K
backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer room)
were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but those who
were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old bell 103,
110 to 300 baud modems.

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,
Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.

So you think that 1000 users at your location were always using
ARPANET simultaneously? Please don't tell me that someone gave you an
engineering degree, because you obviously didn't understand the course
work.

And gee, you only had to read the next sentence to see that I said no such
thing. Look down.


If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.
Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere, doesn't
mean you can understand what you have read.

Comer's books on TCP/IP are standards, and they don't involve a wiki.
They happen to be in my library of reference textbooks, and they
happen to be standard references kept in all university libraries.

Just because you can find the names of some books by using google, doesn't
mean you have ever read them, or understood them. I have copies of all three
volumes of "Internetworking with TCP/IP- Client -Server Programming and
Applications" by Douglas E. Comer, and David L. Stevens, Prentice Hall on
my book shelf. (pick a page, any page, and I'll give you a quotation from it.)

If you note the copyright date of this series, you will see 1993. A mere
20 years after I started working with GE's world wide networks... top posting
my email on model 33 teletypes with bell 103 modems.


The claim about slow speeds on ARPANET and Usenet is quite stupid.

Really? Well, I suppose you think that everyone had 56K connections back
in the '70's. I worked in the Electrical Engineering department at the
University of Maryland, back then, and we were pretty proud of our first
9600 baud connection between the PDP11's, and the Univac's that had the
darpa connection. It wasn't until we got a VAX 11/780 that we got a
56K pipe to the Univac's that connected to the darpanet. That was around
1980. I think diapers were you most prominent media for communication back
then.

ARPANET and Usenet did not exist at the same time. ARPANET didn't use
TCP/IP protocol, and it gave way to what is now called the Internet
when TCP/IP became the standard packet delivery protocol.

Prior to usenet, a variation on email, we were using email broadcast lists.
The same top posting rules applied.

Usenet came into being while I was in graduate school, around 1980-83. I
remember there was quite a buzz at that time. Decwriters were 300 baud,
and the most common affortable modems were still using the Bell 103 standard
from the late '50s. 1200 baud modems were used for expensive applications,
usually computer to computer data transfer. The 1200 baud modem didn't come
into general use until DC Hayes produced an inexpensive model around 1983.
It was a real screamer compared to the Bell 103's.

Shortly
after that, the message posting system called Usenet was formalized to
run on the Internet and on several other message delivery systems
(such as UUCP). So your reference to ARPANET is simply irrelevant.
ARPANET and Usenet never coexisted, making the claims about 300 bps
and other speed limitations total BS intended to impress the ignorant.

Enough said. Conversation ended. You don't seem to be worth any
followup messages until you do some additional reading.

I don't need to read about it, I was there doing it. My first
exposure to a world wide network was GE's back around 1970. It was the
first commercial use of a global network. The normal terminal to connect
to that net was a Model 33 Teletype, with a bell 103 modem. I bet you
think they used Windows based PC's with 56K modems, and Netscape.

-Chuck

From: Chuck Harris on Sat, Oct 7 2006 12:40 pm

Thank you for the explanation. As a user on a corporate system
(RCA Corporation, EASD, Van Nuys, CA) '73 to '75, and with a
Tym-Share account (the time-sharing computer company), I concur.

Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

[Blowcode's ears must be ringing all the time from his
"bull**** detector" going off on his own postings... :-) ]

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.

Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the University
of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost thousands of dollars
per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that to the backbones of today
which are measured in terrabits per second. These 56K backbones were
connected to mainframe computers that acted as concentrators, and provided
connections to other mainframes, and to thousands of users on timesharing
systems. Yes, I have that right, *thousands* of users shared a single 56K
backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer room)
were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but those who
were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old bell 103,
110 to 300 baud modems.

Heh heh heh...the "high tech" of its time, a mere 30+ years
ago. "Speedy" Teletype Model 33s (?) and "high speed" 300
baud video terminals (with local memory to print out screens
on Teletypes) where I was using it. :-)

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,

Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.

If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)

"Concentrators" still exist but in a vastly different form,
configuration, and specifications. As a personal computer
hobbyist since '76 I've not delved into them (no need to for
personal dial-up connections) but know many who are; they
have supplied some interesting literature on them as well as
in-person explanations.

so don't bother to backpedal by

I'm sorry, I don't backpedal for idiots. I don't brake for them either.

Blowcode is the road kill of this newsgroup...

claiming dialup speeds. (And of course Usenet didn't even begin until
the 80's, shortly after ARPANET had ended.)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.

Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere, doesn't
mean you can understand what you have read.

HAAAAAA... :-)

Blowcode has never stated his amateur license call. Perhaps
he has "forgotten" it? :-)

" wrote in
ps.com:

From: Chuck Harris on Sat, Oct 7 2006 12:40 pm

Thank you for the explanation. As a user on a corporate system
(RCA Corporation, EASD, Van Nuys, CA) '73 to '75, and with a
Tym-Share account (the time-sharing computer company), I concur.

Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:

Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on
the internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That
was because we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300
baud, and it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the
same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an
authoritative statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

[Blowcode's ears must be ringing all the time from his
"bull**** detector" going off on his own postings... :-) ]

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.

Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the
University of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost
thousands of dollars per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that
to the backbones of today which are measured in terrabits per second.
These 56K backbones were connected to mainframe computers that acted as
concentrators, and provided connections to other mainframes, and to
thousands of users on timesharing systems. Yes, I have that right,
*thousands* of users shared a single 56K backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer
room) were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but
those who were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old
bell 103, 110 to 300 baud modems.

Heh heh heh...the "high tech" of its time, a mere 30+ years
ago. "Speedy" Teletype Model 33s (?) and "high speed" 300
baud video terminals (with local memory to print out screens
on Teletypes) where I was using it. :-)

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,

Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.

If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)

"Concentrators" still exist but in a vastly different form,
configuration, and specifications. As a personal computer
hobbyist since '76 I've not delved into them (no need to for
personal dial-up connections) but know many who are; they
have supplied some interesting literature on them as well as
in-person explanations.

so don't bother to backpedal by

I'm sorry, I don't backpedal for idiots. I don't brake for them either.

Blowcode is the road kill of this newsgroup...

claiming dialup speeds. (And of course Usenet didn't even begin until
the 80's, shortly after ARPANET had ended.)

Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.

Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere,
doesn't mean you can understand what you have read.

HAAAAAA... :-)

Blowcode has never stated his amateur license call. Perhaps
he has "forgotten" it? :-)




I haven't forgotten it. It's a real 20WPM extra class licence. Not one of
them cheap Nickled down hand-out ones. Heee Heeee Heeeeeeeeee.

Ten-Four Len?

SC

On 10/7/06 10:42 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:28:25 +0000 (UTC), (Slow Code)
wrote:

stop you welching sc
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

I reported your abuse to this and other boards, to your service provider.
Hopefully they will shut you down.