| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 16th 06, 01:48 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
|
|
#2
October 17th 06, 12:37 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
|
|
#3
October 17th 06, 01:32 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
|
|
#4
October 19th 06, 04:57 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm
wrote: Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are factual. Give us an example. You GOT the "example." He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946. Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was incorrect. You copied off the Moore School website PR material. In itself that material is either incomplete or erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that "ENIAC changed the world." The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on who had the first electronic computer. The judge's decision was that Iowa State University had it, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC"). Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further, Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's trip to Iowa to see the "ABC." If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL "first electronic computer," just go to: http://www.iastate.edu And follow the links. There's many pages of information on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand. Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the ENIAC. As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic. Really?!? WTF are you talking about? Look at the Iowa State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it. More importantly, the original was never completed. "Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about? It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period. As far as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic computer. [TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first" electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff- Berry Computer of 1939] ENIAC was fully operational for over a decade - NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short- lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights to the machine). The US Army took it over (having paid for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it. ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer. Get used to it. ABC was not finished until 1998. Bull****. What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between 1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC" had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams, even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those were used to build the REPLICA. "ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it was on. Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff and Berry had to use what was available. "High-speed" mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the "Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an equivalent charge storage for each bit. ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form. At best is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip," putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago. But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete. It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its intended tasks. The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain problems. It did that. While it was NEVER intended to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST. Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed and operational by 1946. ABC was not. False. Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly, "ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years prior to the ENIAC first running. The patent in question was not relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed, electronic digital computer. The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie, the TIME FRAME. 1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC. Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC. Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC, Jimmie. It is NOT "high speed" at all. It was slower in operation than my Apple ][+ of 1980. It was slower than ALL of the first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and 1970s. "Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for a single task according to some REAL computer history sites and textbooks. That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of the time. That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue. I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it? The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic history. 'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest' organization. ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY, Jimmie, it lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is "for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin] Sorry, Jimmie, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. Try untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never served in any military, don't know how to fight for your or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and deserves every comment it gets, good or bad. |
|
#6
October 20th 06, 04:34 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm wrote: Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are factual. Give us an example. You GOT the "example." Where? I think you can't provide one, and are just dodging the facts. He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946. Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was incorrect. You copied off the Moore School website PR material. Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken. Here's one source: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html And another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac There's also the book about ENIAC, which you probably haven't/won't read. In itself that material is either incomplete or erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that "ENIAC changed the world." Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken. ENIAC *did* change the world. It was the true beginning of modern computing. It's the root of the tree: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html Is the US Army wrong? The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on who had the first electronic computer. So what? That does not contradict what I wrote. ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose, electronic digital computer. That's what I wrote before, and it's a fact. The judge's decision was that Iowa State University had it, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC"). The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose, electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further, Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's trip to Iowa to see the "ABC." No one denied that - not even Mauchly himself. If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL "first electronic computer," just go to: http://www.iastate.edu The Iowa State PR site. And follow the links. What links? Can't you provide something more direct? There's many pages of information on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand. Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the ENIAC. The ABC was not even a true computer. As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic. Really?!? WTF are you talking about? The facts, Len. It was part electronic and part electromechanical. Motors and switching drums, storage of intermediate results on paper, and much more. Look at the Iowa State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it. Which prove my point. More importantly, the original was never completed. "Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about? It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period. Nope. It was never fully operational. It never completed a full-scale calculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer As far as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic computer. Was the judge an engineer? The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose, electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC. [TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first" electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff- Berry Computer of 1939] The ABC was not a computer in the modern sense. Or even in the 1945 sense. All the ABC was designed to do was to solve systems of linear equations. It could not do anything else. By definition, a true computer is Turing-complete. ENIAC was Turing-complete, ABC was not. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not. End of story. ENIAC was fully operational for over a decade - NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short- lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights to the machine). Boy, Len, you really are on a roll with the mistakes. You make 'em in quantity! ENIAC was fully operational at the Moore School *and* at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. That's not an opinion - it's the official Army history: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html The US Army took it over (having paid for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it. Eckert and Mauchly came up with the idea and convinced the Army to fund it. The Army accepted and used ENIAC for almost a decade. The improvements suggested by John Von Neumann (note the spelling) were later incorporated, as were other improvements by the original inventors. ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer. Who said it was? Not me. ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose, electronic digital computer. ABC was a special purpose calculator. Get used to it. Take your own advice. ABC was not finished until 1998. Bull****. No, a fact. What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between 1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC" had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams, even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those were used to build the REPLICA. Because the original was never fully operational. Explain how something that is not fully operational can be complete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer "ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it was on. An electromechanical system. Not electronic. Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff and Berry had to use what was available. So they used an electromechanical system rather than an electronic system. They also used paper storage for intermediate results. "High-speed" mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the "Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an equivalent charge storage for each bit. So? What's your point? ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form. Doesn't matter. Even as ENIAC was being built, Eckert and Mauchly thought up improvements, which wound up in EDVAC. They could not be included in ENIAC because the design phase was over. Had to meet the schedules. ENIAC worked for almost a decade. The original ABC was never fully functional and was abandoned for more than five decades. At best is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip," putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago. Irrelevant. But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete. It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its intended tasks. Incorrect on both counts. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer All the ABC could do was solve systems of linear equations. That's all Atanasoff intended, and he abandoned the machine for other work. He and Berry did not challenge the ENIAC patents - Honeywell did, because IBM was trying to use them to monopolize the industry. That monopoly attempt backfired on Big Blue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain problems. It did that. Systems of linear equations and nothing else. That's a special-purpose calculator, not a computer. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not. End of story. While it was NEVER intended to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST. The court was about the patents. A patent does not require a fully operational example, either. All it requires is that the concept not contradict known science. Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed and operational by 1946. ABC was not. False. No, true. Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly, "ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years prior to the ENIAC first running. Not according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer The patent in question was not relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed, electronic digital computer. The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie, Who is this person you call "Jimmie", Len? My name is Jim. "Jimmie" isn't me. the TIME FRAME. 1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC. Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC. How? What elements were used? The addition-subtraction method was completely different. ENIAC did not use an electromechanical drum and did not use binary. If anything, Mauchly was more influenced by the counting circuits he had used previously for other purposes. Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC, No. It is NOT "high speed" at all. Not by today's standards. It was slower in operation than my Apple ][+ of 1980. It was slower than ALL of the first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and 1970s. Irrelevant. ENIAC was high speed because it was orders of magnitude faster than anything that had existed before. ABC used a 60 Hz clock - ENIAC was more than 100 times faster. Faster than any previous machine by at least an order of magnitude, usually by several orders of magnitude. "Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for a single task according to some REAL computer history sites and textbooks. Writing software takes time, Len. That's what they were doing. That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of the time. That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue. I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it? Sour grapes, You should know. The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic history. Nope. 'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest' organization. You're really on a roll with the nonsense, Len. Give a concrete, factual example for a change. Oh wait - you can't. Facts aren't your style. ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY, it lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is "for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin] "The good of amateur radio" is an opinion, Len. Aren't they allowed to put forth an opinion? Sorry, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. No, it isn't. It's a typical bunch of your errors, mistakes, and general attention-seeking nonsense. Try untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never served in any military, don't know how to fight for your or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and deserves every comment it gets, good or bad. Why should you let facts stand in the way, Len? That's not your style. Here are those references again: ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS Index: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html Chap 2 on ENIAC: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html Tree of Computing: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html Other references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac |
|
#7
October 19th 06, 12:06 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm Or maybe she's a figment of his imagination and Robesin would have to roll out her old RRAP account when he's much too busy creating new accounts for our geophysicist visitors. "Geophysicists?" :-) Why sure, Leonard. Your pal, Col. Mark Morgan has now confessed to being a geophysicist. From some of his message headers, he is missing his id. Must have missed those. shrug Hawaii is the new rock-and-roll state. Newington, CT, will ignore it as it does all other things west of the Mississippi River... There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright falsehood. Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake. Texas is west of the Mississippi. Do you think hams will be a part of the action in the wake of the flooding there? For years he has tried to avoid posting anything anywhere to document his alleged 18-year active USMC career. He won't even make it available as private e-mail. I served in the military only four years, Len. I've posted nothing here in documenting my active duty service. I've not, nor would I ever make any such documentation available to you in an e-mail. Look what kind of things you've written about my active duty military service. Go figure! That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of the time. Naturally, those who attended the "parochial school" of the Church of St. Hiram will pick up on the technique. You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
|
#8
October 19th 06, 04:55 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote: From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright falsehood. "Outright falsehoods?" Illuminate the group with your godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-) Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake. Have CNN or Fox News carried acounts of hams "up handling communication" in the aftermath of the [Hawaii] earthquake? How about ABC, CBS, or NBC? Any major newspapers? The Hawaii 6.7-Richter earthquake is OVER, senior. No loss of life. Property damage, some. Utility damage, some. The Governor of Hawaii has been quoted (several times) as saying "Hawaii is open for business!" :-) Is amateur radio about business? Sorry, it can't be. FCC defines USA amateur radio as being done WITHOUT pecuniary interest. No money for services rendered. That doesn't sound like any "business" in the normal sense. Texas is west of the Mississippi. Fantastic bit of TRIVIA, mister atlas. :-) Or do we call you Rand or McNally? :-) I served in the military only four years, Len. That's four MORE years than some civilian in PA served. :-) I've posted nothing here in documenting my active duty service. Not a word? Oh, THAT is a complete FALSEHOOD! :-) I've not, nor would I ever make any such documentation available to you in an e-mail. How about making it available to law enforcement? :-) Look what kind of things you've written about my active duty military service. Tsk, I've failed to acknowledge your glorious heroism in "a country at war?" Oh, my. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... You need some medal or ribbon to highlight your "active duty military service?" BUY some. They are easy to purchase. Somebody with the license call K4YZ has done that, hasn't he? :-) Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document that. Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank Gilliland has made it available. I've got a whole 20-page photo essay posted on what I did. You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio. Sorry, but I Pledge from time to time. Good furniture polish and dusting treatment. I don't tithe amateur radio. It is NOT a religion. It isn't a recognized religion. Except maybe in a small town in Connecticutt? :-) Tsk, tsk, I've been a hobbyist in radio and electronics for 59 years, still doing that. I've been a professional (as in accepting compensation for work performed) for 54 years, still doing that (but not now in regular office hours). I partake all I want, anytime I want. Fascinating thing this radio-electronics thing. Made it my career choice. I have a COMMERCIAL radio operator license, even had a BUSINESS radio license. I got "baptised" (using your ugly and insulting term) back in 1953 doing high-power long-distance HF transmitting. I've since transmitted legally from the air (at the controls of an aircraft) and from the sea (from a private boat on HF SSB). I've worked a station ON the moon...something amateurs have NEVER done. :-) Well, yes, I would imagine YOU think of ham radio as some kind of "religion" where mantra is everything but the technology is too ethereal for you to understand. Take heart, your epiphany may come, even without anyone kicking your phany. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
|
#9
October 19th 06, 11:46 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
|
|
#10
October 19th 06, 11:13 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTN: Mrs x: You Let Him Lie Like This In Public?
From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am
[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?] wrote: From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm wrote: From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm Opinions are not sacred, Len. Yes they are, Jimmie. Amateur extra morsemen hold the code test to be SACRED forever and ever. All those against it tell "falsehoods" because they are against it. :-) Not even yours. The mere fact that someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you are arguing against yourself there! So, I state an OPINION that you don't like and it is a "falsehood." But, because it IS an opinion, PREVENTS it from being a "falsehood." :-) Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead, you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They aren't. WTF are you babbling about? Did you put on the Mother Superior habit already, knuckle- spank ruler at the ready to correct "improper grammar?" Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document that. Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof. PRECISELY! [it took a while for that to sink in your brain, but it did!] BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER. Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank Gilliland has made it available. So? Who are *you* to demand proof? A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be. Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a veteran. When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in military service it becomes very serious indeed. One helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio hobby with imagined self-glory. Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you were assigned to did? Both. You can read it via: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf About 6 MB file size, takes 19 minutes download on dial-up. Lots of photos in there in case you have trouble with the technological words. Its about something YOU can NEVER have, Jimmie. You never volunteered for military service...even when you had the chance. You are NO JUDGE over any military unit activities. As ever to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Direct Question for Brian P Burke, N0IMD. | Policy | |||
| Embarrassing Moments Caught on Tape | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
