Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Michael A. Terrell]

Timelord wrote:

As I said before The only thing that would any good was to forward
the entire email with all headdress. For tracing
Your original email suggest strongly an invasion type phashing email
And that is all I can say without seeing the original email

So you are saying that Sam is too stupid to read the headers and
check the IP address? You need a glass belly button, and a new tinfoil
hat.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[UCLAN]

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

It is done as a courtesy. Many ppl set their kill-filter to
automatically delete anything either OT or off-topic in the subject
line. You didn't have to click on it.

You didn't answer my question (not a total surprise), so I'll ask again:

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

 

[UCLAN]

Raymond Wiker wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Fleetie wrote:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.

Keep telling yourself that.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[UCLAN]

Raymond Wiker wrote:

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

You're hopefully just pulling my leg... but if not, I
suggest you consult a dictionary.

Uh, OK.

la·bel /ˈleɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - [ley-buhl] noun, verb, -beled, -bel·ing
or (especially British) -belled, -bel¡ling.

 

[Raymond Wiker]

UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> writes:

Raymond Wiker wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?
Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

Which does not in any way imply that it is incorrect "American
English".

 

[Fleetie]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Fleetie wrote:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Keep telling yourself that.

I shall!


Martin

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, "Fleetie"
<fleetie@fleetie.demon.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and composed:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Martin

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists, so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass", or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Timelord]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eKednSX-T7_VjvDVnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@earthlink.com...

Timelord wrote:

As I said before The only thing that would any good was to forward
the entire email with all headdress. For tracing
Your original email suggest strongly an invasion type phashing email
And that is all I can say without seeing the original email


So you are saying that Sam is too stupid to read the headers and
check the IP address? You need a glass belly button, and a new tinfoil
hat.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

Michael,
You really need to stay out of this conversation altogether...
leave this one to same and I!
--
Thanks,
Timelord
Charlie's Place BBS, Newsgroups - Games - Files - Gifs
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 2.03
Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 - telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023 - ftp://cpbbs.synchro.net:8021/00index.html

 

[Timelord]

"me" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:J8ednXTGYfAF-PDV4p2dnAA@giganews.com...

Timelord wrote:

"me" <me@privacy.net> wrote...

Timelord wrote:

Third In order to do any good Sam would have to send the
original email to me.

What part of

"He clearly stated 'The letter came via the ebay internal mail
system as well as to my email address.' Unless he is just a
total liar (and if he is you would be stupid to trust any copy
of any email he sent you; he could simply edit a legit email
from ebay if he is a liar) this proves that your 'it was a
fake email that fooled you' theory is wrong."

are you having trouble understanding?

Hi Sam,

Moron.

Unfortunately for you I do understand quite well ( I write Internet security
programs in my spare time ) This is the third time I have heard this story.
In the previous 2 both were Phishing emails sent by Sync-Spoof process.
and it takes a very good eye to tell. It has bin my experience that Ebay
will not admit that things like go on anywhere in the world. How ever
this particular spoof is call the Russian Ebay Con Job. And you have sent me
no information
to the contrary. Thus the conversation must end. I can find no reason to
continue this.It is
very unreasonable sort of thing... Goodbye
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 2.03
Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 - telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023 - ftp://cpbbs.synchro.net:8021/00index.html

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Timelord wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eKednSX-T7_VjvDVnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@earthlink.com...

Timelord wrote:

As I said before The only thing that would any good was to forward
the entire email with all headdress. For tracing
Your original email suggest strongly an invasion type phashing email
And that is all I can say without seeing the original email


So you are saying that Sam is too stupid to read the headers and
check the IP address? You need a glass belly button, and a new tinfoil
hat.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.


Michael,
You really need to stay out of this conversation altogether...
leave this one to same and I!

You need to learn how to mind your own business. You keep posting the
same crap, over and over. Sam said he fixed the problem, so drop your
BS.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Matthew Fries]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists, so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass", or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

- Franc Zabkar

I have noticed that some formal American authors use a double "had".
For instance, they would write "He had had a heart attack". It seems
very silly to me that they would use an extra "had", when one would do
just fine. I then read a biography of this author and he described
that early in his career, he was writing for magazines, and the
publishers would pay the author by the word.

It occurred to me that this might just be a very small way to make a
little extra money. Since America is all about the capitalism, this
makes a little sense. Maybe that would answer the "off of" question.

Thanks.


Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries Minneapolis, MN USA
freeze@baloneyvisi.com

"Quit eating all my *STUFF*!" - The Tick

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net>
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar


In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"... When talking of
removing say a single item from a group of items, there is a growing trend to
say "separate out", or "separating out". This is clearly an example of word
redundancy. The verb "separate" denotes that an item has been, or is to be,
"removed" or "taken out", so there is no need to include the "out" after the
verb "separate". I have even heard academics and english lecturers using this
redundancy, thus further promoting its use in the community.

If I simply say I am "separating item A from a group of items" this clearly
means I am "taking out" item A and leaving the rest of the items in the group.
If I say I am "separating out item A from a group of items" it follows that I
must be "taking out" out item A from a group of items. Not correct,is it?

 

[msg]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar


In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"...

Quid pro quo, I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_ good tech support"
instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good tech support". A 'company' is
a singular noun.

Michael

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/3/08 7:42 PM, in article 486D8DFA.1221.alt_lasers@cpbbs.synchro.net,
"Timelord" <timelord@cpbbs.synchro.net.remove-4lu-this> wrote:

"me" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:J8ednXTGYfAF-PDV4p2dnAA@giganews.com...



Timelord wrote:

"me" <me@privacy.net> wrote...

Timelord wrote:

Third In order to do any good Sam would have to send the
original email to me.

What part of

"He clearly stated 'The letter came via the ebay internal mail
system as well as to my email address.' Unless he is just a
total liar (and if he is you would be stupid to trust any copy
of any email he sent you; he could simply edit a legit email
from ebay if he is a liar) this proves that your 'it was a
fake email that fooled you' theory is wrong."

are you having trouble understanding?

Hi Sam,

Moron.

Unfortunately for you I do understand quite well ( I write Internet security
programs in my spare time ) This is the third time I have heard this story.
In the previous 2 both were Phishing emails sent by Sync-Spoof process.
and it takes a very good eye to tell. It has bin my experience that Ebay
will not admit that things like go on anywhere in the world. How ever
this particular spoof is call the Russian Ebay Con Job. And you have sent me
no information
to the contrary. Thus the conversation must end. I can find no reason to
continue this.It is
very unreasonable sort of thing... Goodbye
--- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 2.03
Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 -
telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023 - ftp://cpbbs.synchro.net:8021/00index.html

Bye. Don't let the door whap your posterior.

 

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:

Quid pro quo, I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_ good tech support"
instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good tech support". A 'company' is
a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

Kal

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar

In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"... When talking of
removing say a single item from a group of items, there is a growing trend to
say "separate out", or "separating out". This is clearly an example of word
redundancy. The verb "separate" denotes that an item has been, or is to be,
"removed" or "taken out", so there is no need to include the "out" after the
verb "separate". I have even heard academics and english lecturers using this
redundancy, thus further promoting its use in the community.

If I simply say I am "separating item A from a group of items" this clearly
means I am "taking out" item A and leaving the rest of the items in the group.
If I say I am "separating out item A from a group of items" it follows that I
must be "taking out" out item A from a group of items. Not correct,is it?

I've never heard that term used in the US. 'Delete an item' was all
I've ever seen.

OTOH, in manufacturing, several different BOMs can be issued for
variations in a single base model. The base item is in the XXX-XXX-00
format, and each customized version is incremented by 1.

For instance: I worked on telemetry equipment. We offered a wide
range of IF and video bandwidths. The customer could chose any 12 they
needed, and if they needed something special, we would create a new BOM
for that custom order. In this system, nothing is ever removed, deleted,
dropped or any other phrase. This allowed us to quickly do custom
runs, or build a replacement board or module when it was damaged in the
field. We had a customer try to modify some IF modules at their site,
and destroyed every board they touched. Another advantage was if a
customer ordered spare equipment a year or two later we would pull up
their previous order which listed the top level BOM for that design, and
the MRP software would generate the entire set of BOMs for the order,
and tell purchasing to order anything that was needed, like sheetmetal
and front panels.


http://www.microdyne-telemetry.com/images/IMG_7129sm2.JPG shows one of
the customizable products we built. The two recievers are from the 700
series.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:38:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:n3cs64hfjlr5i2vtsgdus6bh1p9sggj601@4ax.com...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:

I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_
good tech support" instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good
tech support". A 'company' is a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

I hate this. If one is referring to The United States as a country, then
"is" is correct, "are" is wrong. (The change, by the way, occurred after the
Civil War. The US was now "one" country.)

Of course. It was an attempt at a humorous analogy.

However, the "collective singular" is totally illogical. The singular is
"team", the plural "teams". So you say "The team is hoping to win", not "The
team are hoping to win". The subject and verb must agree, and this usage is
ungrammatical, plain and simple.

True. That is current American usage but, apparently, not British
usage.

Kal

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:17 pm, UCLAN <nom...@thanks.org> wrote:
Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.

No, but looks more and more like the UK wants to be the asshole of
the universe.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Oisín Mac Fhearaí]

On Jul 3, 7:17 pm, UCLAN <nom...@thanks.org> wrote:

Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

   Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.