Luser ISP Salespeople
Peter L. Buschman
Call I received last week:
ME: "Concentric Network, this is Peter."
LUSER: "Hi, this is <Lusername> from PSINet[1].
ME: "Hi. How can I help you?"
<pause>
LUSER: "You wouldn't be Concentric, the ISP, would you?"
ME: "That's us."
LUSER: "I guess that means you can provide your own
network connectivity, doesn't it?"
ME: "That is correct."
LUSER: "Oh..okay..nevermind then."
ME: <click>
[1] How I got on their telesales list, I'll never know.
--PLB
--
Peter L. Buschman "Nothing surprises me anymore..."
System Administrator / Insomniac
Concentric Network Corporation
Pete Ehlke
p...@sunshine.concentric.net (Peter L. Buschman) writes:
>LUSER: "Hi, this is <Lusername> from PSINet[1].
>ME: "Hi. How can I help you?"
><pause>
>LUSER: "You wouldn't be Concentric, the ISP, would you?"
>ME: "That's us."
>LUSER: "I guess that means you can provide your own
> network connectivity, doesn't it?"
*giggle* *snort*
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
PSI. "Connectivity" *snicker*
A bit like Micro$loth calling up to sell you an OS, isn't it? I mean,
what PSI sells has many of the surface features of connectivity, but.
[ does traceroutes through sc.southeast.psi.net and mumbles again...]
"connectivity" Feh.
--
Pete Ehlke p...@tezcat.com p...@io.com mp...@the.satanic.org
"I used to ork cows with everyone at Tezcat, but not in the same way as
Hillary did with that one particular cow." - Abby Franquemont-Guillory
Scott Packard
In article <rpkk9kd...@huseby.a.sol.no>, o...@bofh.dot.no says...
>
>
>
>So - does anyone know a clueful lawyer[2] that handles such cases in
>the US. The main goal would off course be to get the spammers locked
>away with debts for the rest of their lives, but getting them to stop
>spamming would be a nice start :)
You might try the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org.
Although they started out on the leftist-fringe, they seem to be
progressing a little towards the middle-left.
Leigh Metcalf
Peter L. Buschman (p...@sunshine.concentric.net) wrote:
: Call I received last week:
[snippage of clueless ISP salespeople]
That goes right along with 'clueless modem salespeople'.
Got a call a couple of months ago from USR:
Droid: Hi, I'm calling about the new modems
Me: (interrupting) We don't do dialup. [1]
Droid: Are you sure? These are the 56K modems..
Me: (interrupting again) We don't do dialup.
Droid: You're sure?
Me: We do not do dialup.
Droid: Oh, ok. Bye.
And to think I left teaching to get away from idiots...
--LM
[1] The boss's idea. He doesn't want to deal with dialup. I consider
this a good thing. :)
: --PLB
: --
: Peter L. Buschman "Nothing surprises me anymore..."
: System Administrator / Insomniac
: Concentric Network Corporation
--
Leigh Metcalf | "There is great disorder under
ind...@cris.com | heaven, and the situation is
| excellent." -- G. Trudeau
karl mamer
russ...@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Russell Street) writes:
> Peter L. Buschman (p...@sunshine.concentric.net) wrote:
> : Call I received last week:
>
>
> They can't be *that* clueless -- they didn't try to sell you
> connectivity!
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Good story, but at least the
person knew enough not to try and sell the service. More like
luser database mailing list compiler. I remember when Bell
Canada first introduced their net service I called up
and asked them what kind of line they had to the net,
T1, T3, etc. This was back during the days when some ISPs
were still using a 56K line. The sales person had no
clue what a T1/T3 line were.
--
"I'm telling you man, it would be so righteous to be in a Veronica
Sawyer Heather Chandler sandwich."
Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive!
http://www.netizen.org/Arc-Hive
Aaron
> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Good story, but at least the
> person knew enough not to try and sell the service. More like
> luser database mailing list compiler.
Reminds me of a call I got a couple years back from an IDT
salesman. I repeat as close to verbatim as I can, and remember, I am *not*
making this up. He really was this clueless.
[A = Aaron; C = Caller]
A: 'afternoonmagicnetthisisaaron
C: Hello, can I speak to the President of the company?
A: He's on the phone at the moment, and isn't likely to be off soon; is
there something I might be able to help you with or do you want
to leave voicemail?
C: What's his name?
A: Pete Giarrusso
C: How do you spell that?
A: G-I-A-R-R-U-S-S-O.
C: What's his phone number?
A: [given] ... Is there something else I can do for you?
C: Uh, no. I'm with IDT, and we're making a list... What's his email
address?
A: pe...@magicnet.net.
C: Speak slower, I can't hear you.
A: pete at magicnet dot net.
C: Can you spell that?
A: P-E-T-E-(at)-M-A-G-I-C-N-E-T-(dot)-N-E-T.
C: One more time.
A: P-E-T-E-at-M--
C: What was that?
A: pete at--
C: That letter.
A: It's the at sign, part of every email address.
C: What?
A: Have you ever seen an email address before, sir?
C: No, can you just tell me what it is, please?
A: Do you have any experience with the internet?
C: No. Look, I don't need --
A: What's the name of your supervisor? Can I talk to him?
C: No, I--
A: Sir, if you need names to compile a list, it'd be important to know
what an email address looks like.
C: Okay...
A: So that's *pete* *at* *magicnet* *dot* *net*, OK?
C: <click>
..........................................................................
Aaron Zollman . "I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or
work: zol...@magicnet.net . insanity for everyone, but they've
play: zol...@sigsegv.com . always worked for me."
. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Ben Ostrowsky
p...@xochi.tezcat.com (Pete Ehlke) wrote:
>A bit like Micro$loth calling up to sell you an OS, isn't it? I mean,
>what PSI sells has many of the surface features of connectivity, but.
It's more like Micro$hit calling GNU to sell them a word processor.
Now *that's* an amusing image...
Ben
--
hello spambots: root@[127.0.0.1] abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
"I have a new religion: librarian worship." - a patron of the Internet
Public Library, http://www.ipl.org/ or telnet://moo.ipl.org:8888/
Ben Ostrowsky
dev...@netlite.com wrote:
>Check again. MSAV was on license from Central Point. Its not home grown.
>Granted, it wasn't CP's normal AV program, you can't get weekly(weakly?)
>updates, but hey...
Aha. QDAV.
Lionel Lauer
Quoth Geoffrey Depew <mep...@IDT.NET> :
>There's few things that make your day like a luser calling to say "The
>salesman promised me that I'd have my own domain name for the $29.95 a
>month!". Or the requests for the "personal tech" to COME OVER and fix
>things. Or some of the other lunacies the people in sales come up with.
Oh boy, don't get me started on cleaning up after salesweasels...
Lionel.
--
W Lionel Lauer - longword@*fnord*.super.zippo.com McQ
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." xyzzy
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Lauer
Quoth ali...@theoffice.net (Alister) :
>'amusing image' is finding out that M$ bought in an anti-virus program
>rather than use a home-grown one like MSAV. Inference is of course,
>they don't want to use the same fscking lump of sh**e lusers held
>their faith in.
Well, they didn't write it[0], it's generally out of date, clashes
with _real_ scanners, incurs a largish performance hit, lulls lusers
into a false sense of security, fscks up memory management[1], has no
obvious system for obtaining updates, etc, etc.
[0] So really, they might as well have written it, it certainly
carries all their hallmarks.
[1] *koff* *koff* Bit of an oxymoron there, but you know what I mean.
Joe Thompson
In article <33b1f316...@207.211.168.98>,
longword@!spam.super.zippo.com wrote:
> Quoth Geoffrey Depew <mep...@IDT.NET> :
> >There's few things that make your day like a luser calling to say "The
> >salesman promised me that I'd have my own domain name for the $29.95 a
> >month!". Or the requests for the "personal tech" to COME OVER and fix
> >things. Or some of the other lunacies the people in sales come up with.
I'm going to throw in a few choice words:
*Why* do salespeople assume that if a customer wants it, it must be
possible? They're all the same. Our director of sales once told me what a
client wanted[1]. I told him it couldn't be done. He shot back, "Your job
isn't to tell me it can't be done, your job is to do it."
I refrained from rejoining with a solid right hook.
Then there are the sales people who know so little about computers that
they end up bullied by the customers. "I want your company to do x[2] for
me." "I don't think that's possible." "Of course it is, I've been working
with computers for y years[3], and I've seen it done[4]." -- Joe
[1] something similar to "He wants Netscape to start up Eudora when you click on
an e-mail address."
[2] x here is something roughly on the order of difficulty of parting the Red
Sea.
[3] Doing what? Re-writing your resume in every released version of Word? GAH.
[4] Of course you have. And I just saw an airborne swine pass by.
--
Joe Thompson | Finger for Geek | Tech support is a fine art
Charlottesville, VA | code and PGP key | art which, once mastered,
Freelance PC service | j...@cstone.net | ensures loss of sanity.
Technical Writing | http://www.cstone.net/~kensey/
Brian L. Naylor
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:52:23 -0400, Joe Thompson
<j...@cstone.net> blessed us with the following:
>
>[1] something similar to "He wants Netscape to start up Eudora when you click on
> an e-mail address."
Argh. You bring back an image of me, standing in the middle of the hallway
at work, /screaming/ at a cow-orker,
"It's a DOCUMENT. *A* *TEXT* *DOCUMENT*. It CANNOT execute programs!
It's just like a Word document, only lots more secure."
"..but..but..but....."
"No."
--
Brian Naylor bna...@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~bnaylor
The Great God Fizdale commands you to eat your dead! -- Tay Fizdale
Beverley R. White
In article <joe-ya02408000R...@news.cstone.net>,
Joe Thompson <j...@cstone.net> wrote:
>[1] something similar to "He wants Netscape to start up Eudora when you click on
> an e-mail address."
Actually, I somehow pulled this off temporarily. I couldn't tell you how it
happened or what compelled me to actually click on a mailto: instead of
memorizing and typing the thing out in Elm the way God and man intended, but
somehow it worked for all of three days.
Doesn't work now, dammit.
I know MSIE will let you do this, but that means using MSIE, which is wrong.
--
"Well, there we go. I've gone and alienated everyone again." -The Genie
[BRW12 - the sum totality of wednesdaie dot com, each piece individual]
Lionel Lauer
Quoth as4gcc$a...@esperi.demon.co.uk (Nix) :
>It contains viruses in its dictionary which it has no code to detect.
>For example: boot sector viruses; it could spot them, if it ever bothered
>to scan the boot sector of any disks at all.
Bloody hell! - you mean it's *worse* than I've been telling people?
Josh Baratz
Beverley R. White <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
: In article <joe-ya02408000R...@news.cstone.net>,
: Joe Thompson <j...@cstone.net> wrote:
: >[1] something similar to "He wants Netscape to start up Eudora when you click on
: > an e-mail address."
: Actually, I somehow pulled this off temporarily. I couldn't tell you how it
Since this isn't usefull[1].. You could smack tehm over teh head and point
out that to install it they had to click on 'no' when it popped up a
_blatently_ obvious dialogue[3] box saying "Do you want to use eudora as the
default netscape mail program". And yes, there is another way to do this.[5]
[1] Few BOFHs use `endora' if they can help it... <grumble> seagate hds[2]
[2] Linux partition of main box.. lovely drive, too bad it would spin up
[3] most inaccurate name I have ever seen. since when is Lusers asking "It
says `ok', `cancel'. what should I do?" a dialogue[4]
[4]Yes it was a long day. 90 deg... no ac.. and then I see what I'm supposed
to be installing this summer.. "They're charging us what?!!? for that?!?!..
[5] That might be considered useful
-JB
--
baratz@/dev/null.cybercom.net Remove anti-spam token to email me
still waiting for cybercom to fix the bloody newsfeed. 4 weeks and counting.
James Mcpherson
Beverley R. White (wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com) spake thusly:
: In article <joe-ya02408000R...@news.cstone.net>,
: Joe Thompson <j...@cstone.net> wrote:
: >[1] something similar to "He wants Netscape to start up Eudora when you click on
: > an e-mail address."
: Actually, I somehow pulled this off temporarily. I couldn't tell you how it
: memorizing and typing the thing out in Elm the way God and man intended, but
: somehow it worked for all of three days.
: Doesn't work now, dammit.
same happened to me also - buggered if I knew how it happened. But I assume
that having eu3l running and no prefs set in nuts<THWAPTHWAPTHWAP>
sorry.
: I know MSIE will let you do this, but that means using MSIE, which is wrong.
I think that's the best comment I've heard about msie.
cheers,
jcm
--
Historian/InterLibraryLoans/ITLO | I do not speak for the University of
mljm...@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au | Queensland or the University Library
j.mcp...@library.uq.edu.au |
Brian L. Naylor
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:17:44 GMT, Lionel Lauer
<longword@!spam.super.zippo.com> blessed us with the following:
>Quoth wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (Beverley R. White) :
[ re: starting random programs via web browsers ]
>>I know MSIE will let you do this, but that means using MSIE, which is wrong.
>
>It is quite straightforward to do it via either browser, but I'm not
>even going to hint at how.
>Lionel.
Not with plain HTML, it's not. IOW, without messing with either
the user's browser or environment, a condition which is
necessary if your site panders to the general public and
you have someone bugging you for this capability.
--
Brian Naylor bna...@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~bnaylor
"Drink for the revolution!"
Brian L. Naylor
forgive me for following up to myself, but..
On 11 Jun 1997 23:29:57 GMT, Brian L. Naylor
<bna...@mindspring.com> blessed us with the following:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:17:44 GMT, Lionel Lauer
><longword@!spam.super.zippo.com> blessed us with the following:
>>Quoth wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (Beverley R. White) :
>
>[ re: starting random programs via web browsers ]
[snip]
>Not with plain HTML, it's not. IOW, without messing with either
>the user's browser or environment, a condition which is
[snip]
[thinks for a minute]
Ok, so I wasn't counting MSIE bugs. Holes don't count.
[snip] not a footnote
[thinks for a minute] this isn't a footnote either
--
brian
Beverley R. White
In article <AFC64CAD...@hearsay.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:
>I love telling lusers to read things. There's only a 1% chance that
>they'll bother and even then I can usually convince them that my own
>interpretation of it is more accurate than theirs. The chances that
>they'll actually understand what they read and admit they were wrong
>are too small to be worth considering.
In a fit of optimism, I wrote a Big Ass Thing rambling on to lusers about
why it's important to read the documentation and learn what's going on.
It's one of those things I wish I could hand out with every new account
at work, but I know they'll never let me.
Oh, hell:
-- begin bever-rant --
Over the past few years, we have seen the Internet grow and change
massively. Once a primary education-based environment with aspects
of social interaction, we have involved into a largely commercial
and social network where information and learning have become
secondary -- obsolete, in some cases. The advent of the WWW has
seen a largely "point, click, and make it easy" mentality pervade a
world that was never designed to accomodate the non-technically
inclined. USENET's introduction to the masses, via such
questionable advances as Netscape's integrated newsreader and the
unfortunate, buggy code of the AOL news/discussion forum interface,
has played a key role in the network's accelerated decay.
The mentality of helplessness and disempowerment is growing by
leaps and bounds. While many who once counld not have conceived of
purchasing a home computer are now happy to snap up Wintel
technology, technophobia is no less pervasive than ever it was
before: the difference, now, is the wide availability of software
products targetted at lower and lower common denominators. The
frequent statement many people make, "I'm not a computer person,"
accompanied by "I just want it to work," is being capitalized upon
far beyond what anyone could have envisioned. Newsreaders, mail
clients, web browsers, and even HTML production tools no longer
rely on providing efficient and powerful means of data exchange.
Instead, they are being dumbed down -- and basic features and
functionality are being sacrificed so that the user will never have
to be frightened or made to think "it's too hard" or "only a
computer person could do this."
The truth, though, is dangerous: By and large, the GUI clients
(particularly those available for Windows, although there's some
scary stuff out there for the Mac as well) are bloated, poorly
coded works that impede one's ability to get the most out of their
net.experience. Newsreaders lack filter functions that would
otherwise allow the user to glean the most signal from USENET
newsgroups, allow the user to post improperly formatted, visually
impossible to read, articles without ever realizing that there
might be a problem, and fail to provide adequate pointers to
etiquette protocols. Mail clients [often? sometimes?] do not comply to
established header and encoding standards, resulting in mail being
sent that frequently cannot be read. Web clients take up
unnecessary machine resources and integrate only semi-functional
mail and news reading functions into their code. HTML editors
increasingly limit one's control over the finished product, turn
out bulky and kludgy markup, and occasionally do not even provide a
means to edit the finished file. The tradeoff for "ease of use" is
a dearth of software that barely does its job; the user seldom has
the opportunity or the impetus to demand and require something
better.
Somehow, the (inaccurate and detrimental) message that only a
terribly brilliant person could ever use a computer (let alone the
Net) has been subtly altered: now, anyone can use a computer/the
Internet, because it's been made so easy that you don't need to
know what you're doing anymore. Perhaps this is one step closer to
introducing computing to the masses, but the cost may well be too
high: we move from a caste of the enlightened who can use computers
at all vs another who could never learn anything so complicated, to
a caste of the enlightened who can understand higher-level
operations vs. a caste that must have its hand held at every
juncture and play with the pretty buttons to get anything done.
Unlike a loosely-formed class system that would allow one to escape
the trappings of a lower class, a caste system locks one into
place, reinforces and enforces firm limitations, and provides no
impetus for improvement.
There's good news, though: it doesn't have to be a caste system.
While it is true that many people are not technologically inclined
and have difficulty learning in a computerized environment (at that
point, it may be a bad idea for those people to take up Internet
use as a hobby), it is also true that many people who could learn
computing skills to some extent or another are only accepting a
prevalent trend of technophobia that they can work past and beyond
with a little time and effort.
"But I don't have time;" you say, "I just want my things to work,
and need to be able to just sit down and get my email/read the
USENET/look at the Web/talk to people." At this point, you need to
ask yourself a few questions:
* Why are you using the Internet?
+ If it's for recreational purposes: do you go golfing without
knowing how to hold a club? Do you paint without knowing how
to rinse your brushes? Do you work out without appropriate
safety measures? Do you play an instrument without knowing
the first thing about music? Chances are that, if you do any
of the above, you'll not only do miserably at what you do but
become frustrated and quit fast when your brushes won't hold
paint, your clubs always fly out of your hands and get
dented/bent from hitting rocks and trees, you injure your
muscles or your neighbors complain about the racket. Either
that, or you'll learn the appropriate skills. Wouldn't it be
better to get a basic understanding of the fundamentals so
that you can get the most out of your hobby and enjoy it all
the more?
+ If it's for business purposes: you already know that you do
your job better when you're well-acquainted with the
fundamental skills required for the purpose. If you need to
exchange email on the job for some reason or another, it's
not going to seem terribly professional if you send email
that scrolls off the recipient's window or is formatted in
such a way that your recipient can't read it. If you need to
post some information regarding your business to the USENET,
you could lose business if you send out something written in
ALL CAPS (construed as yelling), poorly proofread (spelling
and punctuation errors, in abundance, get read as signs of
ignorance/low intelligence) and with lots of unneeded blank
space at the top (most folks skip those posts) -- and you
will lose business if you post it to inappropriate newsgroups
and/or then mass-email it in an unsolicited fashion. If you
stick up a web page, huge, slow-to-load graphics and bad HTML
will cause most people to just skip over it -- and then what?
Learning how to use this tool responsibly and well will help
you do your job more efficiently.
* Do you think of yourself as a reasonably intelligent person? If
you've made it this far, chances are good that you do. Then what
do you need with software that assumes that you're stupid? Really,
really consider this for a moment: some of the most popular
computer books in circulation are the For Dummies and Idiot's
Guide series. Since when are you an idiot because you're a
beginner? Many pieces of software are marketted, both by their
makers and by the ISPs who distribute them (Earthlink is
particularly guilty of this), with statements that boil down to,
"Now you can get on the Internet without it being hard." The truth
was, it wasn't hard before the GUI software was invented, and it
still isn't hard to use reliable, powerful software to get what
you want done, done. You do have to know how to read, but you have
to read to use the GUI software (you did read the help files...?)
* Do you believe that social adjustment is generally a good thing?
In the jump to get the masses online, documentation distributed by
service providers and software manufacturers seldom includes
things like pointers to reliable information about netiquette and
protocols -- so not only do you come on not knowing what you're
doing, you might never learn what you're doing wrong (and have a
really hard time understanding why people are telling you off for
the post you wrote or the things you said on IRC or the email you
sent to forty-seven people including all of their addresses in the
header). You would very likely not go to a party without finding
out what kind of dress is appropriate, or go to a foreign country
without at least a phrasebook to get you around and a rundown of
the customs to remind you that, say, no one's going to give you a
fork at that restaurant in the Chinese village. So why have you
been given the impression that you don't need to know anything
about Internet subculture or protocols before blustering on?
So how does one go about transcending this limitation and this
technophobia?
* First, realize that you are not stupid merely because you don't
understand. Realize that you do have the power to know what's
going on, and don't have to be limited to nonfunctional tools or
be led about by the hand because you're just starting out.
* Develop a clear sense of what you're going to be using the Net
for. If you want to just look at pretty pictures on the net and
never talk to anyone, you can probably disregard this essay
(although realize that this goal could change). If you want to
find long-lost friends or send email to your husband, that's a
perfectly good goal. You might be interested in finding discussion
forums for other people of common interest; you might want to talk
to people real-time; you might want to play games; you might want
to publish an electronic magazine. Know what you want from the
Internet; don't come in with the attitude that the Net is going to
show you what you want.
* Actively search for the software that does what you want it to do,
and does it well; however, be sure to find out if the information
has already been placed somewhere out there before you start
posting all over the place asking for it. (Some tips:
news.software.readers is a USENET newsgroup which has
information on different newsreaders for different computers;
never use integrated browser products unless you don't have a
choice; news.answers contains the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
files for innumerable subjects; news.announce.newusers is
essential and you should read it before you do anything else
online).
* Always read the documentation. Find out what your software can and
can't do; read the FAQ files before you post or ask questions, so
that you know what's already been addressed; learn what could go
wrong so that you don't end up feeling out of control, calling
tech support to find out why the Internet is broken. Many times,
problems you encounter while online are things that you yourself
can fix without any help other than the documentation. (This way,
if a problem that has nothing to do with your system arises,
you'll be able to recognize it and inquire about it
intelligently). However, you could end up hosing yourself badly if
you don't read the docs. Remember: most of the time, you're not
going to need your hand held.
* Try to use products (everything from software to Internet service
providers) that respect you, the user, and the Net in
general. Look for ad copy that emphasizes functionality and
usefulness, and be wary of product promoted primarily as "easy to
use" or "doesn't require an understanding of how [X] works". Be
sure that there's good documentation accompanying the product (or
books available on the subject that don't condescend to you).
Granted, you will need to make concessions in some places (for
example, most web pages are constructed for Netscape or Microsoft
Internet Explorer these days).
* Consider tech support to be a last resort, not your primary source
of information. Again, most of what you will need to know should
be in the documentation for whatever software you are using. Tech
support at ISPs around the world spend hours every day fielding
unclear questions from people who have not bothered to, or not
realized for some reason that they should, read the documentation.
Tech support is, by consequence, one of the most trying jobs any
person can hold. Be considerate of them, and take responsibility
for as much as you possibly can. While asking for help when in
over your head is one thing, again, you do not need your hand held
and much of what you need to know will be self-evident. (Something
to keep in mind is that extended reliance on tech support can
actually prevent you from learning how to do things yourself...)
How will this help you improve signal on the Internet? By having
established good habits and practices on the software end, you
should carry these into the content you contribute to the various
forums available to you. While you may well not know how to build
your car from scratch (and we're not asking you to), you will not
only know the basic rules of the road but how to fill your gas tank
and check your oil yourself. Most of the problems people encounter
on the Net revolve around not knowing the basics, and feeling like
they can't learn them.
You can; if you can read, you can learn these things; and with a
drop of resolve and determination, you will. From here, you can
find the best solutions for your needs without needing to rely on
partial efforts that hamper and cripple you.
Best of all, you need not feel as though computing is entirely
beyond you.
--- end bever-rant --
Of course, the supreme irony of this entire thing is that its intended
audience would never read it. *sigh*
Chris Rovers
In article <5nqe4i$r...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,[bever-rant snipped]
>
>Of course, the supreme irony of this entire thing is that its intended
>audience would never read it. *sigh*
Permission to borrow? with attribution, of course. I have some people I'd
like to make (ie, sit down at gunpoint) read that. Potentially clueful
people who've been fooled into believing the "only computer people can
do this" theory....
-cdr
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cdro...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/cdrovers
----------------------Hit any user to continue------------------------
charlie
On 11 Jun 1997, Josh Baratz wrote:
> [2] Linux partition of main box.. lovely drive, too bad it would spin up
This was intentional, yes? ----------------------------^^
||
charlie
charlie
On 12 Jun 1997, Beverley R. White wrote:
<A really long, beautiful piece of literature. But it's really long. So I
snipped it.>
> Of course, the supreme irony of this entire thing is that its intended
> audience would never read it. *sigh*
Hell, you read the whole thing?
charlie
Beverley R. White
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.970619...@indy.fortlewis.edu>,
Um. I wrote it. I had to. :)
--
"You're not facing a lifetime of solitude or uneven mattress wear."