Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OS/2 anyone.
129 views
Skip to first unread message
dccxxvii
Nov 16, 2012, 4:55:44 AM11/16/12
to
Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
other OS's?
--
========
dccxxvii
========
junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
other OS's?
--
========
dccxxvii
========
Carl
Nov 16, 2012, 2:04:56 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/12 3:55 AM, dccxxvii wrote:
> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
> other OS's?
>
If a computer does what you want and need, why upgrade?
> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
> other OS's?
>
srojas...@yahoo.com.mx
Nov 17, 2012, 4:43:16 AM11/17/12
to
but is fun
i still have my Os/2 warp 3 disks, I wish I had the cd
dccxxvii
Nov 17, 2012, 2:51:37 PM11/17/12
to
Carl ( ca...@noaddress.invalid ) wrote to comp.os.os2.advocacy:
Is OS/2 an upgrade though? That's the question....
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
--
========
dccxxvii
========
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
--
========
dccxxvii
========
dccxxvii
Nov 17, 2012, 2:51:39 PM11/17/12
to
srojasramirez ( ) wrote to comp.os.os2.advocacy:
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, dccxxvii wrote:
>> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora
>>of
>> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested
>>in
>> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference
>>to
>> other OS's?
> Why use it: for reacreational purposes, I sometime like to use my old
though there is little linux is more convenient for if I'm honest. The
thing is OS/2 costs a not inconsiderable amount of money while Linux is
free...
--
========
dccxxvii
========
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, dccxxvii wrote:
>> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora
>>of
>> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested
>>in
>> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference
>>to
>> other OS's?
>OSs (win 95, 98,winme, **OS/2**) just to see how they were, and try
>to use it in my daily work, of course not always with the result I
>wanted but is fun
>
>i still have my Os/2 warp 3 disks, I wish I had the cd
That seems a sensible point of view, I dual boot linux and windows
>to use it in my daily work, of course not always with the result I
>wanted but is fun
>
>i still have my Os/2 warp 3 disks, I wish I had the cd
though there is little linux is more convenient for if I'm honest. The
thing is OS/2 costs a not inconsiderable amount of money while Linux is
free...
--
========
dccxxvii
========
Carl
Nov 19, 2012, 1:03:20 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/17/12 1:51 PM, dccxxvii wrote:
> Carl ( ca...@noaddress.invalid ) wrote to comp.os.os2.advocacy:
>
>> On 11/16/12 3:55 AM, dccxxvii wrote:
>>> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
>>> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
>>> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference
>>> to other OS's?
>>>
>>
>> If a computer does what you want and need, why upgrade?
>
> Is OS/2 an upgrade though? That's the question....
Not by today's measure, I would say.
> Carl ( ca...@noaddress.invalid ) wrote to comp.os.os2.advocacy:
>
>> On 11/16/12 3:55 AM, dccxxvii wrote:
>>> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
>>> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
>>> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference
>>> to other OS's?
>>>
>>
>> If a computer does what you want and need, why upgrade?
>
> Is OS/2 an upgrade though? That's the question....
However, if you have been using OS/2 for the past two decades, you might
not feel like upgrading if you think that modern systems don't really
offer that much additional value.
dccxxvii
Nov 20, 2012, 5:33:01 AM11/20/12
to
--
========
dccxxvii
========
Hello, Purbeck
Nov 28, 2012, 1:48:47 PM11/28/12
to
Man!
HP
Bob Campbell
Dec 29, 2012, 12:07:45 PM12/29/12
to
On 11/16/12 04:55 am, dccxxvii wrote:
> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
> other OS's?
There is really no reason to use OS/2 as your only computer these days.
> Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
> junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
> OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
> other OS's?
Unless you like banging your head against the wall.
However, it remains an interesting thing to play with. The challenge
of getting it to do anything useful is fun - assuming you like
challenges. For example, I just got the networking going, and got
Thunderbird running here.
I used to use OS/2 all the time, but that was 20 years ago. It got me
thru the Windows 3.0/3.1 era. OS/2 2.1 and 3.0 ran Win 3.1 and DOS apps
better than Win 3.1 and DOS. When Win 95 and NT 4 became available, I
abandoned OS/2 since it was clear IBM was also. When Will Zachmann
came to the same conclusion a year or so later, everyone knew it was all
over for OS/2.
These days OS/2 is little more than a historical curiosity. Along with
others like the many Unix OSes (Coherent, Xenix etc. among many others I
had), the Apple Lisa, the Apple ///, TRS-80s and the dozen or so OSes
they had, CPM etc. etc.
All gone, some nearly forgotten.
tholen@antìspam.ham
Jan 5, 2013, 1:53:58 PM1/5/13
to
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:07:45 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
1> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> There is really no reason to use OS/2 as your only computer these days.
1> Unless you like banging your head against the wall.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> However, it remains an interesting thing to play with.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1> The challenge of getting it to do anything useful is fun - assuming
1> you like challenges.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> For example, I just got the networking going, and got Thunderbird
1> running here.
Good for you.
1> I used to use OS/2 all the time, but that was 20 years ago. It got me
1> thru the Windows 3.0/3.1 era.
It can get you thru[sic] the Windows 8 era, too.
1> OS/2 2.1 and 3.0 ran Win 3.1 and DOS apps better than Win 3.1 and
1> DOS.
Classic pontification.
1> When Win 95 and NT 4 became available, I abandoned OS/2 since it was
1> clear IBM was also. When Will Zachmann came to the same conclusion a
1> year or so later, everyone knew it was all over for OS/2.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> These days OS/2 is little more than a historical curiosity.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> Along with others like the many Unix OSes (Coherent, Xenix etc. among
1> many others I had), the Apple Lisa, the Apple ///, TRS-80s and the
1> dozen or so OSes they had, CPM etc. etc.
What does that have to do with OS/2, Campbell?
1> All gone, some nearly forgotten.
Unlike OS/2.
1> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> There is really no reason to use OS/2 as your only computer these days.
1> Unless you like banging your head against the wall.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> However, it remains an interesting thing to play with.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1> The challenge of getting it to do anything useful is fun - assuming
1> you like challenges.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> For example, I just got the networking going, and got Thunderbird
1> running here.
Good for you.
1> I used to use OS/2 all the time, but that was 20 years ago. It got me
1> thru the Windows 3.0/3.1 era.
It can get you thru[sic] the Windows 8 era, too.
1> OS/2 2.1 and 3.0 ran Win 3.1 and DOS apps better than Win 3.1 and
1> DOS.
Classic pontification.
1> When Win 95 and NT 4 became available, I abandoned OS/2 since it was
1> clear IBM was also. When Will Zachmann came to the same conclusion a
1> year or so later, everyone knew it was all over for OS/2.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> These days OS/2 is little more than a historical curiosity.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1> Along with others like the many Unix OSes (Coherent, Xenix etc. among
1> many others I had), the Apple Lisa, the Apple ///, TRS-80s and the
1> dozen or so OSes they had, CPM etc. etc.
What does that have to do with OS/2, Campbell?
1> All gone, some nearly forgotten.
Unlike OS/2.
Message has been deleted
Jason Page
Jan 1, 2014, 1:29:15 PM1/1/14
to
To help appreciate OS/2 watch the NT / OS/2 shootout. OS/2 still manages pre-emptive multi-threaded multitasking better than anything I have seen today. For example application resources including process demands are protected for example to prevent a video from skipping just beacause you launched another application.
Search NT OS/2 Shootout on youtube.
On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, dccxxvii wrote:
Search NT OS/2 Shootout on youtube.
On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, dccxxvii wrote:
Jason Page
Jan 1, 2014, 1:28:40 PM1/1/14
to
To help appreciate OS/2 watch the NT / OS/2 shootout. OS/2 still manages pre-emptive multi-threaded multitasking better than anything I have seen today. For example application resources including process demands are protected for example to prevent a video from skipping just beacause you launched another application.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, dccxxvii wrote:
Jason Page
Jan 1, 2014, 1:26:40 PM1/1/14
to
To appreciate OS/2 best you'd have to watch the OS/2 NT Shootout. OS/2 still does pre-emptive multithreaded multitasking better than windows as far as protecting the application's system resources as to prevent a video from skipping for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
dizzy
Jun 28, 2015, 10:08:27 PM6/28/15
to
"dccxxvii" <the.impe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
>junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
>OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
>other OS's?
The tholokook is back, calls himself "th003n", now.
>Now that the troll tholen has seemingly departed and the plethora of
>junk he generated has died down, would anyone actually interested in
>OS/2 like to give me reasons why I might want use it in preference to
>other OS's?
th003n
Jul 13, 2015, 9:15:12 AM7/13/15
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:08:25 -0500, dizzy wrote:
9159> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
9159> The tholokook is back,
Who is "The tholokook", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
9159> calls himself "th003n", now.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with OS/2, dizzy?
9159> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
9159> The tholokook is back,
Who is "The tholokook", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
9159> calls himself "th003n", now.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with OS/2, dizzy?
mart...@gmail.com
May 19, 2018, 7:39:22 AM5/19/18
to
Den onsdag 1 januari 2014 kl. 19:26:40 UTC+1 skrev Jason Page:
> To appreciate OS/2 best you'd have to watch the OS/2 NT Shootout. OS/2 still does pre-emptive multithreaded multitasking better than windows as far as protecting the application's system resources as to prevent a video from skipping for example.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
I have seen that video before, and also now. I did not find any such things that supports your claims that the the multitasking or multithreading is not as good in NT as OS/2.
> To appreciate OS/2 best you'd have to watch the OS/2 NT Shootout. OS/2 still does pre-emptive multithreaded multitasking better than windows as far as protecting the application's system resources as to prevent a video from skipping for example.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DAojx2Hgec
Personally I used DOS/W3.1, OS/2 2.11 and Warp 3, NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4, and FreeBSD. Each had it + and -, and even if I liked many aspects of OS/2 (better DOS support), I did not have any problems with either NT or *BSD (DOS and Win3.x was of course sub par technically).
tholen
May 19, 2018, 12:30:45 PM5/19/18
to
On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:39:21 -0700, martinot wrote:
> I have seen that video before, and also now. I did not find any such
> things that supports your claims that the the multitasking or
> multithreading is not as good in NT as OS/2.
>
> Personally I used DOS/W3.1, OS/2 2.11 and Warp 3, NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4,
> and FreeBSD. Each had it + and -, and even if I liked many aspects of
> OS/2 (better DOS support), I did not have any problems with either NT or
> *BSD (DOS and Win3.x was of course sub par technically).
Windows 10 is also sub-par technically, martinot, not to mention it spies
> I have seen that video before, and also now. I did not find any such
> things that supports your claims that the the multitasking or
> multithreading is not as good in NT as OS/2.
>
> Personally I used DOS/W3.1, OS/2 2.11 and Warp 3, NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4,
> and FreeBSD. Each had it + and -, and even if I liked many aspects of
> OS/2 (better DOS support), I did not have any problems with either NT or
> *BSD (DOS and Win3.x was of course sub par technically).
on you and you can't turn that off, nor the auto-updater that takes
features away (e.g. Restore previous versions) so Microsoft can rent them
back to you (e.g. ads for Microsoft OneDrive cluttering up your Explorer
windows that no longer have Restore previous versions).
You won't find OS/2 pulling such shenanigans, martinot.
mart...@gmail.com
May 19, 2018, 3:50:29 PM5/19/18
to
A clear plus for old systems like NT and OS/2, or modern OSS alternatives, like *BSD and Linux.
tholen
May 19, 2018, 6:41:13 PM5/19/18
to
cannot, martinot?
mart...@gmail.com
May 20, 2018, 3:50:53 AM5/20/18
to
But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
tholen
May 20, 2018, 12:32:40 PM5/20/18
to
On Sun, 20 May 2018 00:50:52 -0700, martinot wrote:
> Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it
> the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I
> must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
> nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2
> machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered
> from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
> 5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
> DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
Classic nostalgia.
> Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it
> the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I
> must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
> nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2
> machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered
> from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
> 5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
> DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
> But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
> way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
> modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
Dave Yeo
May 20, 2018, 2:13:36 PM5/20/18
to
pretty useless. Wireless is another example.
Dave
tholen
May 20, 2018, 4:04:21 PM5/20/18
to
On Sun, 20 May 2018 11:14:12 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
1> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
1> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> pretty useless.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
1> Wireless is another example.
Of what, Yeo?
1> Dave
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
Dave Yeo
May 20, 2018, 7:12:26 PM5/20/18
to
tholen wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 11:14:12 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
> 1> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
> 1> Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
> 1> pretty useless.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
> only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
Why?
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 11:14:12 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
> 1> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
> 1> Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
> 1> pretty useless.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
> only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
>
> 1> Wireless is another example.
>
> Of what, Yeo?
>
> 1> Dave
>
> What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
>
advocacy group. Note that I'm actually posting from OS/2.
Dave
tholen
May 20, 2018, 7:19:57 PM5/20/18
to
On Sun, 20 May 2018 16:13:04 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
2> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
2> Why?
What use is it, Yeo, if OS/2 is useless on it?
2> Something that doesn't work on OS/2.
What use is it, Yeo, if OS/2 is useless on it?
2> The real question is why are you posting from Windows to an OS/2
2> advocacy group.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
2> Note that I'm actually posting from OS/2.
Classic pontification.
2> Dave
2> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
2> Why?
What use is it, Yeo, if OS/2 is useless on it?
2> Something that doesn't work on OS/2.
What use is it, Yeo, if OS/2 is useless on it?
2> The real question is why are you posting from Windows to an OS/2
2> advocacy group.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
2> Note that I'm actually posting from OS/2.
Classic pontification.
2> Dave
Double-A
May 21, 2018, 6:16:55 PM5/21/18
to
Oh the hypocrisy!
For shame!
Double-A
mart...@gmail.com
May 21, 2018, 6:59:24 PM5/21/18
to
Den söndag 20 maj 2018 kl. 18:32:40 UTC+2 skrev tholen:
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 00:50:52 -0700, martinot wrote:
>
> > Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it
> > the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I
> > must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
> > nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2
> > machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered
> > from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
> > 5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
> > DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
>
> Classic nostalgia.
Indeed!
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 00:50:52 -0700, martinot wrote:
>
> > Oooh. I guess I didn't really expect anyone to use OS/2 today (I used it
> > the middle of the 90'ies), so I have not considered it that way at all I
> > must admit. I do have the idea to run it on some machines for my
> > nostalgia experience. I just bought an old Apple ][+ and an old IBM PS/2
> > machine for that nostalgia purpose. When I get my PS/2 machine delivered
> > from eBay, I think I will load up an old copy of OS/2 2.11 and IBM DOS
> > 5.0 with Windows 2.11 (for my newly acquired Apple ][+ it will be Apple
> > DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 2.x).
>
> Classic nostalgia.
> > But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
> > way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
> > modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
>
> But what good are those, if they won't run OS/2?
tholen
May 21, 2018, 11:32:28 PM5/21/18
to
On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:59:23 -0700, martinot wrote:
> Indeed!
Classic pontification.
> Haha - good question! :D
Classic pontification.
> Indeed!
Classic pontification.
> Haha - good question! :D
tholen
May 21, 2018, 11:33:47 PM5/21/18
to
On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:16:54 -0700, Double-A wrote:
1042> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1042> I am shocked that Tholen is not even using OS/2 to post here!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Oh the hypocrisy!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
1042> For shame!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Double-A
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Double-A?
1042> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1042> I am shocked that Tholen is not even using OS/2 to post here!
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Oh the hypocrisy!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Classic erroneous presupposition.
1042> Double-A
What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Double-A?
Double-A
May 22, 2018, 5:00:24 PM5/22/18
to
tholen
May 23, 2018, 1:39:36 PM5/23/18
to
On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:00:22 -0700, Double-A wrote:
1043> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1043> Pedant!
What does your pedantry have to do with OS/2, Double-A?
1043> Newsgroups:comp.os.os2.advocacy
1043> Pedant!
What does your pedantry have to do with OS/2, Double-A?
dizzy
May 24, 2018, 8:46:02 PM5/24/18
to
tholen tholed:
> martinot wrote:
>
>> But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
>> way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
>> modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
>
>But what good are those, if they won't run OS/2?
"Nice" logic, tholoon!
> martinot wrote:
>
>> But to answer your question directly (if it was serious and ment that
>> way, and not just bantering and kidding with me); I would guess to run
>> modern 64-bit applications on current modern 64-bit machines.
>
>But what good are those, if they won't run OS/2?
dizzy
May 24, 2018, 8:59:36 PM5/24/18
to
tholen tholed:
> Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>1> Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
>1> pretty useless.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
>only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
>
>1> Wireless is another example.
>
>Of what, Yeo?
Of OS/2 not supporting the latest hardware, kooky.
Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
>1> Dave
>
>What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
> Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>1> Use more hardware. eg if you have a computer with only USB3, OS/2 is
>1> pretty useless.
>
>Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If you have a computer with
>only USB3, Yeo, that computer is pretty useless.
>
>1> Wireless is another example.
>
>Of what, Yeo?
Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
>1> Dave
>
>What does your alias have to do with OS/2, Yeo?
tholen
May 25, 2018, 12:53:42 AM5/25/18
to
On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:46:01 -0500, dizzy wrote:
1856> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1856> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
1856> "Nice" logic, tholoon!
Who is "tholoon", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
1856> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1856> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
1856> "Nice" logic, tholoon!
Who is "tholoon", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
tholen
May 25, 2018, 12:55:35 AM5/25/18
to
On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:59:35 -0500, dizzy wrote:
1857> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1857> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
1857> Of OS/2 not supporting the latest hardware, kooky.
Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
1857> Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
1857> What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
1857> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1857> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
1857> Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
1857> What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
Richard
May 25, 2018, 4:08:59 PM5/25/18
to
In article <r8negd5uffgdmfdn2...@4ax.com>
dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> th003n tholed:
> Why your long hiatuses, kooky?
Zzzz.
dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> th003n tholed:
Zzzz.
Double-A
May 25, 2018, 5:19:18 PM5/25/18
to
tholen
May 25, 2018, 6:10:25 PM5/25/18
to
On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:06:11 +0000, Richard wrote:
1> Newsgroups: alt.test,comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> Zzzz.
What does that have to do with OS/2, Richard?
1> Newsgroups: alt.test,comp.os.os2.advocacy
1> Zzzz.
What does that have to do with OS/2, Richard?
tholen
May 25, 2018, 6:11:41 PM5/25/18
to
On Fri, 25 May 2018 14:19:17 -0700, Double-A wrote:
1044> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1044> The hot lava burning at Tholen's toes has woken him up!
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, Double-A?
1044> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1044> The hot lava burning at Tholen's toes has woken him up!
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
dizzy
Jun 12, 2018, 7:12:24 PM6/12/18
to
tholen tholed:
>On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:59:35 -0500, dizzy wrote:
>
>1857> Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
>
>What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
>OS/2, dizzy?
You are erroneously presupposing that my claim was unsubstantiated and
erroneous, tholen.
>1857> What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
>
>Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
The answer is above, tholen. Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems, tholen?
>On Thu, 24 May 2018 19:59:35 -0500, dizzy wrote:
>
>1857> Before you ask, tholen, YOU are "kooky".
>
>What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
>OS/2, dizzy?
erroneous, tholen.
>1857> What does your evasion of obvious points have to do with OS/2, kooky?
>
>Who is "kooky", dizzy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
comprehension problems, tholen?
tholen
Jun 13, 2018, 3:20:59 AM6/13/18
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:12:22 -0500, dizzy wrote:
1858> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1858> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
1858> You are erroneously presupposing that my claim was unsubstantiated
1858> and erroneous, tholen.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
1858> The answer is above, tholen.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
1858> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, tholen?
What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do
with OS/2, dizzy?
1858> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
1858> tholen tholed:
What was allegedly endured while writing, dizzy?
1858> and erroneous, tholen.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
OS/2, dizzy?
What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do
with OS/2, dizzy?
0 new messages