info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
158.152.1.43 and '58
31 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 14, 2020, 12:16:08 PM6/14/20
to
I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
anyway, and they're working.
I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."
DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
anyway, and they're working.
I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Joe
Jun 14, 2020, 12:20:45 PM6/14/20
to
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 17:15:51 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
> DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
> and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
> Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
> anyway, and they're working.
>
> I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which
> is faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big
> ones.
>
> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
> something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check
> yours
It wasn't their entire range, I had two fixed addresses from them, the
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
> DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
> and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
> Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
> anyway, and they're working.
>
> I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which
> is faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big
> ones.
>
> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
> something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check
> yours
dial-up and broadband were different blocks, they were widely spaced and
neither were in the 158.152 block.
--
Joe
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 14, 2020, 12:40:18 PM6/14/20
to
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 17:15:51, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
>something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
(Thanks Joe for your reply to the last bit.)
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
>something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
I just tried changing the .1. to .2. in both places (they're in
Configure | Service Access...), and tried a ping (of a name) - using
Turnpike's ping - and it still resolved, so looks like it doesn't use
them (or, DN service requests _are_ being intercepted in my router or
somewhere). Anyone know for sure if TP's DNS settings are used at all
these days?
John Hall
Jun 14, 2020, 12:59:52 PM6/14/20
to
In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> writes
Demon router, I wouldn't expect the withdrawal of those DNSs to cause a
problem. If it does, though, there are a number of DNSs out there which
are free for anyone to use.
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
<snip>
Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably they
must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere near enough
addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
--
John Hall
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
<G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
I'm fairly sure the latter is the case. So unless you are still using a
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
Demon router, I wouldn't expect the withdrawal of those DNSs to cause a
problem. If it does, though, there are a number of DNSs out there which
are free for anyone to use.
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably they
must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere near enough
addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
--
John Hall
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless
information."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
SilverE
Jun 15, 2020, 5:25:45 AM6/15/20
to
At 17:15:51 on Sun, 14 Jun 2020, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote in
<WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>
given by your ISP's DHCP. It almost certainly is anyway, you'll have set
an External Connection, not one created by TP.
--
SilverE
<WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>
>I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
>something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
Use 0.0.0.0 to make sure TP's using your router's settings which are
>DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
>Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>anyway, and they're working.
>
>I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>
>_Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon? My old .dcu domain resolves to
>something in that range, if I don't put www. in front of it. Check yours
given by your ISP's DHCP. It almost certainly is anyway, you'll have set
an External Connection, not one created by TP.
--
SilverE
Martin Brown
Jun 16, 2020, 4:47:42 AM6/16/20
to
On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>> I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>> DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>> and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
> I'm fairly sure the latter is the case. So unless you are still using a
> Demon router, I wouldn't expect the withdrawal of those DNSs to cause a
> problem. If it does, though, there are a number of DNSs out there which
> are free for anyone to use.
>
>>
>> Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>> anyway, and they're working.
>>
>> I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>> faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>>
>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
> <snip>
>
> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably they
> must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere near enough
> addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>> I've just discovered that my Turnpike still has those set up as its
>> DNSs. Will something fall over on 1 Sept., or is it not using them
>> and/or DN service requests are being intercepted at my router anyway?
>
> I'm fairly sure the latter is the case. So unless you are still using a
> Demon router, I wouldn't expect the withdrawal of those DNSs to cause a
> problem. If it does, though, there are a number of DNSs out there which
> are free for anyone to use.
>
>>
>> Obviously (?) things like my browsers aren't using TP's DNS settings
>> anyway, and they're working.
>>
>> I just pinged those, and they respond - '43 in a steady 9 ms, which is
>> faster than most from here, and '58 with an 8 and a 9 and some big ones.
>>
>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
> <snip>
>
> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably they
> must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere near enough
> addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
FWIW nezumi.demon.co.uk no longer resolves to an IP address in NSLOOKUP.
Comes back could not find the host...
Email still seems to be working so far <FX>crosses fingers</FX>
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 16, 2020, 4:34:36 PM6/16/20
to
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
[]
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>> <snip>
>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP
>>address.
>
>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
Anyone know how many they had at peak?
>> <snip>
>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP
>>address.
>
>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>
>FWIW nezumi.demon.co.uk no longer resolves to an IP address in NSLOOKUP.
>Comes back could not find the host...
Yes, I've just tried pinging it. Turnpike's own ping says
>FWIW nezumi.demon.co.uk no longer resolves to an IP address in NSLOOKUP.
>Comes back could not find the host...
[translating host name to IP address]
Connection failed - Host not found
-- Winsock ERROR : Valid name, no data record for type
, but I presume "Valid name" just means it's in a valid format.
Sticking www. on the beginning resolves no problem.
Trying in a browser (chrome) is interesting: for my old one,
soft255.demon.co.uk, brings up the "Make ... work for you" Namesco page,
whether I prepend the www. or not; until (I think) yesterday, one (I
think with www.) brought up the work for you page, the other brought up
chrome's normal site not found message. For nezumi, without www. brought
up site not found, but with www., brings up a page about Hobbies. At
least I think it was that way round: now, both bring up the page,
presumably having messed with the browser's history cache. A link on the
page works.
>
>Email still seems to be working so far <FX>crosses fingers</FX>
>
Good, as the page still has mailto: links (-:
>Email still seems to be working so far <FX>crosses fingers</FX>
>
Have you taken out a new domain hosted by Namesco? If so, have you
passed the change-of-username date? (Confusingly, Namesco use usernames
that have the form of email addresses; this is making it very difficult
to explain what's going on to my friend.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
Martin Brown
Jun 17, 2020, 3:40:32 AM6/17/20
to
On 16/06/2020 21:32, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6...@255soft.uk> writes
> []
>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>> <snip>
>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>> they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>> near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP
>>> address.
>>
>> I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>> after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>
> Anyone know how many they had at peak?
>>
>> FWIW nezumi.demon.co.uk no longer resolves to an IP address in NSLOOKUP.
>> Comes back could not find the host...
>
> Yes, I've just tried pinging it. Turnpike's own ping says
>
> [translating host name to IP address]
> Connection failed - Host not found
> -- Winsock ERROR : Valid name, no data record for type
>
> , but I presume "Valid name" just means it's in a valid format.
It means there *are* valid DNS records for nezumi.demon.co.uk but it no
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6...@255soft.uk> writes
> []
>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>> <snip>
>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>> they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>> near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP
>>> address.
>>
>> I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>> after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>
> Anyone know how many they had at peak?
>>
>> FWIW nezumi.demon.co.uk no longer resolves to an IP address in NSLOOKUP.
>> Comes back could not find the host...
>
> Yes, I've just tried pinging it. Turnpike's own ping says
>
> [translating host name to IP address]
> Connection failed - Host not found
> -- Winsock ERROR : Valid name, no data record for type
>
> , but I presume "Valid name" just means it's in a valid format.
longer holds its historic fixed IP address or indeed any (which I
presume was the intention of Vodafone). NSLookup shows the difference.
nezumi.demon.co.uk (original Demon) vs
nezumidemon.co.uk (my intended bolthole)
picking the oldest one live I know is phaedrus.demon.co.uk
resolves OK IP=158.152.11.61
ping resolves the destination but gets no response
The surviving records for mine on Demon DNS are now indistinguishable
from the zombie records of long since deceased Demonites.
>
> Sticking www. on the beginning resolves no problem.
There is a record for where to offer web hosting.
> Sticking www. on the beginning resolves no problem.
> Trying in a browser (chrome) is interesting: for my old one,
> soft255.demon.co.uk, brings up the "Make ... work for you" Namesco page,
> whether I prepend the www. or not; until (I think) yesterday, one (I
> think with www.) brought up the work for you page, the other brought up
> chrome's normal site not found message.
For nezumi, without www. brought
> up site not found, but with www., brings up a page about Hobbies. At
> least I think it was that way round: now, both bring up the page,
> presumably having messed with the browser's history cache. A link on the
> page works.
>>
>> Email still seems to be working so far <FX>crosses fingers</FX>
>>
> Good, as the page still has mailto: links (-:
>
> Have you taken out a new domain hosted by Namesco? If so, have you
> passed the change-of-username date? (Confusingly, Namesco use usernames
> that have the form of email addresses; this is making it very difficult
> to explain what's going on to my friend.)
No I have my domains registered with 123-reg (cheaper). I have put the
> Have you taken out a new domain hosted by Namesco? If so, have you
> passed the change-of-username date? (Confusingly, Namesco use usernames
> that have the form of email addresses; this is making it very difficult
> to explain what's going on to my friend.)
one I intend to use for email under Namesco's DNS server control. I am
part way through the migration at the moment so we will see how it goes.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Hall
Jun 17, 2020, 5:32:01 AM6/17/20
to
In message <0yBotbPd...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
The largest number of users that I can remember Demon claiming was IIRC
240,000. I think that was shortly before Freeserve - which provided
their first really serious competition - was launched. That must have
been around 1998, give or take a year or two.
<G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>[]
>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>> <snip>
>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>>they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>>near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
>>
>>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>
>Anyone know how many they had at peak?
<snip>
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>[]
>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>> <snip>
>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And presumably
>>>they must have had other blocks as well, as that would be nowhere
>>>near enough addresses for all their customers to have a static IP address.
>>
>>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>
>Anyone know how many they had at peak?
The largest number of users that I can remember Demon claiming was IIRC
240,000. I think that was shortly before Freeserve - which provided
their first really serious competition - was launched. That must have
been around 1998, give or take a year or two.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 17, 2020, 2:58:50 PM6/17/20
to
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:22:04, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:
>their first really serious competition - was launched. That must have
>been around 1998, give or take a year or two.
Yes: must have been quite a kick in the teeth for them, as it appeared
to offer most of what most users wanted, for just the cost of the 0844
numbers (which Demon were IIRR also using, or something similar), no
tenner. Even down to the subdomain offering, unlike others (AOL,
compuserve) who only offered single addresses (which initially for
compuserve were just a number, though they did add alpha characters at
some point). [I don't know if freeserve offered fixed IP - though at
that point, I _suspect_ most Demon customers weren't actually taking
advantage - gave them a warm feeling, but when most connections were
dialup, few were always-on anyway, so fixed IP probably actually
important only to a few.]
creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy.
- Lord Reith
wrote:
>In message <0yBotbPd...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>[]
>>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And
>>>>presumably they must have had other blocks as well, as that would
>>>>be nowhere near enough addresses for all their customers to have a
>>>>static IP address.
>>>
>>>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>>>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>>
>>Anyone know how many they had at peak?
><snip>
>
>The largest number of users that I can remember Demon claiming was IIRC
>240,000. I think that was shortly before Freeserve - which provided
Wow, so that's turnover of 2.4m a month; quite significant.
><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:47:40, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 14/06/2020 17:50, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <WtoQ6Fp3...@255soft.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>>><G6...@255soft.uk> writes
>>[]
>>>>> _Are_ 158.152.* associated with Demon?
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Yes. I think Demon had the whole 158.152.*.* block. (And
>>>>presumably they must have had other blocks as well, as that would
>>>>be nowhere near enough addresses for all their customers to have a
>>>>static IP address.
>>>
>>>I think that was the original 64k IP block that they bought not long
>>>after startup. All the old hands I know had a fixed IP in that range.
>>
>>Anyone know how many they had at peak?
><snip>
>
>The largest number of users that I can remember Demon claiming was IIRC
>240,000. I think that was shortly before Freeserve - which provided
>their first really serious competition - was launched. That must have
>been around 1998, give or take a year or two.
to offer most of what most users wanted, for just the cost of the 0844
numbers (which Demon were IIRR also using, or something similar), no
tenner. Even down to the subdomain offering, unlike others (AOL,
compuserve) who only offered single addresses (which initially for
compuserve were just a number, though they did add alpha characters at
some point). [I don't know if freeserve offered fixed IP - though at
that point, I _suspect_ most Demon customers weren't actually taking
advantage - gave them a warm feeling, but when most connections were
dialup, few were always-on anyway, so fixed IP probably actually
important only to a few.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy.
- Lord Reith
0 new messages