Macintosh DSL problems
Todd Mogilner
remote locations (this includes my home which uses the same equipment).
All locations are Apple Macintosh shops. Three out of the four locations
have been having a lot of problems doing backups with Retrospect, and
tranferring files with AppleShare IP and/or Timbuktu through our DSL.
Quite often when we transfer files they time out. It is not 100%
consistent. There have been times where they go days or weeks without a
problem and then the problems start up again. I think I have narrowed it
down to the router that is uploading that times out.
Transferring files through the web page and e-mail seems to work well.
Compressed files also seem to work.
We are using Vector Internet Services for an ISP and using US West
(Qwest) as our DSL provider. The router that we have is a Cisco 675.
The problem started at the time that US West and Vector switched from
Bridging mode to PPP over ATM.
We have a fourth location that uses a netopia modem and SDSL using
Vector as the ISP and NorthPoint as the DSL provider. I would prefer not
to have to switch everything over to NorthPoint because of the costs
involved. It would cost us $1000 or more to switch things over per
location.
One of the possible ideas to the cause of the problem has been the bit
map pattern of certain files tell the router to stop transferring. I am
aware that this was a problem with Windows. The solution was to update
the cbos on the router. This did not work for me.
I am wondering if anyone out there has had any luck solving this problem.
If you have any suggestions I would appreciate any help that you can
provide.
Please e-mail me at mogi...@daremo.com
Yours Truly
Todd Mogilner
Jeffrey S. Kline
from this, let it talk to the other shops via the DSL/Quest/Visi. But thats
the way I do things,... for what it's worth... <g>
I would not allow machines on the "inside" to be directly talking to the
"outside" without some kind of firewall and a typical Mac, doesn't have one
and if they did, you'd have to have it on each machine and it would be
taking up even more processor resources, over and above what MacOS7~9 does!
As for the DSL, the idea of the 675 hangin up stuff due to content of what
your sending has no water to carry. Your data is inside a "block" that
TCP/IP sends. The Cisco doesn't respond to direct commands like the old
serial ports and Hayes modems used to.
Commands to the router are carried out a different way and have to be done
through a specific TCPIP port at least as a management session, or over the
management port directly.
--
Cheers;
Jeff
c/o The Gass Can Productions
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
Todd Mogilner wrote in message ...
John A. Weeks III
<mogi...@daremo.com> wrote:
> I do consulting for a print shop in the Minneapolis area. They have 4
> remote locations (this includes my home which uses the same equipment).
> All locations are Apple Macintosh shops. Three out of the four locations
> have been having a lot of problems doing backups with Retrospect, and
> tranferring files with AppleShare IP and/or Timbuktu through our DSL.
> Quite often when we transfer files they time out. It is not 100%
> consistent. There have been times where they go days or weeks without a
> problem and then the problems start up again. I think I have narrowed it
> down to the router that is uploading that times out.
File sharing and remote control are items that I consider to be
LAN applications, but you are trying to run them over a wide area
network with slow communications links. I would think that you
should have dedicated T-1's and decent routers if you really want
to make this work on a reliable basis.
In the mean time, you might be able to isolate some of the weak
links by using the ping program. Start running pings between each
combination of devices, and step up the ping packet size. See
where things start to tip over.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-891-2382 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications FAX 612-953-4289 http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
Jeffrey S. Kline
Thats interesting.... Is there any way to find out what that "string" is???
My understanding of the way the Cisco was doin' stuff was that to gain
"control" over it directly and make it "do something", it had to be either
from the management port or via a direct telnet session to it (assuming you
didn't disable telnet).
I guess I'm at a loss to figure out "how'd they do that??"... I've been
transfering files back and forth between home and work machines for some
time with no trouble (other than stupid Cisco loosing connection)....
Nothing hung up or locked up transfer that I didn't do...
<g>
Jeff
Mike Horwath wrote in message ...
>In mn.online-service Jeffrey S. Kline <jsk...@visi.com> wrote:
>: As for the DSL, the idea of the 675 hangin up stuff due to content of
what
>: your sending has no water to carry. Your data is inside a "block" that
>: TCP/IP sends. The Cisco doesn't respond to direct commands like the old
>: serial ports and Hayes modems used to.
>
>Not true, there are more than a few occasions where we were able to
>reproduce this problem with a single file whose bitstrings would cause
>the filetransfer to lock up.
>
>Not everything that sounds hokey is hokey...
>
>--
>Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drec...@visi.com
>IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drec...@geeks.org
>The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/
> Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)
Ted Rattei
: My understanding of the way the Cisco was doin' stuff was that to gain
: "control" over it directly and make it "do something", it had to be either
: from the management port or via a direct telnet session to it (assuming you
: didn't disable telnet).
I do not believe that there is an issue of something in the transmission
stream attempting to issue certain commands to the 675, rather, the issue
is that something in the transmission stream is causing the transmission
to stop. This then causes a timeout in the application.
: I guess I'm at a loss to figure out "how'd they do that??"... I've been
: transfering files back and forth between home and work machines for some
: time with no trouble (other than stupid Cisco loosing connection)....
: Nothing hung up or locked up transfer that I didn't do...
Not knowing how easy it is to write tight, robust networking code, and also lacking a low level understanding of how CBOS works (the stuff that is propritary information), I would guess that it is some sort of bug in the networking code that they are using.
Here is why I guess this:
dsl-gw>sh proc
Process Status Report
[TYPE] [NAME] [PRESENT] [ACCEPTING] [MEMORY]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DRIVER D100 Ethernet Driver Yes 27648
DRIVER PPP Driver Yes 3856
DRIVER ATM WAN Driver Yes 17440
PROTOCOL IP Routing Yes 480
PROTOCOL RIP Yes No 192
PROTOCOL UDP Yes 864
PROTOCOL ARP Yes 192
PROTOCOL RARP Yes 0
TRANSPORT TCP Transport Yes 6240
APPLICATION Sockets Interface Yes 1424
APPLICATION TFTP Daemon Yes No 0
APPLICATION Telnet Daemon Yes Yes 0
APPLICATION RADIUS Security Yes No 0
APPLICATION RADIUS Accounting Yes No 0
APPLICATION SYSLOG Client Yes Yes 0
APPLICATION Web Server Yes Yes 0
APPLICATION SNMP Management Yes Yes 192
APPLICATION DHCP Server Yes 48
APPLICATION DHCP Client Yes 48
APPLICATION Commander Yes 48
APPLICATION TFTP client Yes 48
System memory: In use: 569824 Available: 584335
CPU idle percentage: 99.96%
The ATM driver, PPP driver, and Ethernet driver take up less than 50K
of space. That seems, at a gut level, to be some pretty skimpy coding.
I could be wrong, as I am not a developer of low-level device drivers
running on embedded operating systems. There are two words that could
sum up that code: Robust or Buggy.
One thing that could be done would be to utilize a packet capturing tool
to analyze the activity on the network during these lockups. Etherpeek is
one such utility for the Macintosh, and I have heard users of the program
say that the $1000 cost of the program is justified by the first use of
the program. Being able to see the exact string of data that it locks
up at, and the ensuing transmission and/or reception from the other end
of the transmission, would be benificial in the determination of the
exact nature of the problem.
Ted
--
Ted Rattei ** te...@visi.com
Tech Support -- VISI.com [because your business is online]
PGP Key 7A97D689: 3D24E61E56AD5B74 55D7323715E18940
Key available by finger or www.keyserver.net.
Scott Schrader
control is in use on the stream. try looking for that at the mac end
interface or if it exists in the cbos interface to the cisco.
Ted Rattei
: data equivalents of ^S and ^Q would shut off the stream if xon-xoff flow
: control is in use on the stream. try looking for that at the mac end
: interface or if it exists in the cbos interface to the cisco.
It doesn't exist when I telnet in to my Cisco 675 - I can ^S and ^Q
all I want and it keeps telling me 'command not understood'. As far as
xon-xoff flow control on the actual stream of data transmission, I don't
think that that is used what-so-ever in the course of data transmission.
Ethernet has it's way of transmitting data, DSL has it's way of doing
things (I doubt that they would use something used on serial connections
here), there is no serial sort of data transmission involved here.
If there is more data being transmitted than the outbound pipe can
handle, it would seem very likely that the data would be stored in a
buffer until the pipe opens up. There is plenty of memory to allocated
some buffers, and if it behaves like any other Cisco router that I have
heard of does, it will allocate buffers.
It doesn't seem likely that xon-xoff is in use here.
Aaron Kaase
>I think I have narrowed it
>down to the router that is uploading that times out.
Yes. The Cisco 675 in NAT (network address translation) mode has a tendency to
time out when it is UPLOADING large amounts of data, I have noticed that this
occurs a lot with FTP.
The only solution I've found is to not use NAT mode. Get a subnet from your
ISP, and configure your router as a default gateway on that subnet. Give your
computers IP addresses, and your file transfer problems will go away.
If you need to use NAT, then I would consider a separate device to handle it,
as the 675 does it very poorly, IMO.
Aaron Kaase
St. Paul, MN
Aaron Kaase
wrote:
>As for the DSL, the idea of the 675 hangin up stuff due to content of what
>your sending has no water to carry. Your data is inside a "block" that
>TCP/IP sends. The Cisco doesn't respond to direct commands like the old
>serial ports and Hayes modems used to.
Actually, the Cisco 675 really is a modem in router clothing.
It modulates data at frequencies of sound, above the range of your POTS line,
frequencies greater than 3.3 kHz. It's why you have to install microfilters on
some/all of your phones, so it can filter out the "white noise" you would
otherwise hear.
I'm not sure about the low-level dynamics of the physical transmission of 1s
and 0s over this broadband frequency range, but I am sure that compression and
error checking are employed to maintain performance and reliability.
And because it's a physical transmission, there is no differentiation between
header and payload of a TCP/IP packet, so the way bits are arranged in the
payload portion could certainly mess up a connection.
Ted Rattei
: The only solution I've found is to not use NAT mode. Get a subnet from your
: ISP, and configure your router as a default gateway on that subnet. Give your
: computers IP addresses, and your file transfer problems will go away.
NAT is not in use in this situation. There are routed networks at
both locations.
Ted Rattei
: It's been a while since I debugged ratty old 675's but:
: See if you can get VISI to change your setup from PPP to straight
: RFC1483 routing, yes ROUTING 1483. This
: will get the PPP/NAT/icky-poo-poo code paths out of the 675 setup.
Well, the only thing that is at stake here is the PPPoA setup. NAT is
not being used at either location - there are routed netblocks for each
location. As far as PPP or other code paths (exactly what do you mean
by this?) - PPP is used for initial session establishment, and is not
an encapsulation method - it is merely used to nail up and tear down
the connection session. I don't see how the usage of PPPoA correlates
with problems transmitting and recieving data. Is there something about
PPPoA that encapsulates data transmissions that could cause problems here?
: Routed 1483 is a pain in the butt for the ISP, no real bean counting
: and automajic RADIUS/PPP stuff BUT it is way down on the bare metal and
: produces the leanest routed solution you can do on a 675 setup.
What makes it so drastically different and better from a routing
standpoint by using RFC1483 Routing mode? From what I have seen, it
looks to be a nightmare to account for, a nightmare to troubleshoot, and
doesn't seem to have the same scalibility that PPPoA has. I haven't seen
anything from Cisco that indicates that RFC1483 Routing mode is the best
solution for service providers seeking a scalible, manageable solution.
What brings you to the conclusion that RFC1483 is the optimal method to
deliver a routed network solution using a Cisco 675 as the CPE?
: When I delt with Mac customers PPP/DHCP was an issue. Switched them
: to routed 1483 and all the problems went away; 8.x MacOS stack is
: icky-poo-poo when it comes to many DHCP servers.
Well, DHCP is not a factor here as, again, both locations are using routed
netblocks and have statically assigned IP addresses. PPP negotiation is
performed by the Cisco 675 - there is no difference between the way a Mac
or a PC would have to deal with the PPP negotiation process on the 675.
: I personally find it kinda dumb that an always on technology should use
: a dialup technology like PPP, and its associated overhead bits, when
: both sides of the connection are nailed up and never change; i.e. You
: KNOW who's on the other end of the line/PVC in a routed setup... I
: know the arguments for address space and ease of config for the ISP
: but it still always struck me as a mindless PC solution. Got worse with
: on-demand-always on and that piece 'O braindeath called PPPoE but thats
: another soapbox! End-O-whine...
Considering that a majority of users of a DSL connection are totally
happy with a single static IP address / NAT solution, using PPP to reduce
initial configuration, along with the comparative ease of accounting for
users and other likeminded things, PPPoA is a sensible technology to use
for DSL. Most home users don't need - or want - a routed network at home.
Using NAT gives them an initial layer of security, something that you
don't get when you deliver a routed solution to the end user. From what I
have read on the RFCs for PPP over AAL5, there is no 'overhead' associated
with PPP - once the session is established, you are sending and recieving
information without any sort of encapsulation caused by PPP.
: Anyways, try RFC 1483 ROUTING and see if that solves the problem. If it
: does, try to upgrade to MacOS 9.0.4 and see if that helps the PPP/DHCP
: setup any.
Upgrading the version of the Mac OS that is being used is often a good
idea - every new version contains a newer version of the Open Transport
networking code, and usually contains some bug fixes and other necessary
enhancements. DHCP is not used at all here, so it isn't an issue with
DHCP and the Mac's DHCP implementation. As far as using RFC1483 Routing
mode, that is not something that we currently offer as a configuration
option. I don't see how using one kind of routing is any different that
using another kind of routing - there is no change in the routing tables
on the 675 - things that are not on the local subnet still are routed
to the wan0-0 port, regardless of the configuration mode.
steve ulrich
> Rob Healey <rhe...@onvoy.com> wrote:
> : It's been a while since I debugged ratty old 675's but:
> : See if you can get VISI to change your setup from PPP to straight
> : RFC1483 routing, yes ROUTING 1483. This
> : will get the PPP/NAT/icky-poo-poo code paths out of the 675 setup.
> Well, the only thing that is at stake here is the PPPoA setup. NAT is
> not being used at either location - there are routed netblocks for each
> location. As far as PPP or other code paths (exactly what do you mean> by th\
is?) - PPP is used for initial session establishment, and is not
> an encapsulation method - it is merely used to nail up and tear down
> the connection session. I don't see how the usage of PPPoA correlates
> with problems transmitting and recieving data. Is there something about
> PPPoA that encapsulates data transmissions that could cause problems here?
uhh - ted, PPPoA is precisely that. it's an encapsulation method. please
review rfc2364 for more information regarding what PPPoA is and what it
will actually accomplish.
your friendly rfc mirror site has it below:
http://www.botwerks.org/RFC/rfc2364.txt
> : Routed 1483 is a pain in the butt for the ISP, no real bean counting
> : and automajic RADIUS/PPP stuff BUT it is way down on the bare metal and
> : produces the leanest routed solution you can do on a 675 setup.
> What makes it so drastically different and better from a routing
> standpoint by using RFC1483 Routing mode? From what I have seen, it
> looks to be a nightmare to account for, a nightmare to troubleshoot, and
> doesn't seem to have the same scalibility that PPPoA has. I haven't seen
> anything from Cisco that indicates that RFC1483 Routing mode is the best
> solution for service providers seeking a scalible, manageable solution.
> What brings you to the conclusion that RFC1483 is the optimal method to
> deliver a routed network solution using a Cisco 675 as the CPE?
RFC1483 routing is the "classic" method of encapsulating IP within an AAL5
cell. This is a management PITA and no ISP with half a brain would look
at deploying it on the scale required for termination of US West DSL.
[dhcp stuff snipped]
review rfc2364 for more information regarding what PPPoA is and what it
will actually accomplish.
your friendly rfc mirror site has it below:
http://www.botwerks.org/RFC/rfc2364.txt
> : Routed 1483 is a pain in the butt for the ISP, no real bean counting
> : and automajic RADIUS/PPP stuff BUT it is way down on the bare metal and
> : produces the leanest routed solution you can do on a 675 setup.
> What makes it so drastically different and better from a routing
> standpoint by using RFC1483 Routing mode? From what I have seen, it
> looks to be a nightmare to account for, a nightmare to troubleshoot, and
> doesn't seem to have the same scalibility that PPPoA has. I haven't seen
> anything from Cisco that indicates that RFC1483 Routing mode is the best
> solution for service providers seeking a scalible, manageable solution.
> What brings you to the conclusion that RFC1483 is the optimal method to
> deliver a routed network solution using a Cisco 675 as the CPE?
RFC1483 routing is the "classic" method of encapsulating IP within an AAL5
cell. This is a management PITA and no ISP with half a brain would look
at deploying it on the scale required for termination of US West DSL.
[dhcp stuff snipped]
> : I personally find it kinda dumb that an always on technology should use
> : a dialup technology like PPP, and its associated overhead bits, when
> : both sides of the connection are nailed up and never change; i.e. You
> : KNOW who's on the other end of the line/PVC in a routed setup... I
> : know the arguments for address space and ease of config for the ISP
> : but it still always struck me as a mindless PC solution. Got worse with
> : on-demand-always on and that piece 'O braindeath called PPPoE but thats
> : another soapbox! End-O-whine...
look at the fashion that dsl is being deployed long term and it will start
to make sense to you why pppoa and such are such promising protocols.
nailed up pvc's are a short term solution for the current methods of
deploying dsl. in the future you will not necessarily "know" who's
sitting on the other end of your pvc. as l2tp tunnels for the aggregation
of pvc's and such see wider deployment you will need encapsulation
protocols like pppoa and pppoe to deliver services.
the pvc counts in core atm switches and aggregation point are rapidly
nearing the limits of some older gear and after a certain point you need
to begin evaluating your options for pvc bundling and aggregation.
a quick review of the select256 package services available from qwest
should clue the insightful service provider that nailed up connections are
not the long term direction for things like dsl.
dsl is not going to be strictly for IP in the future. vodsl and other
technologies are going to be emerging in the marketplace and we can look
for walled garden style services to be delivered in the coming years. as
teleco's and isp's start to come to terms with the capabilities of this
technology we should see some very interesting products emerge.
> Considering that a majority of users of a DSL connection are totally
> happy with a single static IP address / NAT solution, using PPP to reduce
> initial configuration, along with the comparative ease of accounting for
> users and other likeminded things, PPPoA is a sensible technology to use
> for DSL. Most home users don't need - or want - a routed network at home.
> Using NAT gives them an initial layer of security, something that you
> don't get when you deliver a routed solution to the end user. From what I
> have read on the RFCs for PPP over AAL5, there is no 'overhead' associated
> with PPP - once the session is established, you are sending and recieving
> information without any sort of encapsulation caused by PPP.
> : Anyways, try RFC 1483 ROUTING and see if that solves the problem. If it
> : does, try to upgrade to MacOS 9.0.4 and see if that helps the PPP/DHCP
> : setup any.
> Upgrading the version of the Mac OS that is being used is often a good
> idea - every new version contains a newer version of the Open Transport
> networking code, and usually contains some bug fixes and other necessary
> enhancements. DHCP is not used at all here, so it isn't an issue with
> DHCP and the Mac's DHCP implementation. As far as using RFC1483 Routing
> mode, that is not something that we currently offer as a configuration
> option. I don't see how using one kind of routing is any different that
> using another kind of routing - there is no change in the routing tables
> on the 675 - things that are not on the local subnet still are routed
> to the wan0-0 port, regardless of the configuration mode.
the issues that have been discussed to date indicate that this is a
problem with the application level software. backup software will have a
varying bit pattern. i would be willing to believe that there is an issue
with a particular file that may contain a bit pattern that freaks out
cell-payload scrambling (which is part of the reason you scramble your
cell payload) algorithm somwhere along the line. however, the application
in question here is a backup application that will, ostensibly, be passing
differring traffic across the line all the time
--
later...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ulrich 80 58 D5 21 FB 79 28 C5 9D 53 53 4B 3C 74 DB D5
sulrich@(botWerks.(org|com)|geeks.org) finger: sul...@botWerks.org
To reply to me, use the address specified in the RFC1036 compliant
From: line of this message.
Jeffrey S. Kline
Ok. Looking things over and parusing some doco's, I can see there might be a
problem here...you guys might be right on here. I guess if one can do it, having
a direct T1 in/out is still the ultimate...
Jeff
Mr.Conservative
jeff_...@hopkins.k12.mn.us wrote on 8/4/00 8:01 AM:
> Hmmm..
>
> Ok. Looking things over and parusing some doco's, I can see there might be a
> problem here...you guys might be right on here. I guess if one can do it,
> having
> a direct T1 in/out is still the ultimate...
T1 has a much lower error tolerance than dsl to give you the short version
of the technobabble below.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Aaron Kaase wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:47:03 -0500, "Jeffrey S. Kline" <jsk...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the DSL, the idea of the 675 hangin up stuff due to content of what
>>> your sending has no water to carry. Your data is inside a "block" that
>>> TCP/IP sends. The Cisco doesn't respond to direct commands like the old
>>> serial ports and Hayes modems used to.
>>
>> Actually, the Cisco 675 really is a modem in router clothing.
>>
>> It modulates data at frequencies of sound, above the range of your POTS line,
>> frequencies greater than 3.3 kHz. It's why you have to install microfilters
>> on
>> some/all of your phones, so it can filter out the "white noise" you would
>> otherwise hear.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the low-level dynamics of the physical transmission of 1s
>> and 0s over this broadband frequency range, but I am sure that compression
>> and
>> error checking are employed to maintain performance and reliability.
>>
>> And because it's a physical transmission, there is no differentiation between
>> header and payload of a TCP/IP packet, so the way bits are arranged in the
>> payload portion could certainly mess up a connection.
>>
>> Aaron Kaase
>> St. Paul, MN
>
--
It is not so much our friends' help that helps us as
the confident knowledge that they will help us.
- Epicurus (341-270 BC)
Jeffrey S. Kline
...
<g>
Jeff
Mike Horwath wrote in message ...
>In visi.help Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>: in article 398AC13C...@hopkins.k12.mn.us, Jeffrey S. Kline at
>: jeff_...@hopkins.k12.mn.us wrote on 8/4/00 8:01 AM:
>
>:> Hmmm..
>:>
>:> Ok. Looking things over and parusing some doco's, I can see there might
be a
>:> problem here...you guys might be right on here. I guess if one can do
it,
>:> having
>:> a direct T1 in/out is still the ultimate...
>
>: T1 has a much lower error tolerance than dsl to give you the short
version
>: of the technobabble below.
>
>'technobabble'?
>
>A T1 is more than that, but continue babbling.
Mr.Conservative
jsk...@visi.com wrote on 8/18/00 9:01 PM:
Why a T1 does have less errors allowed then a 1MB DSL in fact they are
usually muxed onto a T1...through a csu/dsu and something like a cisco 2500.
Still a great bargain though but if you want quality get a t1.
-From euphorian central:
-
We are boycotting Duct tape to save those poor ducts...
Morgan Q.E. Wolf Slattery - Euphorian
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/13/00 4:19 AM:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:04:50 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
Now your the dreamer... interested sure knowledgeable that has yet to be
seen. So why are you planning on leaving if a strike comes up next year ?
>
>> Well how long have you been an ISP. Aaron hasn't been working their very
>> long.
>
> Actually my interest and knowledge of telecom FAR predates my employment at
> Qwest, Jim. My employment there is really just long overdue.
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
-------------------
REDMOND, WA (API) --- MICROSOFT (MSFT) announced today that the
official release date for the new operating system "Windows 2000" will be
delayed until the second quarter of 1901. •
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/13/00 4:34 AM:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:07:12 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> You still think ISDN uses 2b1q signaling .
>
> Yep. Actually it depends whether you're talking BRI or PRI.
>
> BRI uses 2B1Q to facilitate its 144 kbps full-duplex transmission over cable
> pair loops, whereas PRI is more of a DS1 framing format and uses whatever
> underlying T-carrier type you want to use (repeatered T1, HDSL, HDSL2,
> whatever).
T1 framing format ?! its a DSo circuit !
I missed that day of class.
Robust real-world performance gains: ADC's experience in deploying HDSL
systems had made us extremely sensitive to the issues involved with
real-world performance. Our advancements must hold up in the real world and
not require our customer to manage disturbers in their loops. We could claim
near 18 kft (24 AWG) 2- pair HDSL performance with 2B1Q today, but this
would be by re-specifying loops. There are many examples of such
"specsmanship" in the industry today (Total reach ISDN, "symmetric" RADSL
ADSL)
try again...
http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
>
>> That'd be like saying scsi 1 and ultrascsi are the same.
Macs and PC;s would essentially be the same by your definition since the Mac
can run a pc's software and it can read their disks not the other way
around.
>
> Actually they ARE essentially the same. They have similar electrical
> proprieties. UltraSCSI controllers can control SCSI-1 devices (with adapters,
> of course), so they are backwards compatible. This proves more similarites
> than differences.
>
> HDSL/HDSL2 use 2B1Q encoding, granted at a much faster rate than basic-rate
> ISDN (BRI).
not to mention not compatible.
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
--
James R. Taylor
-----------
Conquer Evil with Good.
Mr.Conservative
drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/13/00 11:17 AM:
> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> : in article 2Nsv5.1097$94.2...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
> : drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/12/00 11:24 AM:
>
>
> :> : You stated you don't know much about telco stuff so if you don't get it I
> :> : understand.
> :>
> :> And where did I state that don't know much about telco?
> :>
> :> I did state that I hope Aaron knows more than me as that is his
> :> business. Just like I know more than him about the internal
> :> operations of an ISP and I don't expect him to know that.
>
> : Well how long have you been an ISP. Aaron hasn't been working their very
> : long.
>
> A) it is 'there' in this context.
>
> B) how long someone works someplace has nothing to do with their
> knowledge of a specific topic.
Experience matters as well as knowledge... I hope I don't have to explain
this to you...
>
> :> But at no time did I state I don't know much as it has been proven
> :> that I know far more than you.
>
> : Proven keep telling yourself that, unless your talking about ISP's then
> : you'd be correct.
>
> I have corrected you multiple times about this telco spew you have
> been doing, it is obvious that I know far more than you on this topic.
>
> : Horwath your arrogance is unending.
>
> No, that would be my ego.
>
> :> : I learned this from Nortel...
> :>
> :> And that means what?
>
> : I learned it from a reliable source.
>
> I have learned that you could have beat dogs with sticks and love
> underage boys for your sexual pleasures.
>
> And I heard this from a reliable source.
Who your wife ?
>
> :)
>
> (remember, at no time did I state you are a pedophile or a bad dog
> owner, just that I have learned that you could be such)
You could be as well. It was your idea... I'm not saying you are either...
this conversation has gotten to low for me....
When you come up a notch or two I'll continue...
(snip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Smith reveals his true side...7-14-00
" I admire the Red party, and their platform ideals,"
"I don't think many Americans would have what it takes to work together in
a cooperative society,"
-----------------------===newsgroup: MN.Politics ===--------------------
Spoken like a true marxist....
http://zim.com/torgo/MASTER.GIF
http://206.145.58.124/wavs/torgomix.wav
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/13/00 4:14 AM:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:23:19 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds familiar... are you describing yourself or me ?
>
> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>>> It'll be published into a nice glossy book, on sale in the humor section of
>>> Barnes & Noble and Border's. Like Dr. Laura, I could make lots of money
>>> making
>>> fun of you.
>> I'm glad you support the first Amendment. OOH annals of...
>> I bet you like those... Hey Mr. intolerant where's YOUR tolerance ?
>
> I'm plenty tolerant, the fact I am replying to you now is proof of it.
I reply to assholes al l time this proves nothing.
> Actually, I couldn't tolerate your crap in my e-mail anymore, so I guess I am
> partially intolerant. But everyone has their limits.
You don't follow your own rules either so you'll probably go back on that as
well.
(Snip)
>> No COM's mike said it's encoding...
>> Mike Horwath <drechsa...@yuck.net> on 9-12-00 t 11:24 am... wrote
>> 'SONET is encoding, has nothing to do with a 'channel', dufus.'
>
> I didn't say anything about a channel, I said virtual tributary designation.
>
(Snip)
>
>>> I'm not "attacking" you, I'm just correcting you. If you spent time
>>> understanding the issue BEFORE you post, you wouldn't run into these
>>> problems.
>> No your just provoking me at every point.
>
> I'm sorry if this angers you, but it's just the way things go in society--you
> need to think before you speak. It applies to everyone, not just yourself.
Sounds like your doing the hating and loathing I disagree with your
'online' wisdom.
>
\
on.
>>
>> Nice diversion but lets try again to converse constructively if possible
>> with you ?
>
> The only person diverting/ignoring is you Jim. As you can read above, I've
> been asking you to supply a meaningful purpose to set the context for the
> technical subjects you wish to discuss.
>
> My wishes have either been ignored or criticized by you as "diversions."
> Diversions to what? There's nothing really being discussed at present.
>
>>>> Yeah if that is so how the local loop works.
>>> I can't share how or why certain T1s may be shielded. You're welcome to look
>>> on the web and produce a URL if you are that curious.
>> Try when underground Mr. Telecom. Elementary my dear Watson.
>
> Huh? What are you babbling about NOW?
shielded T1's sheesh reread past thread...
>>> what I said is pretty general.
>> So was that. I suppose bury a cable is ' proprietary' to you nice cop out.
>
> Everything I've reproduced here in this newsgroup is from sources other than
> my internal sources at Qwest. I haven't read/heard anything external about how
> potential T1 shielding, so I'd rather not comment on it.
>
> You can feel free to mention it if you wish, since you know so much for
> someone who DOES NOT work in a central office. :-)
I already did. I told you and you STILL forgot !
;-)
roves me. You say I'm wrong, please prove that I am wrong.
>>
>> Other than the fact if you knew what you were stating that ISDN uses HDSL
>> not HDSL2 which IS 2b1Q reread the link.
>
> I never stated that ISDN is HDSL or HDSL2. I said that ISDN happens to use
> 2B1Q encoding, the same used by HDSL/HDSL2.
prove it !
>
>> Good luck grasshopper.
>
> Are you still with your reliable source?
My computer ? Yes I am ... ADC's website sure am... the internet yep !
Ohh you thought it was a person... had you fooled.
:->
>
>>> You're still denying that ISDN uses 2B1Q, huh? You didn't ask your reliable
>>> source did you? Go ahead, I'll give you one more chance, little grasshopper.
>>
>> Yep show me it does... actual docs from ISDN cards are proprietary but look
>> for yourself you have exposure to them MR. telecom. and you tell me if I'm
>> right or not.
>
> You're wrong. I'll prove it in the next thread.
go for it.
>
>>>> You are forgetting what we talked about already. You never had a memory
>>>> that worked, if my grammar is bad your memory is vacuous.
>>> What did I forget?
>> http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
>
> Yes, but you forgot one thing also: http://www.yahoo.com
that has little to do with.
http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
>> Well do you admit ISDN doesn't use 2b1q ? if so I might tell you.
>
> Why would my wrongful admission of ISDN not using 2B1Q be contingent upon you
> explaining why HDSL is more reliable than repeatered T1? That makes absolutely
> no sense.
I already explained it. Your not getting it a 5th time...
>> I guess my words are the best you can do. Thats flattering.
>
> You should feel flattered, you actually produced something right for a change.
> You can thank me for the context, though. If you had a little more social
> grace, you could actually assume much more credit.
ok
(SNIP)
>>>
>> Yeah well anything you don't know about is all of a sudden 'proprietary'
>> info. Keep hiding behind that it serves you well in typing but in any REAL
>> circumstances.
>
> Well if you want to think that I am lying by saying something is proprietary
> because you think that I don't understand it, that's fine, Jim... What ever
> boosts your self-esteem.
NIce try to follow my lead.
Proprietary info on why T1's are shielded.
Yeah and the # of wires in a POTS service to a home are Proprietary too....
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
--
"I have argued for a restoration of the constitutional republic....but
the fact that you're a voter is one of the most persuasive arguments for
anarcho-capitalism." -- Rob Robertson, replying to a moron
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>Macs and PC;s would essentially be the same by your definition since the
>Mac can run a pc's software and it can read their disks not the other way
>around.
Actually, PC's can run Mac software quite well through emulation, at
least if you're talking 68k Macs.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>T1 framing format ?! its a DSo circuit !
My, my, Jim... You are so sad. You are so lazy to learn this stuff on your
own, you'd rather face the humiliation of being wrong all the time. You should
really just shut up.
ISDN is NOT a DS0 circuit. A DS0 circuit/channel is 64 kbps, and ISDN BRI is
144 kbps (two 64 kbps B channels + one 16 kbps D-channel = 144 kbps).
What on earth makes you think it was a DS0 circuit?
>I missed that day of class.
I can tell, you know very little about ISDN.
>Robust real-world performance gains: ADC's experience in deploying HDSL
>systems had made us extremely sensitive to the issues involved with
>real-world performance. Our advancements must hold up in the real world and
>not require our customer to manage disturbers in their loops. We could claim
>near 18 kft (24 AWG) 2- pair HDSL performance with 2B1Q today, but this
>would be by re-specifying loops. There are many examples of such
>"specsmanship" in the industry today (Total reach ISDN, "symmetric" RADSL
>ADSL)
I don't see anywhere in the paragraph above that says "ISDN BRI does not use
2B1Q."
>try again...
>http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
I did a search for "ISDN BRI does not use 2B1Q". Couldn't find anything.
>>> That'd be like saying scsi 1 and ultrascsi are the same.
>Macs and PC;s would essentially be the same by your definition since the Mac
>can run a pc's software and it can read their disks not the other way
>around.
Well, since we're talking about HDSL and ISDN and bit encoding, we are having
a physical layer (Layer 1) discussion. If you want to talk about computers at
the physical layer, then yes, Macs and PCs would be very very similar.
Both computers have a bus, I/O, RAM, ROM, CPU, floppy drives, CD-ROM drives.
There's vastly more similarity between the two platforms at the physical layer
than there are differences.
>> HDSL/HDSL2 use 2B1Q encoding, granted at a much faster rate than basic-rate
>> ISDN (BRI).
>not to mention not compatible.
I never said they were compatible. Just because they use the same encoding
does not make them compatible. You're making false assumptions.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
>The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
Administration of what? Be specific.
>> Actually, I couldn't tolerate your crap in my e-mail anymore, so I guess I am
>> partially intolerant. But everyone has their limits.
>
>You don't follow your own rules either so you'll probably go back on that as
>well.
You wanted me to not reply to you in the newsgroups, but I clearly stated to
you, "I may post whatever I want, to whomever I want, on the newsgroups in any
manner that I see fit."
I'm doing that right now.
>(Snip)
>>> No COM's mike said it's encoding...
>>> Mike Horwath <drechsa...@yuck.net> on 9-12-00 t 11:24 am... wrote
>>> 'SONET is encoding, has nothing to do with a 'channel', dufus.'
>> I didn't say anything about a channel, I said virtual tributary designation.
Ah, now you're quiet... You must have conceeded to being wrong yet again.
You're probably studying this stuff right now, so you are learning what we've
already told you, and you're probably shoving that foot deeper into your
mouth.
>> I'm sorry if this angers you, but it's just the way things go in society--you
>> need to think before you speak. It applies to everyone, not just yourself.
>
>Sounds like your doing the hating and loathing I disagree with your
>'online' wisdom.
You disagree that you should think before you speak?
>> The only person diverting/ignoring is you Jim. As you can read above, I've
>> been asking you to supply a meaningful purpose to set the context for the
>> technical subjects you wish to discuss.
>>
>> My wishes have either been ignored or criticized by you as "diversions."
>> Diversions to what? There's nothing really being discussed at present.
Again, no response... Give up?
>>>>> Yeah if that is so how the local loop works.
>>>> I can't share how or why certain T1s may be shielded. You're welcome to look
>>>> on the web and produce a URL if you are that curious.
>>> Try when underground Mr. Telecom. Elementary my dear Watson.
>> Huh? What are you babbling about NOW?
>shielded T1's sheesh reread past thread...
Okay... Shielded T1s... what is your point?
>> You can feel free to mention it if you wish, since you know so much for
>> someone who DOES NOT work in a central office. :-)
>I already did. I told you and you STILL forgot !
>roves me. You say I'm wrong, please prove that I am wrong.
Doing so would violate my NDA. Sorry.
>> I never stated that ISDN is HDSL or HDSL2. I said that ISDN happens to use
>> 2B1Q encoding, the same used by HDSL/HDSL2.
>prove it !
I'm always happy to teach a young grasshopper.
"The BRI is a bidirectional interface. In a
two-wire circuit, an encoding scheme called
2B1Q is used to transmit over one wire, and
receive over the other. Most BRI today use
2B1Q because it allows ISDN to be delivered
over existing twisted pair..."
Russell, Travis. _Telecommunications Protocols_ 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2000, p 275.
>My computer ? Yes I am ... ADC's website sure am... the internet yep !
>Ohh you thought it was a person... had you fooled.
I suggest you start reading books, as well. The one that I cited above is an
excellent read, and well worth the $50 dollars.
>> You're wrong. I'll prove it in the next thread.
>go for it.
I proved it above.
>> Why would my wrongful admission of ISDN not using 2B1Q be contingent upon you
>> explaining why HDSL is more reliable than repeatered T1? That makes absolutely
>> no sense.
>I already explained it. Your not getting it a 5th time...
Okay, so now that I've proven you wrong, how are you going to attempt to
explain how HDSL is more reliable than repeatered T1?
You can always take back that claim.
>>> I guess my words are the best you can do. Thats flattering.
>>
>> You should feel flattered, you actually produced something right for a change.
>> You can thank me for the context, though. If you had a little more social
>> grace, you could actually assume much more credit.
>
>ok
You've proven flexibility of HDSL, but not reliability... And more
specifically, you have not proven that it is MORE reliable than traditional
repeatered T1.
>> Well if you want to think that I am lying by saying something is proprietary
>> because you think that I don't understand it, that's fine, Jim... What ever
>> boosts your self-esteem.
>NIce try to follow my lead.
>Proprietary info on why T1's are shielded.
>Yeah and the # of wires in a POTS service to a home are Proprietary too....
Tip and ring. That's unclassified information.
If you want to share for the world why/where T1s are shielded, go right ahead.
Mr.Conservative
rste...@visi.com wrote on 9/19/00 8:11 AM:
I'm not I'm talking latest and greatest.
Now they are trying to change that with little success lately.
> Here in mn.online-service, Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
>> Macs and PC;s would essentially be the same by your definition since the
>> Mac can run a pc's software and it can read their disks not the other way
>> around.
>
> Actually, PC's can run Mac software quite well through emulation, at
> least if you're talking 68k Macs.
--
=== This virus works on the honor system ====
If you are running a Macintosh, OS/2, Unix or
Linux computer, please randomly delete
several files from your hard disk drive and
forward this message to everyone you know.
============================================
Think Different •
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>
> Administration of what? Be specific.
megabits.
>
> You wanted me to not reply to you in the newsgroups, but I clearly stated to
> you, "I may post whatever I want, to whomever I want, on the newsgroups in any
> manner that I see fit."
>
> I'm doing that right now.
I didn't agree. I stated if you want me to follow your rules follow mine
and you expected it to be one sided so kiss my ass.
and your rules..
1) No personal e-mail from you. This will be the last personal e-mail you
will see from me.
2) No business e-mail from you at work unless it is business-related.
3) No personal phone calls, mail, correspondence, etc.
To quote you "its more open this way"
Well you started sending me emails again...too.
>
>> (Snip)
>>>> No COM's mike said it's encoding...
>>>> Mike Horwath <drechsa...@yuck.net> on 9-12-00 t 11:24 am... wrote
>>>> 'SONET is encoding, has nothing to do with a 'channel', dufus.'
>>> I didn't say anything about a channel, I said virtual tributary designation.
>
> Ah, now you're quiet... You must have conceeded to being wrong yet again.
>
> You're probably studying this stuff right now, so you are learning what we've
> already told you, and you're probably shoving that foot deeper into your
> mouth.
>
>>> I'm sorry if this angers you, but it's just the way things go in
>>> society--you
>>> need to think before you speak. It applies to everyone, not just yourself.
>>
>> Sounds like your doing the hating and loathing I disagree with your
>> 'online' wisdom.
>
> You disagree that you should think before you speak?
>
>>> The only person diverting/ignoring is you Jim. As you can read above, I've
>>> been asking you to supply a meaningful purpose to set the context for the
>>> technical subjects you wish to discuss.
>>>
>>> My wishes have either been ignored or criticized by you as "diversions."
>>> Diversions to what? There's nothing really being discussed at present.
>
> Again, no response... Give up?
>
>>>>>> Yeah if that is so how the local loop works.
>>>>> I can't share how or why certain T1s may be shielded. You're welcome to
>>>>> look
>>>>> on the web and produce a URL if you are that curious.
>>>> Try when underground Mr. Telecom. Elementary my dear Watson.
>>> Huh? What are you babbling about NOW?
>> shielded T1's sheesh reread past thread...
>
> Okay... Shielded T1s... what is your point?
>
>>> You can feel free to mention it if you wish, since you know so much for
>>> someone who DOES NOT work in a central office. :-)
>> I already did. I told you and you STILL forgot !
>> roves me. You say I'm wrong, please prove that I am wrong.
>
> Doing so would violate my NDA. Sorry.
>
>>> I never stated that ISDN is HDSL or HDSL2. I said that ISDN happens to use
>>> 2B1Q encoding, the same used by HDSL/HDSL2.
>> prove it !
>
> I'm always happy to teach a young grasshopper.
>
> "The BRI is a bidirectional interface. In a
> two-wire circuit, an encoding scheme called
> 2B1Q is used to transmit over one wire, and
> receive over the other. Most BRI today use
> 2B1Q because it allows ISDN to be delivered
> over existing twisted pair..."
>
> Russell, Travis. _Telecommunications Protocols_ 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
> 2000, p 275.
>
>> My computer ? Yes I am ... ADC's website sure am... the internet yep !
>> Ohh you thought it was a person... had you fooled.
>
> I suggest you start reading books, as well. The one that I cited above is an
> excellent read, and well worth the $50 dollars.
>
>>> You're wrong. I'll prove it in the next thread.
>> go for it.
>
> I proved it above.
>
>>> Why would my wrongful admission of ISDN not using 2B1Q be contingent upon
>>> you
>>> explaining why HDSL is more reliable than repeatered T1? That makes
>>> absolutely
>>> no sense.
>> I already explained it. Your not getting it a 5th time...
>
> Okay, so now that I've proven you wrong, how are you going to attempt to
> explain how HDSL is more reliable than repeatered T1?
>
> You can always take back that claim.
>
>>>> I guess my words are the best you can do. Thats flattering.
>>>
>>> You should feel flattered, you actually produced something right for a
>>> change.
>>> You can thank me for the context, though. If you had a little more social
>>> grace, you could actually assume much more credit.
>>
>> ok
>
> You've proven flexibility of HDSL, but not reliability... And more
> specifically, you have not proven that it is MORE reliable than traditional
> repeatered T1.
>
>>> Well if you want to think that I am lying by saying something is proprietary
>>> because you think that I don't understand it, that's fine, Jim... What ever
>>> boosts your self-esteem.
>> NIce try to follow my lead.
>> Proprietary info on why T1's are shielded.
>> Yeah and the # of wires in a POTS service to a home are Proprietary too....
>
> Tip and ring. That's unclassified information.
>
> If you want to share for the world why/where T1s are shielded, go right ahead.
>
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
-------------------
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:13 PM:
An ISDN is made up of DS0 circuits why do I try to explain to you ....
the rest of your email skirts the isssue. Maybe you want to consider
leaving before it goes sour ;-(
>> T1 framing format ?! its a DSo circuit !
>
> My, my, Jim... You are so sad. You are so lazy to learn this stuff on your
> own, you'd rather face the humiliation of being wrong all the time. You should
> really just shut up.
>
> ISDN is NOT a DS0 circuit. A DS0 circuit/channel is 64 kbps, and ISDN BRI is
> 144 kbps (two 64 kbps B channels + one 16 kbps D-channel = 144 kbps).
>
> What on earth makes you think it was a DS0 circuit?
>
>> I missed that day of class.
>
> I can tell, you know very little about ISDN.
>
>> Robust real-world performance gains: ADC's experience in deploying HDSL
>> systems had made us extremely sensitive to the issues involved with
>> real-world performance. Our advancements must hold up in the real world and
>> not require our customer to manage disturbers in their loops. We could claim
>> near 18 kft (24 AWG) 2- pair HDSL performance with 2B1Q today, but this
>> would be by re-specifying loops. There are many examples of such
>> "specsmanship" in the industry today (Total reach ISDN, "symmetric" RADSL
>> ADSL)
>
> I don't see anywhere in the paragraph above that says "ISDN BRI does not use
> 2B1Q."
>
>> try again...
>> http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
>
> I did a search for "ISDN BRI does not use 2B1Q". Couldn't find anything.
>
>>>> That'd be like saying scsi 1 and ultrascsi are the same.
>> Macs and PC;s would essentially be the same by your definition since the Mac
>> can run a pc's software and it can read their disks not the other way
>> around.
>
> Well, since we're talking about HDSL and ISDN and bit encoding, we are having
> a physical layer (Layer 1) discussion. If you want to talk about computers at
> the physical layer, then yes, Macs and PCs would be very very similar.
>
> Both computers have a bus, I/O, RAM, ROM, CPU, floppy drives, CD-ROM drives.
> There's vastly more similarity between the two platforms at the physical layer
> than there are differences.
>
>>> HDSL/HDSL2 use 2B1Q encoding, granted at a much faster rate than basic-rate
>>> ISDN (BRI).
>> not to mention not compatible.
>
> I never said they were compatible. Just because they use the same encoding
> does not make them compatible. You're making false assumptions.
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
--
A Christian response to Darwinian theories of Evolution:
...Here can be seen the false dichotomy raised by some of those who would
use science to show the folly of a world view which included a supernatural
intelligence. theistic belief is not an alternative to physical science,
disproving it or devaluing it, it is a context in which the truths explored
by science can be set. This is a question not of physics, but of
metaphysics, and as Ward has correctly said, the contrary view to theism is
not science, but materialism, which is as much a thing of faith as is
religious belief...
By: Revd Michael Jackson
sul...@botwerks.org
>
> in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
> spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
>>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>>
>> Administration of what? Be specific.
>
> megabits.
>
priceless. - thanks for the laugh this AM. both of you.
--
steve ulrich 80 58 D5 21 FB 79 28 C5 9D 53 53 4B 3C 74 DB D5
sul...@botWerks.org
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>An ISDN is made up of DS0 circuits why do I try to explain to you ....
Well, a T1 is composed of DS0 circuits as well, but you're not calling a T1 a
DS0 circut like you did an ISDN circuit. Again, more stupidity on your part.
>the rest of your email skirts the isssue. Maybe you want to consider
>leaving before it goes sour ;-(
I think it went sour for you. You're sick of defending yourself, because yoy
are constantly being corrected.
I've already proven that ISDN uses 2B1Q, you'll never acknowledge you were
wrong there. I'll take you're non-replies as proof that you have no defense.
Aaron Kaase
>>> Administration of what? Be specific.
>> megabits.
>priceless. - thanks for the laugh this AM. both of you.
Priceless indeed, I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
>>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>> Administration of what? Be specific.
>megabits.
Huh?
>I didn't agree. I stated if you want me to follow your rules follow mine
>and you expected it to be one sided so kiss my ass.
Well it matters little... I filter out your e-mails. I haven't seen and e-mail
from you for months now. Much more fun to see you acting like an ass here in a
public forum (and you know it, too, which is why you're afraid to use your
real name).
>Well you started sending me emails again...too.
If I did, it was because your name was part of a list of names, in which case
I apologize. I recommend you delete it if you don't want to read it.
(rest of thread snipped since you had no replies)
I take it you give up on the thread? If so, I'll assume you stand corrected on
all the issues thereof.
S. Smith
Horwath) wrote:
>Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>: in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>: spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>
>:> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>:> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>:>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it back.
>:>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>:>
>:> Administration of what? Be specific.
>
>: megabits.
>
>'megabits' of what?
Mega bits of his brain that have leaked out over the years,
leaving him with only that one central neuron with which
to operate.
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/28/00 3:53 PM:
You won't know what administration was if it bit you in the ass.
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:43:33 GMT, sul...@botWerks.org wrote:
>
>>>> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>> megabits.
>> priceless. - thanks for the laugh this AM. both of you.
>
> Priceless indeed, I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
-----------
A crash a day keeps the fun away.
-Ancient Windows Proverb
not Apple •
--=(Think Different)=--------------=(www.Apple.com)=----
Mr.Conservative
sc...@wwwebworld.com wrote on 9/29/00 9:19 AM:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:42:38 GMT, drechsa...@yuck.net (Mike
> Horwath) wrote:
>
>> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> : in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>> : spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>>
>> :> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> :> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1
>> or
>> :>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it
>> back.
>> :>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>> :>
>> :> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>
>> : megabits.
>>
>> 'megabits' of what?
>
> Mega bits of his brain that have leaked out over the years,
> leaving him with only that one central neuron with which
> to operate.
>
>
>
Ohh now Torgo wants to get into the act.....
aren't you cute...
Mr.Conservative
drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/28/00 4:42 PM:
> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> : in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
> : spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>
> :> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> :> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> :>
> :>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
> :>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it
> back.
> :>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
> :>
> :> Administration of what? Be specific.
>
> : megabits.
>
> 'megabits' of what?
DSL Megabit services... do I have to spell everything out for you...
--
Word: Lore
1. lore \'lo-(*)r, 'lo.(*)r\ n [ME, fr. OE la-r; akin to OHG le-ra
doctrine, OE leornian)X to learn archaic 1: something that is taught :
LESSON 2: something that is learned : 2a: knowledge gained through study
or
experience 2b: traditional knowledge or belief 3: a particular body of
knowledge or tradition
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/28/00 4:00 PM:
>
> Huh?
DSL Megabit services... do I have to spell everything out for you...
Who says I'm afraid ?
You just do whatever suits you at the time. you always have and always
will.
I'm glad we don't hang out anymore my life has improved greatly.
>
>> I didn't agree. I stated if you want me to follow your rules follow mine
>> and you expected it to be one sided so kiss my ass.
>
> Well it matters little... I filter out your e-mails. I haven't seen and e-mail
> from you for months now. Much more fun to see you acting like an ass here in a
> public forum (and you know it, too, which is why you're afraid to use your
> real name).
>
>> Well you started sending me emails again...too.
>
> If I did, it was because your name was part of a list of names, in which case
> I apologize. I recommend you delete it if you don't want to read it.
>
> (rest of thread snipped since you had no replies)
>
> I take it you give up on the thread? If so, I'll assume you stand corrected on
> all the issues thereof.
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
--
Alan Krueger at kru...@nebula.cs.umn.edu wrote on 8/30/00 11:58 AM:
---------
> Exactly. It's the speech that most annoys us that deserves the greatest
> protection. Speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't need protection
> because nobody will try to suppress it.
---------
Mn.General
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/28/00 3:53 PM:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 03:52:37 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> An ISDN is made up of DS0 circuits why do I try to explain to you ....
>
> Well, a T1 is composed of DS0 circuits as well, but you're not calling a T1 a
> DS0 circut like you did an ISDN circuit. Again, more stupidity on your part.
I guess rather than get upset its easier to just laugh you off until you
figure it out.
>
>> the rest of your email skirts the isssue. Maybe you want to consider
>> leaving before it goes sour ;-(
>
> I think it went sour for you. You're sick of defending yourself, because yoy
> are constantly being corrected.
>
> I've already proven that ISDN uses 2B1Q, you'll never acknowledge you were
> wrong there. I'll take you're non-replies as proof that you have no defense.
You have to yet to show me it does . You keep claiming it does. Look we'll
try to get through that rock of yours again.
I got my information from ADC a slightly more reputable source than you or
Good Ole Travis.
I have shown you its part of HDSL2 not HDSL.
Those are 2 mutually exclusive things whether you and Mr. Travis care to
believe it or not. Look at an ISDN card at work and the docs and please...
show me where they say 2b1q signalling. the docs are proprietary and I
won't share those but I know you have access to them. Try reading them once
. Instead of listening to stupid people like your Travis buddy who
apparently has never heard of ADC or would know better.
Man you sound stupid when you are so stubborn.
http://www.pairgain.com/technology/hdsl2.asp
>
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
--
MN General discussion:
MTB Minnesota <Darren Byrnes> stated
I will admit.
Got a D-, eh?
I had 6 years of German in HS and 1 in college...
Um, hate to disappoint you but I sleep with my wife of 14 years.
(response) Last I heard that was statutory rape you sick puppy.
---
Darren in real life :
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame26.html
S Smith
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article iXOA5.2560$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
>drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/28/00 4:42 PM:
>
>> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> : in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>> : spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>>
>> :> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> :> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1 or
>> :>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it
>> back.
>> :>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>> :>
>> :> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>
>> : megabits.
>>
>> 'megabits' of what?
>
>DSL Megabit services... do I have to spell everything out for you...
Since nobody understands most of the stuff you post...YES,
you do need to spell things out, for clarification of your
muddy thought process.
SS
S Smith
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article 39d4afc0....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/28/00 3:53 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:43:33 GMT, sul...@botWerks.org wrote:
>>
>>>>> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>>> megabits.
>>> priceless. - thanks for the laugh this AM. both of you.
>>
>> Priceless indeed, I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.
>>
>You won't know what administration was if it bit you in the ass.
What a ridiculously stupid comment to make in this
newsgroup, Jimbo. Most of the regulars here have
been doing some sort of systems administration
for years. You, on the other hand, obviously know
very little about the subject (other than what you've
read and, more often than not, misinterpreted).
SS
S Smith
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article m499tscept4bbur55...@4ax.com, S. Smith at
>sc...@wwwebworld.com wrote on 9/29/00 9:19 AM:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:42:38 GMT, drechsa...@yuck.net (Mike
>> Horwath) wrote:
>>
>>> :> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>>
>>> : megabits.
>>>
>>> 'megabits' of what?
>>
>> Mega bits of his brain that have leaked out over the years,
>> leaving him with only that one central neuron with which
>> to operate.
>>
>Ohh now Torgo wants to get into the act.....
>
>aren't you cute...
I try. ;-)
SS
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>You won't know what administration was if it bit you in the ass.
Really... Does it bite you in the ass, often? :-)
You really are a bonafide idiot.
--
Aaron Kaase
wrote:
>: I'm glad we don't hang out anymore my life has improved greatly.
>Wowzers.
>You two used to hang out?
Regretably. We met working at Zeos seven years ago. I decided to terminate our
acquaintance two months ago due to extreme personal differences.
Actually Jim's okay in the workplace where you have a baseline of commonality
(and I guess some people would disagree with me)... He just sucks to know
personally.
>Was this during your LSD days or something?
Heh. I wonder if he was a crack baby or something. :-)
--
Aaron Kaase
>What a ridiculously stupid comment to make in this
>newsgroup, Jimbo. Most of the regulars here have
>been doing some sort of systems administration
>for years. You, on the other hand, obviously know
>very little about the subject (other than what you've
>read and, more often than not, misinterpreted).
Don't worry about it... He can't even remember the points he was trying to
make since he's abandoned the main thread.
--
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>DSL Megabit services... do I have to spell everything out for you...
Okay... now what was your point... A T1 that Qwest uses to administer Megabit
service.... what was your original point? Do you even remember? Does it even
matter or were you talking out of your ass again?
>Who says I'm afraid ?
Did I say you're afraid?
>You just do whatever suits you at the time. you always have and always
>will.
Yeah okay, whatever Jim.
>I'm glad we don't hang out anymore my life has improved greatly.
Good! Believe me, the benefit is mutal.
I'll give you some credit, you're actually decent to work with, but that is
where it stops.
--
Mr.Conservative
scott...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 10:32 AM:
You add as much as a wart on someone's ass.
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:02:25 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> in article iXOA5.2560$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
>> drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/28/00 4:42 PM:
>>
>>> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>> : in article 39c8bada....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>>> : spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/19/00 2:57 PM:
>>>
>>> :> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 03:25:57 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>>> :> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>> :>
>>> :>>> I'm still interested in your clarification of DSL being "muxed to a T1
>>> or
>>> :>>> larger through a CSU/DSU". Those are your words. Clarify, or take it
>>> back.
>>> :>> The administration is from a T1 I was a little off.
>>> :>
>>> :> Administration of what? Be specific.
>>>
>>> : megabits.
>>>
>>> 'megabits' of what?
>>
>> DSL Megabit services... do I have to spell everything out for you...
>
> Since nobody understands most of the stuff you post...YES,
> you do need to spell things out, for clarification of your
> muddy thought process.
>
>
> SS
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
Is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
-- Arturo Rubio
Mr.Conservative
scott...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 10:37 AM:
You don't know my background.
I don't claim/want to know yours. you speak arrogantly about what you know
not.
Nice one torgo...
>
> What a ridiculously stupid comment to make in this
> newsgroup, Jimbo. Most of the regulars here have
> been doing some sort of systems administration
> for years. You, on the other hand, obviously know
> very little about the subject (other than what you've
> read and, more often than not, misinterpreted).
>
>
> SS
--
Evolution is a crutch for weak minded people who need their strength in
numbers. "Organized Atheism is a sham and a crutch..²
-Anti -Jesse Ventura
Mr.Conservative
drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 11:23 AM:
> Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> : Those are 2 mutually exclusive things whether you and Mr. Travis care to
> : believe it or not. Look at an ISDN card at work and the docs and please...
> : show me where they say 2b1q signalling. the docs are proprietary and I
> : won't share those but I know you have access to them. Try reading them once
> : . Instead of listening to stupid people like your Travis buddy who
> : apparently has never heard of ADC or would know better.
>
> How can the documentation be proprietary? Really?
>
AAron claimed they were...
> ADC equipment...
>
yes
> Fujitsu equipment?
no
--
Windows Error: 003 - Operator fell asleep while waiting.
(Aaron Kaase)
Think Different !!!! •
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/1/00 2:16 AM:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 03:01:10 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> You won't know what administration was if it bit you in the ass.
>
> Really... Does it bite you in the ass, often? :-)
>
> You really are a bonafide idiot.
takes one to know one.
---------------- In A recent DFL Senatorial survey------
In a survey of 304 likely DFL primary voters, ``undecided'' came in first at
36 percent. Next was Dayton at 21 percent, followed by Yanisch at 16
percent, Janezich at 15 percent and Ciresi at 11 percent. Also running in
the DFL primary are former Minneapolis alderman Dick Franson, who garnered
just 1 percent of the vote, and Ole Savior, who had no support.....
Published: Tuesday, July 11, 2000
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/docs/0711poll.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Vote Grams !
http://www.grams2000.com/grams/issue/issuedetail.cfm?issue=9
(this has nothing to do with the Grams Campaign I just admire the guy.)
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/1/00 2:21 AM:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:20:15 GMT, drechsa...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
> wrote:
>
>> : I'm glad we don't hang out anymore my life has improved greatly.
>> Wowzers.
>> You two used to hang out?
>
> Regretably. We met working at Zeos seven years ago. I decided to terminate our
> acquaintance two months ago due to extreme personal differences.
>
> Actually Jim's okay in the workplace where you have a baseline of commonality
> (and I guess some people would disagree with me)... He just sucks to know
> personally.
thats why we hung for 7 years...
It had nothing to do with Aaron's arrogance or the amount he gets worked up
about every little thing.
When Aaron is actually working and not talking about doing work he's
actually pretty good too.
>
>> Was this during your LSD days or something?
>
> Heh. I wonder if he was a crack baby or something. :-)
I don't know did you have LSD days ?
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep,
his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of
their consciences.
- C. S. Lewis
Mr.Conservative
drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 12:26 PM:
I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
without me ?
Just to show you how gallant I am, I'm certain you'll all just disagree and
attack mindlessly as you usually do. But since I'm sick of this thread,
I'll concede this too you that I received bad information and I may have
been a little off about my 2b1q signaling as its only DIFFERENT in HDSL2 and
not excluded from regular HDSL or in this case ISDN.
> Mike Horwath <drechsa...@yuck.net> wrote:
> : Mr.Conservative <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> : : Those are 2 mutually exclusive things whether you and Mr. Travis care to
> : : believe it or not. Look at an ISDN card at work and the docs and
> please...
> : : show me where they say 2b1q signalling. the docs are proprietary and I
> : : won't share those but I know you have access to them. Try reading them
> once
> : : . Instead of listening to stupid people like your Travis buddy who
> : : apparently has never heard of ADC or would know better.
>
> : How can the documentation be proprietary? Really?
>
> : ADC equipment...
>
> : Fujitsu equipment?
>
> Here are some links showing 2b1q for ISDN:
>
> http://www.national.com/pf/TP/TP3410.html
> http://www.serpe-iesm.com/serpe-iesm/telecom/telfr/testproduct/actrisu.htm
> http://www.serpe-iesm.com/serpe-iesm/telecom/telgb/TestProduct/Activuds.htm
> http://www.realtime-info.com/encyc/techno/terms/42/94.htm
>
> And the best one that starts with 'What is 2B1Q?':
>
> http://www.vakarai.lt/klientam/ISDN/2b1q_engl.html
--
MN.General discussion:
Gilly wrote:
I just discovered the bit of trivia that Oliver Reed is a nephew of
Carol Reed. So, ten movie trivia points to whoever can tell me why
Carol Reed is a goddess among my people.
Rich Ahrens wrote: Considering he was male, that would indeed be
interesting... You really *are* an idiot, aren't you?
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> Really... Does it bite you in the ass, often? :-)
>> You really are a bonafide idiot.
>takes one to know one.
It's why I've decided to "unknow" you.
--
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
>without me ?
Seeing as how no messages were posted to this thread since you left, I'd say
no, we did not miss you. However, seeing as how you started up this thread
almost immediately upon returning, I'd say you definitely missed us.
>Just to show you how gallant I am, I'm certain you'll all just disagree and
>attack mindlessly as you usually do. But since I'm sick of this thread,
>I'll concede this too you that I received bad information and I may have
>been a little off about my 2b1q signaling as its only DIFFERENT in HDSL2 and
>not excluded from regular HDSL or in this case ISDN.
You're sick of this thread because you're a hapless moron who lost the debate.
You haven't proved to me that ADC gave "bad information." I told you I
searched ADC's entire site for "ISDN does not use 2B1Q" and I couldn't find
anything. You failed to provide proof, and you finally realized the truth.
Bad information, my ass... I think you have a bad brain that incorrectly
parses good information. Learn to respect people who know more than you.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>thats why we hung for 7 years...
Sporadically... Believe me, I'm quite embarrassed about it.
>It had nothing to do with Aaron's arrogance or the
>amount he gets worked up about every little thing.
Funny, because you're the only one who seems to get worked up over anything on
these newsgroups.
>When Aaron is actually working and not talking about doing work he's
>actually pretty good too.
That may be true, depending on the context of what I am saying.
>> Heh. I wonder if he was a crack baby or something. :-)
>I don't know did you have LSD days ?
LSD days?
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> How can the documentation be proprietary? Really?
>AAron claimed they were...
Please reproduce my alleged claim.
Mike Ekholm
: in article gnpB5.3346$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
: drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 12:26 PM:
: I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
: without me ?
I wish you would have let us know - it would make it much easear
for us to make you go away on a more perminant basis.
-Mike Ekholm
--
UNIX Sys Admin | ekh...@ekholm.org | http://www.ekholm.org | IRC: Nalez
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
hurtling down the highway" - Andrew S. Tanenbaum
MTB Minnesota
"Mr.Conservative" <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
> in article gnpB5.3346$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
> drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 12:26 PM:
>
> I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
> without me ?
Back to the Fatherland to get some more political pointers, mein Herr?
--
MTB Minnesota
"Never underestimate the stopping power of a tree."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 4:10 AM:
you can't
unless you get a lobotomy.
--
------------------
the mind...
"The people of Washington could not be more surprised if Fidel Castro
came loping across the Midwestern prairie on the back of a
hippopotamus."
-- Dan Rather, on the election of Jesse Ventura to MN Governor, 1998.
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 4:25 AM:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:36:50 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
>> without me ?
>
> Seeing as how no messages were posted to this thread since you left, I'd say
> no, we did not miss you. However, seeing as how you started up this thread
> almost immediately upon returning, I'd say you definitely missed us.
nope
>
>> Just to show you how gallant I am, I'm certain you'll all just disagree and
>> attack mindlessly as you usually do. But since I'm sick of this thread,
>> I'll concede this too you that I received bad information and I may have
>> been a little off about my 2b1q signaling as its only DIFFERENT in HDSL2 and
>> not excluded from regular HDSL or in this case ISDN.
>
> You're sick of this thread because you're a hapless moron who lost the debate.
>
>
> You haven't proved to me that ADC gave "bad information." I told you I
> searched ADC's entire site for "ISDN does not use 2B1Q" and I couldn't find
> anything. You failed to provide proof, and you finally realized the truth.
>
> Bad information, my ass... I think you have a bad brain that incorrectly
> parses good information. Learn to respect people who know more than you.
you first.
-From euphorian central:
-
We are boycotting Duct tape to save those poor ducts...
Morgan Q.E. Wolf Slattery - Euphorian
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 5:33 AM:
ok sweety, Mr short term memory.
in article 39bd39c4....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/10/00 4:23 AM:
-----------------
> Sorry. I would if I could. Non-disclosure agreements are annoying sometimes. I
> just hope I haven't leaked out anything else proprietary, .............
-----------------
-----------
A crash a day keeps the fun away.
-Ancient Windows Proverb
not Apple •
--=(Think Different)=--------------=(www.Apple.com)=----
Mr.Conservative
ekh...@ekholm.org wrote on 10/19/00 6:27 PM:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:36:50 -0500, Mr.Conservative just had to say:
>
> : in article gnpB5.3346$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
> : drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 12:26 PM:
>
> : I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
> : without me ?
>
> I wish you would have let us know - it would make it much easear
> for us to make you go away on a more perminant basis.
>
> -Mike Ekholm
man your an ass
--
Always remember:
"A leopard can't change its stripes." stated Al Gore
Mr.Conservative
darren...@my-deja.com wrote on 10/20/00 6:57 AM:
> In article <B612A122.D8A6%The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com>,
> "Mr.Conservative" <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> in article gnpB5.3346$WJ3.4...@ptah.visi.com, Mike Horwath at
>> drechsa...@yuck.net wrote on 9/30/00 12:26 PM:
>>
>> I just came back fro ma 12 day vacation in Germany were you guys bored
>> without me ?
>
> Back to the Fatherland to get some more political pointers, mein Herr?
>
Ja,
you betcha...
Germany is the most open and tolerant of gay countries, it is openly
socialistic, and liberal much more now that Gerhard Schroeder is there
instead of the conservative Helmut Kohl.
Try to learn the facts before talking ok.
You really should avoid trees more often if you keep running into them.
> --
> MTB Minnesota
>
> "Never underestimate the stopping power of a tree."
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
---------------- In A recent DFL Senatorial survey------
Mike Ekholm
: man your an ass
We all have our problems. Some of us are asses, others are persestant and
anoying.
S. Smith
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:19:09 -0500, Mr.Conservative just had to say:
>
>: man your an ass
>
>We all have our problems. Some of us are asses, others are persestant and
>anoying.
>
> -Mike Ekholm
And some of us are just persistent and annoying asses. ;-)
SS
Mr.Conservative
wrote on 10/23/00 5:41 PM:
I agree in your case.
--
....everyone's favorite Redmond megacorporation hasn't actually innovated a
single thing, really, ever.... almost every major Microsoft product... is
either bought, borrowed, or stolen outright, in full view, with clear
intent, without a twinge of guilt or humility.
- Mark Morford, San Francisco Gate
T H I N K D I F F E R E N T •
Scott Smith
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article 39f4be4a...@news.alt.net, S. Smith at sc...@wwwebworld.com
>wrote on 10/23/00 5:41 PM:
>>
>> And some of us are just persistent and annoying asses. ;-)
>>
>I agree in your case.
You have earned nothing more from me.
SS
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> Seeing as how no messages were posted to this thread since you left, I'd say
>> no, we did not miss you. However, seeing as how you started up this thread
>> almost immediately upon returning, I'd say you definitely missed us.
>
>nope
Logic and evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, Jim. This thread was idle
until you came back.
>> You haven't proved to me that ADC gave "bad information." I told you I
>> searched ADC's entire site for "ISDN does not use 2B1Q" and I couldn't find
>> anything. You failed to provide proof, and you finally realized the truth.
>>
>> Bad information, my ass... I think you have a bad brain that incorrectly
>> parses good information. Learn to respect people who know more than you.
>
>you first.
Again, the thread speaks for itself, you are a hapless moron, disputing people
who know better than you. I'll leave it at that.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article 39f77c76...@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 5:33 AM:
>
>ok sweety, Mr short term memory.
Ok sweety?
I'd dare you to say that to me in person, you'd soon find out how much bigger
and stronger I am than you. Appreciate the fact that your jaw isn't broken
right now.
>in article 39bd39c4....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/10/00 4:23 AM:
>> Sorry. I would if I could. Non-disclosure agreements are annoying sometimes. I
>> just hope I haven't leaked out anything else proprietary, .............
And this is relevant to what?
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> It's why I've decided to "unknow" you.
>you can't
>unless you get a lobotomy.
You must speak from experience.
MTB Minnesota
Scott Smith <sc...@wwwebworld.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:21:11 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
> >in article 39f4be4a...@news.alt.net, S. Smith at
sc...@wwwebworld.com
> >wrote on 10/23/00 5:41 PM:
> >>
> >> And some of us are just persistent and annoying asses. ;-)
> >>
> >I agree in your case.
>
> You have earned nothing more from me.
>
> SS
>
Scott, you kinda walked in to that one...
;-)
S. Smith
wrote:
>In article <jmdavs4kn8eehl9jv...@4ax.com>,
> Scott Smith <sc...@wwwebworld.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:21:11 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>
>> >in article 39f4be4a...@news.alt.net, S. Smith at
>sc...@wwwebworld.com
>> >wrote on 10/23/00 5:41 PM:
>> >>
>> >> And some of us are just persistent and annoying asses. ;-)
>> >>
>> >I agree in your case.
>>
>> You have earned nothing more from me.
>>
>
>Scott, you kinda walked in to that one...
>
>;-)
Not really. I *know* I can be a persistent and annoying ass to many
people in these groups. Jimbo is probably the most deserving of that
treatment, IMO.
SS
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 3:34 AM:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:13:14 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>>> Seeing as how no messages were posted to this thread since you left, I'd say
>>> no, we did not miss you. However, seeing as how you started up this thread
>>> almost immediately upon returning, I'd say you definitely missed us.
>>
>> nope
>
> Logic and evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, Jim. This thread was idle
> until you came back.
nope
>> you first.
>
> Again, the thread speaks for itself, you are a hapless moron, disputing people
> who know better than you. I'll leave it at that.
You are a low grade moron who is more stubborn than a mule. You dispute
anyone who has a differing opinion.
'people who know better' give me a BREAK! whatever.
The sky is blue...
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 4:01 AM:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:18:43 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> in article 39f77c76...@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>> spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 5:33 AM:
>>
>> ok sweety, Mr short term memory.
>
> Ok sweety?
>
> I'd dare you to say that to me in person, you'd soon find out how much bigger
> and stronger I am than you. Appreciate the fact that your jaw isn't broken
> right now.
Is that a threat to do physical damage ?
You forgot to add how much more arrogant and stubborn.
thats why when we were going to do som,e yard work about 2 years ago
involving digging after 5 minutes you said it was hard work and gave up and
I finished it on my own the next day.
>
>> in article 39bd39c4....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>> spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 9/10/00 4:23 AM:
>>> Sorry. I would if I could. Non-disclosure agreements are annoying sometimes.
>>> I
>>> just hope I haven't leaked out anything else proprietary, .............
>
> And this is relevant to what?
man you have a short term memory !
you wrote :
in article 39f77c76...@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/18/00 5:33 AM:
> Please reproduce my alleged claim.
and I did then you ask what its relevant too ?
are you on drugs ?
-------------------
On the other hand, perhaps this is the first time the possibility
occurred to you, in which case you may have thought twice about saying
something so stupid. Let's suppose this instead: let's suppose you take
your challenge and stick it right up your humorless attitude.
--------------- courtesy of the MN.General welcome wagon ----------------
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 4:04 AM:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:12:02 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's why I've decided to "unknow" you.
>> you can't
>> unless you get a lobotomy.
>
> You must speak from experience.
no logic and circumstance would show otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Smith reveals his true side...7-14-00
" I admire the Red party, and their platform ideals,"
"I don't think many Americans would have what it takes to work together in
a cooperative society,"
-----------------------===newsgroup: MN.Politics ===--------------------
Spoken like a true marxist....
http://zim.com/torgo/MASTER.GIF
http://206.145.58.124/wavs/torgomix.wav
Mr.Conservative
darren...@my-deja.com wrote on 10/24/00 11:20 AM:
> In article <jmdavs4kn8eehl9jv...@4ax.com>,
> Scott Smith <sc...@wwwebworld.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 01:21:11 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>
>>> in article 39f4be4a...@news.alt.net, S. Smith at
> sc...@wwwebworld.com
>>> wrote on 10/23/00 5:41 PM:
>>>>
>>>> And some of us are just persistent and annoying asses. ;-)
>>>>
>>> I agree in your case.
>>
>> You have earned nothing more from me.
>>
>> SS
>>
>
> Scott, you kinda walked in to that one...
>
> ;-)
>
touché!
--
"I have argued for a restoration of the constitutional republic....but
the fact that you're a voter is one of the most persuasive arguments for
anarcho-capitalism." -- Rob Robertson, replying to a moron
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> Logic and evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, Jim. This thread was idle
>> until you came back.
>
>nope
Denial is really easy, isn't it?
The thread speaks for itself, and you have the burden to prove otherwise.
>You are a low grade moron who is more stubborn than a mule. You dispute
>anyone who has a differing opinion.
Ah, but this has been a discussion of FACTS, You still can't distinguish
between opinion and facts, can you?
Opinion: T1s are a better solution than DSL.
Fact: T1s are comprised of 24 - 64 kbps DS0 channels.
Until you can distinguish the difference, you will lose every debate as you
have in the past.
>'people who know better' give me a BREAK! whatever.
Sorry, but you have definitely shown a great degree of ineptitude in this
thread. The thread speaks for itself, I'll leave it at that.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> And this is relevant to what?
>> Please reproduce my alleged claim.
>and I did then you ask what its relevant too ?
>are you on drugs ?
I asked you how this was relevent... I.E. What is your point?
You have no point, apparently...
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>>> It's why I've decided to "unknow" you.
>>> you can't
>>> unless you get a lobotomy.
>> You must speak from experience.
>no logic and circumstance would show otherwise.
Logic and circumstance would indicate that if you DIDN'T have a lobotomy, then
you probably have some cranial tumor or some other sever mental disorder that
makes you as idiotic as you are.
But then, you really aren't in the state of mind to be discussing this, are
you?
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 2:40 PM:
>
>> You are a low grade moron who is more stubborn than a mule. You dispute
>> anyone who has a differing opinion.
>
> Ah, but this has been a discussion of FACTS, You still can't distinguish
> between opinion and facts, can you?
>
> Opinion: T1s are a better solution than DSL.
> Fact: T1s are comprised of 24 - 64 kbps DS0 channels.
>
> Until you can distinguish the difference, you will lose every debate as you
> have in the past.
of course I didn't dispute that . get off the drugs and try again.
El Presidente
--
"Our cause has been aided by the deaths of all these children in all these
schools, and in other settings. And I think we should pay tribute to them."
William Jefferson Klinton April 13, 2000
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 2:54 PM:
Perhaps your right I am recovering from 7 years of hanging with you !
--
Word: Lore
1. lore \'lo-(*)r, 'lo.(*)r\ n [ME, fr. OE la-r; akin to OHG le-ra
doctrine, OE leornian)X to learn archaic 1: something that is taught :
LESSON 2: something that is learned : 2a: knowledge gained through study
or
experience 2b: traditional knowledge or belief 3: a particular body of
knowledge or tradition
Mr.Conservative
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 2:58 PM:
other than the one on your head.
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>in article 39f9e971....@209.98.98.12, Aaron Kaase at
>spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/24/00 2:58 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:37:12 -0500, "Mr.Conservative"
>> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And this is relevant to what?
>>>> Please reproduce my alleged claim.
>>> and I did then you ask what its relevant too ?
>>> are you on drugs ?
>> I asked you how this was relevent... I.E. What is your point?
>> You have no point, apparently...
>other than the one on your head.
No, you!
Time to start using your feeble comebacks. :-)
MTB Minnesota
spamsuck...@pconline.com (Aaron Kaase) wrote:
>
> No, you!
>
> Time to start using your feeble comebacks. :-)
>
> --
> Aaron Kaase
> St. Paul, MN
>
Um, NICE ONE!
Of course you forgot Rim's tie-ins with that "Torgo" character and of
course, communism.
--
MTB Minnesota
"Never overestimate the thinking power of Lore."
Mike Ekholm
: thats why when we were going to do som,e yard work about 2 years ago
: involving digging after 5 minutes you said it was hard work and gave up and
: I finished it on my own the next day.
So go dig yourself a grave and jump in.
Aaron Kaase
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:37:12 -0500, Mr.Conservative just had to say:
>
>: thats why when we were going to do som,e yard work about 2 years ago
>: involving digging after 5 minutes you said it was hard work and gave up and
>: I finished it on my own the next day.
>
>So go dig yourself a grave and jump in.
In that case, I'd finish the yard work by filling in his grave. :-)
Yellow Dog Liberal
spamsuck...@pconline.com wrote on 10/25/00 2:56 PM:
except it was too much work you wus !
--
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-- George Santayana
Aaron Kaase
<The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>> In that case, I'd finish the yard work by filling in his grave. :-)
>except it was too much work you wus !
If it were for the purpose of filling your grave, Jim, the work would be well
worth it.
Yellow Dog Liberal
on 11/1/00 12:28 PM:
I'm glad that helps :-)
Anyhow has anyone else been SYN flooded fom anyone one of these Ip addresses
? Or attacked in other ways ?
195.185.186.66
206.11.42.171
206.145.52.76 - m18-5-12.pconline.com 9-28-00 9:41 am connection flood.
210.232.223.213
212.108.201.185
213.8.241.121
213.213.58.59
216.17.10.25
216.168.224.137
24.216.4.15
38.27.200.240
> Enormously. Thank you.
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:53:07 -0500, Yellow Dog Liberal
> <The_intellecte@not_your_mind.com> wrote:
>
>> in article bvuqvso4566qjnm83...@4ax.com, cy...@visi.com at
>> cy...@visi.com wrote on 10/30/00 8:49 AM:
>>
>>
>> All I wanted to talk about was Macintosh dsl and people sending syn flood
>> attacks but these idiots weren't interested they were more into 'jim
>> bashing' and not focusing on topic....
>>
>> the moronic part of this thread will continue under
>>
>> 'Aaron's incessant banter"
>>
>> in mn.general.
>>
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>>
>
>
------------------
"We can turn out amazing human beings without technology.
Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting
human beings with technology." - Steve Jobs •