Re: length of sig files

Joe Ellis writes: >On 12/16/02 10:36 PM, "Justin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ::adds maturity to list of qualities of this list:: >> im just waiting to get kicked off, so i dont have to go through the >> effort of taking my self off. >> >> On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Sque wrot

Re: length of sig files

On 12/17/02 7:05 AM, "James Rohde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Spew into the Cybertrough: > List Nannies, can you please declare this thread over, done, dead? This thread is dead. And so are any related threads with new titles. Kill it. It's time to move on. Let's get back to what this list is all ab

Re: length of sig files

>List Nannies, can you please declare this thread over, done, dead? I second. All in favor? Passes unanimously... now lets move on... -- G-Books is sponsored by and... Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Check our web site for re

Re: length of sig files

List Nannies, can you please declare this thread over, done, dead? Thanks, Jim Rohde -- G-Books is sponsored by and... Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks | & CDRWs on Sale! |

Re: length of sig files

on 16/12/02 22:34, Sque at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> are you kidding me?? >> >> THE INTERNET IS A NETWORK. A LARGE NETWORK OF NETWORKS. >> >> christ all mighty. this reaffirms my previous comments of the >> *INCREDIBLE* amount of unknowledgeable spew on this list.

Re: length of sig files

On 12/16/02 10:36 PM, "Justin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ::adds maturity to list of qualities of this list:: > im just waiting to get kicked off, so i dont have to go through the > effort of taking my self off. > > <3 > > On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Sque wrote: > >> How much

Re: length of sig files

To unsubscribe, email: or is it too hard? Whatever. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >::adds maturity to list of qualities of this list:: >im just waiting to get kicked off, so i dont have to go through the >effort of taking my self off. > > -- G-Books is sponsored by

Re: length of sig files

::adds maturity to list of qualities of this list:: im just waiting to get kicked off, so i dont have to go through the effort of taking my self off. <3 On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:34 PM, Sque wrote: > How much longer do we have to put up with this crap? Take it off list or > do you ne

Re: length of sig files

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >are you kidding me?? > >THE INTERNET IS A NETWORK. A LARGE NETWORK OF NETWORKS. > >christ all mighty. this reaffirms my previous comments of the >*INCREDIBLE* amount of unknowledgeable spew on this list. > > How much longer do we have to put up with this crap? Take

Re: length of sig files

are you kidding me?? THE INTERNET IS A NETWORK. A LARGE NETWORK OF NETWORKS. christ all mighty. this reaffirms my previous comments of the *INCREDIBLE* amount of unknowledgeable spew on this list. yes. websites /are/ on bandwidth limits. its how web hosts make their money. sending data from on

Re: length of sig files

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 09:36 PM, B.J. Major wrote: > > And to others on this list who have seen fit to grumble and growl about > how this particular subject is horribly off topic, may I politely and > kindly remind you that this IS an email list, afterall. And that while > they're not

Re: length of sig files

>the ignorance amazes me. > >you sir, need to read a book about how networks work. No, I don't. "Networks" are not the same thing as "the internet" and I do know the difference. Notice that I quoted *exactly* what I needed to in order to reply to your message. However, you did exactly what po

Re: length of sig files [OT]

the ignorance amazes me. you sir, need to read a book about how networks work. if you think that the collective "internet" with their 10k plain text signatures is slowing your ability to check stock prices and send pictures of the kids to grandma, you're insane. you make it sound like there is a

Re: length of sig files [OT]

B.J. Major writes: >Sayeth Obi-Wan: > >>A person's signature is personal. As long as it is not profane and less >>than 10 lines or so, then it is fine. > >No, that is wrong. Go back and restudy, do not pass GO. Since the early >days of the internet, no sig file is supposed to be more than SIX

Re: length of sig files [OT]

>this is the most useless thread i think ive ever seen on this list, and >this is the ONLY input i will have on it. > >do you have the slightest idea how much 10 lines of plain text is? >even a 14.4 modem would process that in less than a second. Doesn't matter. Times that with the number of pe

Re: length of sig files [OT]

On 12/16/02 12:29 PM, "Mike Amato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Enough already. Protocol is decided by the webmaster. > That's why he's the master. It's his decision. I don't know how I got on this list - can someone tell me how to get off? Thanks! -- G-Books is sponsored by

Re: length of sig files [OT]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (G-Books) > Subject: Re: length of sig files [OT] > > Sayeth Obi-Wan: > >> A person's signature is personal. As long as it is not profane and less >> than 10 lines or so, then it is fine. > > No, that is wrong. Go back and restudy, do not pass

Re: length of sig files [OT]

this is the most useless thread i think ive ever seen on this list, and this is the ONLY input i will have on it. do you have the slightest idea how much 10 lines of plain text is? even a 14.4 modem would process that in less than a second. On Sunday, December 15, 2002, at 01:54 PM, B.J. Major

Re: length of sig files [OT]

Sayeth Obi-Wan: >A person's signature is personal. As long as it is not profane and less >than 10 lines or so, then it is fine. No, that is wrong. Go back and restudy, do not pass GO. Since the early days of the internet, no sig file is supposed to be more than SIX lines of plain text *maxim