🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:32:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


>>> The claim was that the MAJORITY used modems and could not use on-line
>>> directories, which is patently false.
> 
>> Umm, who wrote that?
> 
> You clearly did.

Um roddles "Thats the altzheimer's talking."
You might like to find it as your wet paper bag is obscuring your vision
> 
>>> If you want a 20th century way of looking up phone numbers don't
>>> expect the rest of us who have moved on to continue to subsidise your
>>> wasteful habits.
> 
>> Perhaps we should apply the same view to motor cars as a 20th Century
>> way of personal transport.
> 
> Only fools like you are that stupid.

So once again roddles is stymied. 

>> and a recent computer to do so.
> 
> And that in spades.

So you agree. thank you. so many bloated web pages around.

 
>> Otherwise, printed directories are faster
> 
> Pigs arse they are.

Get new glasses Roddles.

>>> My view of "democracy" is that people shouldn't be held back by (or
>>> pay for) those that has some bizarre sense of entitlement that because
>>> something once was it should remain so forever.
> 
>> So the rich should rule?
> 
> He never said anything like that. Hardly any of those 8M are anything
> like rich.

They how do they afford a recent computer to handle the bloatware on 
whitepages online? 

> 
>>> This country is full of those who just whinge about any change, no
>>> matter how trivial or bogus the objections are - just recall the
>>> whingeing and outcry when we ALL moved to 8 digit phone numbers, wow
>>> the sky really fell in then to.....
> 
>> I don't actually recall any of that.
> 
> Thats the altzheimer's talking.

Confession? Get your GP to change your meds.
> 
>> Having moved from 6 to 8 to 10 in my life time, it was inconsequential.
> 
> Irrelevant to how many whined about it.

You should stop getting your daily dose from Alan.