Gems from uk.comp.sys.mac




Gareth John

Re: .sit on FAT

Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:34:50 +0100

[snip fab on-thread informative content]

While on the subject, does anyone know what happened to Raymond Lau -
ISTR the child prodigy who wrote the original Stuffit? Did he succumb to
drink and drugs, and now drives a cab? Or is he running a Silicon Valley megacorp?

And what of Yves Lempereur, writer of BinHex 4.0 - the original (and
still the only reliable) '.hqx' application? I always pictured him as a
craggy, sweater-wearing type with a pipe, starring in French movies.
You'll probably tell me he's a bronzed Californian body-builder.

Any disillusions welcome.


Re: OS X - Is it worth it?


Mon, 11 Mar 2002 02:04:18 +0000

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> Over to you, guys. Don't let me down now.

Fuck you, Daniele, you don't know shit.

(how did I do?)

This place is tame compared to the rambling petty arguments in
csm.advocacy (which is why I'm here rather than there).

David Kennedy

Re: More Motoring Perils - was; France- and previously was:Flash MX

26 Apr 2002 07:20:10 GMT

Rowland McDonnell wrote:


> Volvos are generally considered big cars with famously arrogant and
> careless drivers.

Guilty as charged, I am famous, arrogant and I carelessly disagreed 
with Simon Dobbs.


Tim Gowen

Re: Mac Spotting #666

Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:47:33 +0000 (UTC)

In <> GD  wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:53:24 +0100, Michael Haslam wrote
> (in message <>):
>> Yesterday morning, in Westminster Abbey, the retired Bishop of 
>> Bristol  after confirming 10 choristers began his sermon with a 
>> reference to his  new 17" flatscreen Apple iMac.
> Okay, I'll bite.
> What on earth did he say?

"Deus ex machina!"

D.M. Procida

Re: Memory for beige G3


Roger Merriman wrote:

> D.M. Procida wrote:
> > Peter Ceresole wrote:
> > 
> > > Solved, as John Bradury said, by snipping away the grill that covers
> > > the fan. It's only soft aluminium and once it's gone, nothing touches
> > > or fouls. With tin snips, a five minute job at most.
> > 
> > I did it with my teeth once.

> um i'm probably going to regret this but why?

Because I am the consummate Mac professional, with every part of my body
and soul fitted supremely well to the task of Apple Macintosh care and

Also, I have superbly polarised teeth.

Peter Ceresole

Re: A few questions...


Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:35 +0000

In article <btn3qu$sus$>,
(Richard P. Grant) wrote:

>> But he's not a cunt; he has neither the depth nor the warmth.
>That's going to have to be sigquoted, mate.

Sadly, not really original- although I suppose that's true of most jokes.

I heard it first from my dad, who was quoting, maybe apocryphally, a French
bishop from the '30s. Someone had said of a man:

'Cet homme est un con.'

The bishop replied; 'Mais non. Il n'en a ni la profondeur, ni la chaleur

In French!

Damn, we're good!

Jim at The Culture

Re: [OT]PC Logic

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:33:02 +0000

Flavio Matani wrote:

> > - pre-X - pretzel-Y
> looks like some obscure mathematical formula, rather than a reference to
> a keyboard shortcut involving the command key and the 'y' key  in the
> days of the classic Mac OS  before Mac OS X.... (hee hee)

Knowing RPG it probably  is  a mathematical formula. It's also probably
a disgusting one, quite possibly involving cheese and a small tangerine.

Richard P. Grant

Re: Record speed for email transfer


12 May 2004 11:29:11 GMT

Peter Ceresole wrote:
> David Kennedy wrote:
>> but I never, to the best of my
>> recollection, ever saw a smiling postman in London - except when he'd
>> just dropped a package marked frgile
> Our local chap is a lovely young fellow, always smiling and cheerful,
> and the letters seem to be arriving at the right addresses...
> Our previous-but-five postman retired almost a decade ago. Salt of the
> earth type- I still meet him in the high street shopping, and we still
> exchange greetings and smiles.

But Peter, everybody knows that you live in a different world to the rest of
us.  The women on your planet are clever, yet demure, long-legged and
incredibly sexy.  The cats don't crap in the garden, the dogs are
house-trained and kind to children, the sky is always blue, the birds
never eat the young cherries from the tree, you never have network
problems, the men are handsome, chivalrous and have many wonderful
stories of frontier technology to share, ID cards are compulsory but no
one ever,  ever  asks to see them; the drivers are courteous and the
cyclists skilled; network problems just do not exist.  All educated
people (which, let's face it, is everybody) use Macs, dolphins eat from your
hand and the ever-smiling postman brings you and your exquisite wife and
beautiful, charming, intelligent daugthers letters and postcards
(never bills or unsolicited mail) that were posted yesterday from no matter
where in the world from family and dear friends, and what's more the post
always arrives before the time you'd have to set out to work if you had to
work which you don't because you're retired.

I hate you.


Nigel Eastmond

Re: Record speed for email transfer

Wed, 12 May 2004 18:04:32 +0100

Okay, Well I'm in Manchester and Manchester is real. Car crime is on the
up, there is horse, cat and dog shit everywhere. The postman delivers
thousands of junk mails a week, but I never see him because he only
works afternoons. Birds drink my milk ... birds ... no songbirds - only
buzzards, crows and carpet-crapping squadrons of destructive
housemartins. Plus we had to sack the window cleaner for wanking in the
back garden.




Re: Lacie BigDisk


Wed, 19 May 2004 11:28:27 BST

In article <>, Jon B
>> In ten years time you'll look back and be amazed at the quaint idea that
>> a terabyte drive is not suitable for everyday use.
> along with the idea you could actually fit a Microsoft Application on it

Nah, Microsoft won't be around in ten years time.

<looks around in a cagey way>

Trust me on this.



Re: OT: The way we live now


Tue, 18 May 2004 08:55:47 BST

In article <c8ce00$ced$>, Richard P. Grant wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
>> Richard P. Grant wrote:
>>> Old farts, like youandme, just wither and die.
>> No no! All the fight's gone out of you old bean.
>> Rage, rage against the dying of the light!
> no . . . I'm merely coming to appreciate the benefits of Ceresoleworld.
"Now available in easy to swallow capsules!"


Elliott Roper

Re: OT: How do the computers in credit cards work?

Wed, 19 May 2004 11:23:06 +0100

In article <c8fa4r$nl$>, Richard P. Grant

> leeg wrote:
> >>> instruction is fetched from such a page. In this way, proper operating
> >                                                         ^^^^^^
> >>> systems such as VMS can be more immune to stack smasher attacks.
> >                   ^^^
> >
> > Firstly, that does not compute.
>        ^^!
> Elliott is our resident VMS bigot.  We tolerate him because he does have
> a finer side.

It's fuckin *seabird* flavour..		


Re: Billy suggers.....


Sat, 22 May 2004 10:09:55 +0100

In article <>,
 Bonge Boo! wrote:

> So it took Apple less than 3 days to release a patch, when they had 3 months
> to do it on the quiet. They've destroyed an enormous amount of "media
> goodwill" towards OS X, given plenty of ammo to the naysayers (me) and
> generally handled it very very ineptly.

On behalf of real "mac users", I'd just like to point out that you're
spouting shite you miserable git.


Rachael Nex

Re: Yet another switcher

Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:41 +0000

in article, Bella Jones at wrote on 2/6/05 10:51 AM:

> Jim wrote:
>> Richard P. Grant wrote:
>>> Simon Dobbs wrote:
>>>> This is simply a forum for opinion and advice- what people write- it
>>>> isn't  'real' you know- it isn't important.
>>> I will not argue with you, because that is getting muddy and - hey! -
>>> increasing noise.  It's obvious you don't get what is wrong with you.
>>> But for the sake of those who do get it, I offer something that was
>>> written about a different problem, but applies just as well here:
>>> "I've been
>>> through pain and joy with this network, I've seen communities form and
>>> wither and reform, I've met friends and lost friends here, I've learned
>>> things and discovered things and created things.  I've seen people make a
>>> home here when they didn't have any other, not on a newsgroup, not with a
>>> bunch of electrons, but with people that they've met and communities that
>>> they've found and support that they've received from people who had just
>>> the words they needed to hear and would never have known they existed, and
>>> by God I  KNOW  what this network is for, and you can't have it."
>>> -- Russ Allbery, from
>> <applause!>
> Seconded. I love that quote.

I'll have to third it.

I find the idea that what one writes here (or anywhere else on the net) not
actually being "real" and not mattering somewhat sinister. Do I change my
personality into something completely different when I sit in front of a
computer screen ? Do I treat the words that people write differently to
spoken words in the "real world" because I can't actually see their faces
here ? (and to be honest, unless you're sitting right next to me in the
"real world" I can't see your face there either.) Do I somehow treat a
written opinion or emotion as less than a "real world" opinion or emotion ?
Do I treat words of advice or comfort or description that I read here as
less valid than the same expressed in the "real world" in speech ?

 Of course not, it's not neccessary for me to do that nor would I want to
actively try to. I understand the courtesies of text and realise that words
written really can show the real person underneath if the writer intends it.
So I don't need to start out with a dismissive attitude to people I might
"virtually" meet, just as I don't in the "real world".
But there are people who do. You get 'em all over usenet (and in the real
world too of course). People who would say, for example, negative or
dismissive things through text that they would never dare say in actual
physical presence of a person in the "real world", and I feel very sorry for
those people, to be honest.

I think sometimes (I stress sometimes) a person's opposition to off topic
chat in a group such as this can stem from an inability to "be themselves"
through text. Often people in the real world have difficulty relating to
others that they have only passing aquaintence with, let alone being able to
feel comfortable with that through text, but I've been lucky enough never to
have that problem, either in the real world or the net world.
I'm not uncomfortable with social interaction with those I barely know, for
example, I could strike up a conversation with people in the bus queue who I
didn't know. The next day in the same bus queue I could acknowledge those I
remembered from the previous day, and speak to them again. A month down the
line those regular bus queue bods might be people I knew and liked and had
shared the time of day with. We might talk about buses and how they were
always late or particular bus drivers or bus routes or where we were going,
but you can be sure we'd talk about tv and music and just any old shite too.
It's how we interact as a species. And advice or opinion or comfrot offered
during the chats we had may well be considered valid and real.

The bus queue example is pretty much how I see this group (and others like
it). Just my two pennies worth.



D.M. Procida

Re: Bill Gates = Robin Hood?

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:42:36 +0100

Ian Robinson wrote:

> > So if you're in Africa and got TB, you probably think Microsoft's hegemony
> > is a good thing. I would find that hard to argue against.
> Agreed. What Gates is doing is very good indeed. Having someone with
> his wealth, a reputation for getting things done and an interest in
> hands on management of the funds should be a good thing in the fight
> against infectious disease.
> Kudos to him and his foundation.

No, fuck him and al of his worthless, lying, hypocritical sanctimonious
kind. When you have spent your life screwing everybody, and that
includes making all the efforts you can to establish your nasty monopoly
in the developing world so that too can fit neatly into your plans,
you're going to feel an urgent need to start buying your way into

Gates has no more need for money, he can't possibly use any more. What
he wants is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with prime-ministers and
statesmen, to have the UN Secretary General lauding his works.

The most massive acts of charity on the part of the likes of Gates
aren't going to change the world and the lives of the poorest people in
it. Those people are poor largely thanks to the system of international
capitalism which has made Gates rich, and his eye-catching acts of
charity serve mainly to reinforce that system and give incredibly
wealthy individuals, corporations and societies a chance to feel good
about themselves without actually having to face any obligations save
the ones they choose to dress up in for when they get to deliver
speeches at conferences on poverty or disease.


D.M. Procida

Re: Bill Gates = Robin Hood?

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:55:09 +0100

Bonge Boo! wrote:

> > No, fuck him and al of his worthless, lying, hypocritical sanctimonious
> > kind. When you have spent your life screwing everybody, and that
> > includes making all the efforts you can to establish your nasty monopoly
> > in the developing world so that too can fit neatly into your plans,
> > you're going to feel an urgent need to start buying your way into
> > heaven.
> Jolly good.
> When you've changed the entire world economic system and distributed wealth
> equally amongst the nations of the world, I'll agree entirely with you.
> But for the moment I'll be glad that prominent public figures are trying to
> buy their way into heaven.

I don't think you really get it. First of all, they are not "prominent
public figures". They are private indivuals, and huge corporations.
There is nothing public about them at all, other than the fact that we
seem to know a lot about them and they are famous. Public means
belonging to the community.

Secondly, the 'good' they do amounts to a tiny fraction of the harm they
do. They participate in these glamourous gestures of philanthropy in
their time off from lobbying governments and international organisations
to make sure that laws and treaties go their way and making agreements
with the likes of the Chinese authorities to help decide exactly under
what circumstances they will help usher dissident journalists into the
torture chambers. It's a smokescreen to help distract us from the gross
and subtle evils they are responsible for.

If just one child doesn't die of malaria or TB thanks to Bill Gates,
then that's good. But Bill Gates's acts of charity work to distract us
from the fact that he is an active and fervent participator in a system
which helps guarantee that millions of people across the world will
never be able to escape those same diseases, and that they and their
communities will live and die in misery.

We don't have Bill Gates's charity over here and his other activities
over there, nice and separate so that you could praise one without
taking into account the other. They are part of the same thing,
completely bound up in each other. The charity is only necessary because
of the other activities, and in the end helps sustain those other

It's like a bunch of arsonists running around burning down entire
streets, and every so often one of them chucks a bucket of water on a
fire or dramatically rescues a kitten. So they're feted by fools, but in
the meantime people and their lives and houses are going up in flames.



D.M. Procida

Re: Bill Gates = Robin Hood?

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:59:46 +0100

Ian Robinson wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:15:36 +0100, D.M. Procida wrote
> (in article
> <>):
> > Of course not. What I'm objecting to is the idea that he should be
> > praised for it, or that it represents any kind of ideal worth
> > applauding.
> You're entitled to your opinion. Like everyone else.

Mine is right though.

And some people are in fact not entitled to opinions, for example the
Chinese, whose rulers (with a little essential assistance, particularly
from Yahoo!, but also from the philanthropic Bill Gates's Microsoft)
like to track them down and imprison them should they dare to express
the wrong ones. Great guy, that Bill Gates!