At 02:32 PM 1/28/03 -0700, you wrote: >On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 01:44, Steven C. Darnold wrote: >> Bob George wrote: >> [...] >> Not "newer". The post advocated replacing survPC stuff >> with brand new. > >New, newer, brand-new, most-newest? The post advocated CONSIDERING such >replacement, yes. Is that threatening?
My 'take' on this is that users of new/newer already have MANY forums they can use to chat about their latest aquisition. They don't need one more here on SURVPC. >> IMHO it is offensive for someone to suggest >> (on a survPC list) that we should discard our survPCs and >> buy brand new. > >And that's YOUR opinion. Many on this list have views that vary, strange >as that may seem. It's also my opinion and why presume to represent the 'others'? They can speak (type?) for themselves. One man, one vote and I count you as ONE. [...] >The list is also about LOW RESOURCE computing. This is a definition you've been trying to introduce but I don't think that phrase exists in any of the 'official' documentation, webpage, etc. [...] >There's >no list requirement that users use SurvPCs EXCLUSIVELY, just as there's >no requirement to use a specific distribution of a specific OS on >specific hardware. As I've said, those with newer hardware and software have more than enough opportunities to chat about it elsewhere. If a person with newer equipement wants to play 'big frog in a smaller pond' they should play elsewhere. >> [....] >> Why should I pay three-hours salary to upgrade a survPC from >> 8mb RAM to 16mb when (apparently) complete systems with 128mb >> RAM can be found in dumpsters? > >You shouldn't. Others on the list shouldn't. That's why I posted a link >to upgrade an old system to 16MB RAM for $16US + S&H. Are we supposed to >validate every item in terms of YOUR specific geographic location and/or >salary? If you don't find it cheap (did you bother to find out?) then by >all means, use another source. But do remember this is a list subscribed >to by users world-wide, some of whom may find that source convenient >and/or reasonably cost-effective given the (lack of) local alternatives. Steven was the person (the only person?) to mention a need for such memory recently. It is only logical to think that your reply was directed to his mentioning his need. Under the circumstances, yes it would make more sense that it be convenient to HIS geographical location. >> Many of us are involved with survPCs because we don't want >> to pay high prices for new hardware. You shouldn't be >> surprised that we reject the suggestion that we should pay >> high prices for old hardware. > >I'm hardly surprised. But you're setting quite a demanding list of >requirements for posting info on "your" list: Mustn't be "too (brand) >new", mustn't be "too expensive". So what is the right answer? $5, free >postage and in your immediate neighborhood? Sheesh. Something of a reversal here. You have a tendency to write as though you represent the majority and, in that way, to behave as though you "own the list". [...] >OK, I officially forward the motion to rename the list to >"CrotchetyOldPC". Your recommendation by a committee of one is rejected by THIS committee of one as uncalled for and out of order. Charles.Angelich "DOS Ghost" Tech Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/ Music,Photos,Stories,etc. Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/ Default Browser HomePage : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/homepage.asp To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
