On Wed, Feb 11, 2004, Brian wrote:
>Bill Campbell wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004, Brian wrote:
>>>I have a small collection of distinctive products from my past. I have an
>>>original condition Livinsgston PM-11 from my BBS days - it comes complete
>>>with "Lifetime Software Support" 8^)
>
>> I'll see your PortMaster and raise one HP-97 programmable calculater and a
>> Radio Shack Model 100 including 300 baud acoustical couplers.
>
>DAMN! I used to sell those - An excellent piece of equipment! They were
>extremely popular and seemed to run forever. Batteries died, just drop into
>a drug store and replace them (AAs?). None of this paying a couple hundred
>dollars for a battery pack. Save your data to a floppy and drop it in the
>mail to home office if you didn't have a modem; most didn't.

I managed two ``X'' departments in D.C. and an RSCC in Rockville, Maryland
while I was with Radio Shack (October 1980 through October 1983), and the
Model 100 came out during that time. I sold a bunch of them to the U.S.
Army Personnel people who were tired of lugging TI ``Whisper Writers''
around airports.

When I left RS in October 1983, I bought a Model 100 and a Model 4P to take
with me to Seattle where I would be working on Model 16/6000s doing Xenix
development. At one point I hacked together a termcap for the Model 100
that would allow me to use it as a terminal to the Xenix box, and use the
vi editor.

>My first programmable was my beloved HP-25; used it for over 15 years before
>the keyboard crapped out. I still have it and the wonderful manuals that
>came with it. RPN rules!
>
>The HP-97 is an excellent machine but way out of my price range. I paid over
>$200 for the HP-25 and I practically didn't eat for a month.

When I bought the HP-97 it was priced comparably to a basic Radio Shack
Model I. My main reasons for buying that were that it had a printer, and
was large enough to use on-handed without looking at the keyboard. I used
it extensively in my race car business for business and design work.

--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/

One man's brain plus one other will produce one half as many ideas as one
man would have produced alone. These two plus two more will produce half
again as many ideas. These four plus four more begin to represent a
creative meeting, and the ratio changes to one quarter as many ...
-- Anthony Chevins

tony@pcunix.com wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>tony@pcunix.com wrote:
>>> Hopeless. WOULD YOU BET YOUR LIFE ON IT?

>>Let's see if I ever said anything like that...

>>hmmm - Nope!

>>I guess that would be you trying to put words in my mouth.

> No. I'm asking the question, not quoting you. You seem so
> certain that no other outcome is possible.

"no other outcome is possible."

Let's see if I ever said anything like that...

mmmm

No, I have never said anything like that either.

I hope you are enjoying yourself - you are contributing both sides of this
debate.

Perhaps you would like to continue this conversation without any`help from
me at all. You could make up a comment for me, then you could act all
outraged and weird.

Listen Tony, that works for me as well.

Why don't we make it official.

8^)

Brian

tony@pcunix.com wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>How do you explain that?

>>> There's nothing wrong with your theories. It's your unflinching
>>> insistence that no other outcome is possible that is, simply, stupid.

>>hmmm - Nope.

>>I guess you are trying to put words in my mouth, again!

>>I sounds like you want to have an argument but it looks like you are
>>arguing with yourself - because I never said any of those things.

> OK :-)

> Then please explain exactly what your problem with my position is,
> why all the "Fuck you", childish taunts, ad hominem nonsense.

I guess it's your total lack of intellectual contribution to any discussion
or debate.

I think you must be very lazy because you seem blissfuly unaware of even the
most basic components of the situation.

e.g.

I will review some documents that have been filed with the court and your
reply is "Groklaw is trash".

I will attempt to interpret the actions and motives of Darl McBride and you
will opine, "SCO could win even without a case".

I will post some juicy details of a recent court hearing and you will bleat,
"It's your blind certainty that's a problem."

Huh?

Then we had the "blind" certainty discussion and it totally apparent to me
you have no idea what you are saying half the time.

So listen Tony, I think you should have this debate between you and what you
think I said because none of it has anything to do with me.

8^)