Rod, why dont you tell us which tech you went to so we can all attend. Maybe
we will all have the knowledge about everything technical and all be as
smart as you.
>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed
>>>>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient,
>>>>>>>> and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone
>>>>>>>> was screaming for better speeds.
>
>>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>
>>>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
>
>>>> Actually that was 1200/75
>
>>> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time
>>> they also
>>> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a
>>> bullshit artist.
>
>> As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl
>> around here.
>
> You in spades.
>
>> My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel.
>
> Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75
> which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink.
It really is easy to comprehend. Start at the top and work your way down. It
is all in plain English and quite easy to follow. Anyone can twist anything
around to distort the subject, but that isnt the objective here. Unless, of
course, you want to win your imaginary contest with your imaginary intelect.
> AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available
> to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway.
>
>> My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the
>> size of suitcases and had half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember
>> those days??
>
> Yep, and they were ALREADY faster than 75bpm,
> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
>> I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems.
>
> Pity you couldnt even manage to work out what speed
> they were running at, or anything else at all, either.
>
>> Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false
>> name. After all, someone said you were with the PMG for 40 years )
>
> Only a fool like you buys the bullshit the stupid kids in here spew.
>
>>>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.
>
>>>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom
>>>> didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds.
>
>>> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for
>>> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did.
>
>>>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.
>
>>>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats
>>>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.
>
>>>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was
>>>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who
>>>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract
>>>> was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled
>>>> it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over.
>
>>> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could
>>> have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm
>>> anyway.
>
>
>>>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>>>>>> False!
>>>>>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.
>>>>> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.
>>>> YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works.
>>> If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up, instead of critisising.
>>> Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single field of telecommunications, but this is
>>> one I HAVE worked in.
>> Didnt help you to grasp that it wasnt at 75bpm. Just another pig ignorant clown that never did
>> manage to get even the most basic stuff right.
> Actually, the one I'm thinking of was 50, but they had a 75 for companies who were willing to part
> with the big bucks.
Nope, you've STILL fucked that up totally.
NOTHING ever worked at 75bpm.
>> I had one of you clowns show up to replace a modem leased from Telecom who proclaimed that the
>> replacement wasnt compatible when he held the RS232 connector upside down and couldnt plug it
>> into the modem.
> At the time, there was no such thing as an RS232,
Wrong, as always.
> so it couldnt possibly be one of our clowns. But you were there with ALL the know how why did you
> have to get anyones clown to do the work.
It was their modem, leased from them, fuckwit. That was all that was legal at that time.
> Rod, why dont you tell us which tech you went to so we can all attend.
Plenty of us didnt have to be fed like monkeys in some tech on this stuff, cretin.
And plenty of us did the feeding of morons like you too.
>>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.
>>>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>>>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
>>>>> Actually that was 1200/75
>>>> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also
>>>> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around here.
>> You in spades.
>>> My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel.
>> Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75
>> which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink.
> It really is easy to comprehend. Start at the top and work your way down. It is all in plain
> English and quite easy to follow. Anyone can twist anything around to distort the subject, but
> that isnt the objective here. Unless, of course, you want to win your imaginary contest with your
> imaginary intelect.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available
>> to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway.
>>> My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of suitcases and
>>> had half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days??
>> Yep, and they were ALREADY faster than 75bpm,
>> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems.
>> Pity you couldnt even manage to work out what speed
>> they were running at, or anything else at all, either.
>>> Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all,
>>> someone said you were with the PMG for 40 years )
>> Only a fool like you buys the bullshit the stupid kids in here spew.
>>>>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.
>>>>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom
>>>>> didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds.
>>>> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for
>>>> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did.
>>>>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.
>>>>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats
>>>>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.
>>>>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was
>>>>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who
>>>>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract
>>>>> was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled
>>>>> it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over.
>>>> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could have faster than 1200/75
>>>> if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm anyway.
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous 
)
Linear Mode
