William Poaster is a Lying Arsehole

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Nomen Nescio, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    From: William Poaster
    Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    Message-Id: <>

    "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting & moved
    *completely* over to linux."



    From: "Geoff Fitton" <>
    Date: 2000/10/13
    Message-ID: <>#1/1
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Nomen Nescio, Jan 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nomen Nescio

    philo Guest

    "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > From: William Poaster
    > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    > Message-Id: <>
    >
    > "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &

    moved
    > *completely* over to linux."
    >
    >


    LOL

    Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary

    Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.

    Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    2001...
    just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.

    By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.

    But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    is not terribly likely
    philo, Jan 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:

    > "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> From: William Poaster
    >> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    >> Message-Id: <>
    >>
    >> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &

    > moved
    >> *completely* over to linux."
    >>
    >>

    >
    > LOL
    >
    > Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    >
    > Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    >
    > Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    > 2001...
    > just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    >
    > By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    >
    > But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    > is not terribly likely


    1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    the time.
    So have a few other people.

    So what's with 1997?
    A full lunar eclipse or something?
    Moshe Goldfarb, Jan 20, 2008
    #3
  4. El Patriota©, Jan 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Nomen Nescio

    philo Guest

    "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
    news:hyp0hg7bbtsz$...
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:
    >
    > > "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> From: William Poaster
    > >> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    > >> Message-Id: <>
    > >>
    > >> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &

    > > moved
    > >> *completely* over to linux."
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > > LOL
    > >
    > > Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    > >
    > > Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    > >
    > > Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    > > 2001...
    > > just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    > >
    > > By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    > >
    > > But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    > > is not terribly likely

    >
    > 1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    > Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    > the time.
    > So have a few other people.
    >
    > So what's with 1997?
    > A full lunar eclipse or something?



    Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in the
    60's
    during the days of punch cards.
    I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    so I missed what was going on in 1997...

    However...I gather that 1997 was the first time that Linux took it's first
    step toward becomming
    a desktop OS for the PC
    philo, Jan 20, 2008
    #5
  6. On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:17 -0600, philo wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
    > news:hyp0hg7bbtsz$...
    >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> From: William Poaster
    >>>> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    >>>> Message-Id: <>
    >>>>
    >>>> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &
    >>> moved
    >>>> *completely* over to linux."
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> LOL
    >>>
    >>> Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    >>>
    >>> Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    >>> 2001...
    >>> just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    >>>
    >>> By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    >>>
    >>> But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    >>> is not terribly likely

    >>
    >> 1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    >> Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    >> the time.
    >> So have a few other people.
    >>
    >> So what's with 1997?
    >> A full lunar eclipse or something?

    >
    >
    > Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in the
    > 60's
    > during the days of punch cards.
    > I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    > so I missed what was going on in 1997...
    >
    > However...I gather that 1997 was the first time that Linux took it's first
    > step toward becomming
    > a desktop OS for the PC


    So did I!
    At the undergraduate level though.

    I would punch my cards on an IBM 129 keypunch and hand them to the priest
    behind the glass window.
    The priest would in turn hand them to the high priest, who was the only
    person allowed to actually touch the IBM card reader and he would feed them
    in.
    Usually I screwed something up and would have to start again.

    My crowning achievement was a Fortran program to calculate the flight path
    of my Estes Rockets.

    I ended up going into hardware because I was a terrible programmer.
    Moshe Goldfarb, Jan 20, 2008
    #6
  7. Nomen Nescio

    philo Guest

    "Mara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:17 -0600, "philo" <> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    > >Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in

    the
    > >60's
    > >during the days of punch cards.
    > >I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    > >so I missed what was going on in 1997...

    >
    > If you've been around that long you ought to know better than to get

    involved in
    > a deliberately crossposted thread started by a COLA troll. :)
    >
    >



    No...No matter how old I get I never seem to learn anything at all...

    except that sometimes you can learn something by having a good argument.


    (and that of course is to stay away from arguments)
    philo, Jan 20, 2008
    #7
  8. Nomen Nescio

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:17 -0600, "philo" <> wrote:

    <snip>
    >Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in the
    >60's
    >during the days of punch cards.
    >I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    >so I missed what was going on in 1997...


    If you've been around that long you ought to know better than to get involved in
    a deliberately crossposted thread started by a COLA troll. :)

    --
    <rw-rw-rw-> I don't care if it can reproduce sound well enough for
    dolphins to talk to each other through it, if you can't grep it it's
    evil.
    Mara, Jan 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Nomen Nescio

    philo Guest

    <snip>

    > >
    > > Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in

    the
    > > 60's
    > > during the days of punch cards.
    > > I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    > > so I missed what was going on in 1997...
    > >
    > > However...I gather that 1997 was the first time that Linux took it's

    first
    > > step toward becomming
    > > a desktop OS for the PC

    >
    > So did I!
    > At the undergraduate level though.
    >
    > I would punch my cards on an IBM 129 keypunch and hand them to the priest
    > behind the glass window.
    > The priest would in turn hand them to the high priest, who was the only
    > person allowed to actually touch the IBM card reader and he would feed

    them
    > in.
    > Usually I screwed something up and would have to start again.
    >
    > My crowning achievement was a Fortran program to calculate the flight path
    > of my Estes Rockets.
    >
    > I ended up going into hardware because I was a terrible programmer.



    Yes. I was a Sophomore at Milwaukee School of Engineering when I did that
    FORTRAN-IV.
    It was terrible. If you submitted a program which was missing so much as one
    unambiguous parentheses...
    the entire program would terminate.
    Since there were long lines to wait in...It took all day just to make sure
    you did not have any typos...
    then the rest of the week debugging your program!

    Even after I got a job and went to night school for more education...I was
    shocked beyond
    belief that I was still using a key punch machine as late as 1979!

    Though I did purchase a TI-99 in 1982 when the price dropped to $50...
    and though I did write a few programs in BASIC...I got rid of the machine
    when the game port died!

    So about the time that the PC first came out...and everyone was jumping on
    the bandwagon...
    I jumped off!
    It was 1999 when I got back into computers!


    BTW: I used to build model rockets too. Those were the days!
    philo, Jan 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Nomen Nescio

    Mara Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:46:22 -0600, "philo" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Mara" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:17 -0600, "philo" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >> >Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in

    >the
    >> >60's
    >> >during the days of punch cards.
    >> >I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    >> >so I missed what was going on in 1997...

    >>
    >> If you've been around that long you ought to know better than to get

    >involved in
    >> a deliberately crossposted thread started by a COLA troll. :)
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >No...No matter how old I get I never seem to learn anything at all...


    Well, here's something for you then.

    1. There is no other reason to bring up a post from 2006.

    2. SuSE Linux was originally released in 1994, and that's what WP ran until
    lately, when he started experimenting with other *Linux* distros.

    3. If it's crossposted from COLA to 24, it's either a troll or a response to a
    troll, probably started by flatfish or clogwog, and continued by people who
    react first and think...well, hopefully at some point.

    --
    <rw-rw-rw-> I don't care if it can reproduce sound well enough for
    dolphins to talk to each other through it, if you can't grep it it's
    evil.
    Mara, Jan 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Nomen Nescio

    philo Guest

    <snip>
    > >
    > >
    > >No...No matter how old I get I never seem to learn anything at all...

    >
    > Well, here's something for you then.
    >
    > 1. There is no other reason to bring up a post from 2006.
    >
    > 2. SuSE Linux was originally released in 1994, and that's what WP ran

    until
    > lately, when he started experimenting with other *Linux* distros.
    >
    > 3. If it's crossposted from COLA to 24, it's either a troll or a response

    to a
    > troll, probably started by flatfish or clogwog, and continued by people

    who
    > react first and think...well, hopefully at some point.
    >




    yep...
    Some people think before they speak.

    Others don't think until after they speak.


    I simplify the process by not thinking at all.
    philo, Jan 20, 2008
    #11
  12. Nomen Nescio

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > From: William Poaster
    > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    > Message-Id: <>
    >
    > "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting
    > & moved
    > *completely* over to linux."
    >
    >
    >
    > From: "Geoff Fitton" <>
    > Date: 2000/10/13
    > Message-ID: <>#1/1
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    >



    Oooh, wow, what a super big deal about a post back in 2000, and
    without including the NNTP-Posting-Host header, if present, to show if
    this was the same poster or the PATH header to show through which
    account the poster (that YOU claim is the same person) used for those
    posts.

    And this shit from a a bozo that posts through a mail2news proxy.
    Nescio has to reach back over 7 years to *claim* someone was lying yet
    Nescio hides behind a proxy. Oh yeah, mail2news, dizum, like anyone
    give a gnat's fart about someone claims but who hides.
    VanguardLH, Jan 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Nomen Nescio

    catchme Guest

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:
    >
    >> "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> From: William Poaster
    >>> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    >>> Message-Id: <>
    >>>
    >>> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &

    >> moved
    >>> *completely* over to linux."
    >>>
    >>>

    >> LOL
    >>
    >> Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    >>
    >> Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    >>
    >> Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    >> 2001...
    >> just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    >>
    >> By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    >>
    >> But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    >> is not terribly likely

    >
    > 1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    > Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    > the time.
    > So have a few other people.
    >
    > So what's with 1997?
    > A full lunar eclipse or something?


    windows 95 came out, almost a year late and as buggy as hell. to make
    the consumer even more irate, microsoft actually charged for the
    bug-fixes and patches that came out later.
    (ever buy a microwave that was missing a few knobs, and then paid to get
    them added later? i'd have sued the buggers first!)
    going to mac during the 7.5.x / revision-what? era was out of the
    question (some version numbers were assigned to entirely unique model
    numbers, leaving even mac tech's in a state of confusion), and when o/s
    8.0 was launched, many users were skeptical about it even though it
    promised to be the first power-pc native o/s, ideal for the 601s and
    603's released since 1993.
    linux was somewhat over-hyped as the next best thing (but then, so was
    "Be-OS"), but open source was always a buzzword for the true geeks who
    remember that "homebrew" meant more than making one's own suds in the
    late '70s. That, AND linux is to this day able to run on almost any
    machine ever built, from the 386 intels, the mac 030's, amiga's,
    playstation 2 and 3,...even the xbox (not the 360, however).
    The consumer then just came to the realisation that a truly
    multi-platform o/s is ideal, and though linux still has that appeal,
    there's some ways to go before it reaches market saturation (the point
    where the average home user of average income will have at least one
    copy running in their home or car).
    catchme, Jan 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Nomen Nescio

    Bob Bob Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:22:17 -0600, "philo" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
    >news:hyp0hg7bbtsz$...
    >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> From: William Poaster
    >> >> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    >> >> Message-Id: <>
    >> >>
    >> >> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &
    >> > moved
    >> >> *completely* over to linux."
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > LOL
    >> >
    >> > Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    >> >
    >> > Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    >> >
    >> > Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    >> > 2001...
    >> > just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    >> >
    >> > By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    >> >
    >> > But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    >> > is not terribly likely

    >>
    >> 1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    >> Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    >> the time.
    >> So have a few other people.
    >>
    >> So what's with 1997?
    >> A full lunar eclipse or something?

    >
    >
    >Although I'm an old timer...who actually programmed in FORTRAN back in the
    >60's
    >during the days of punch cards.
    >I hated computers so much that I stayed away from them until 1999...
    >so I missed what was going on in 1997...
    >
    >However...I gather that 1997 was the first time that Linux took it's first
    >step toward becomming
    >a desktop OS for the PC
    >

    '5081' punched cards?
    Ah, ya can't beat having the data in your hands....


    Card Jams, invalid punches, different colors for different work,
    corner cuts....Sorters---ah, just the aromatic smell and the dust and
    the heavy trays.....
    good memories!

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Bob Bob, Jan 24, 2008
    #14
  15. Nomen Nescio

    Bob Bob Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:06:27 GMT, catchme <>
    wrote:

    >Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:24 -0600, philo wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> From: William Poaster
    >>>> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:11:46 +0100
    >>>> Message-Id: <>
    >>>>
    >>>> "In fact I've not used Windoze since 1997, when I quit dual booting &
    >>> moved
    >>>> *completely* over to linux."
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> LOL
    >>>
    >>> Back in 1997 Linux was pretty rudimentary
    >>>
    >>> Red Hat 4.2 was out back then and hardly a good alternative to Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Just for the heck of it I did an installation of RH4.2 in maybe the year
    >>> 2001...
    >>> just to see what it was. I think WFWG3.11 would have been a better OS.
    >>>
    >>> By the year 2002 or so...Linux was starting to get pretty decent.
    >>>
    >>> But one using Linux exclusively in 1997, though possible of course...
    >>> is not terribly likely

    >>
    >> 1997 seems to be a very popular year for moving to Linux.
    >> Terry Porter used to quote the "I've been using Linux since 1997" line all
    >> the time.
    >> So have a few other people.
    >>
    >> So what's with 1997?
    >> A full lunar eclipse or something?

    >
    >windows 95 came out, almost a year late and as buggy as hell. to make
    >the consumer even more irate, microsoft actually charged for the
    >bug-fixes and patches that came out later.
    >(ever buy a microwave that was missing a few knobs, and then paid to get
    >them added later? i'd have sued the buggers first!)
    >going to mac during the 7.5.x / revision-what? era was out of the
    >question (some version numbers were assigned to entirely unique model
    >numbers, leaving even mac tech's in a state of confusion), and when o/s
    >8.0 was launched, many users were skeptical about it even though it
    >promised to be the first power-pc native o/s, ideal for the 601s and
    >603's released since 1993.
    >linux was somewhat over-hyped as the next best thing (but then, so was
    >"Be-OS"), but open source was always a buzzword for the true geeks who
    >remember that "homebrew" meant more than making one's own suds in the
    >late '70s. That, AND linux is to this day able to run on almost any
    >machine ever built, from the 386 intels, the mac 030's, amiga's,
    >playstation 2 and 3,...even the xbox (not the 360, however).
    >The consumer then just came to the realisation that a truly
    >multi-platform o/s is ideal, and though linux still has that appeal,
    >there's some ways to go before it reaches market saturation (the point
    >where the average home user of average income will have at least one
    >copy running in their home or car).



    Whoa!]
    Your "That, AND linux is to this day able to run on almost any
    >machine ever built, from the 386 intels, the mac 030's, amiga's,
    >playstation 2 and 3,...even the xbox (not the 360, however)." is just not completely accurate.


    I needed a whole bunch more than they ever had to load Ubuntu.....and
    complained about it and all the 'security' updates needed after the
    install. I am missing something as I was under the impression that it
    could run under most anything---unless, of course, you are not
    speaking of the GUI Linux. If not, then it is not an apples and apples
    comparison.
    Hell, DOS was OK if you like to type.

    I have the Ubuntu machine in my shop as a demo and all who use it
    really don't have a clue that it is not windows--all they do is the
    web and web mail......

    However, it does require horsepower.

    FWIW.
    Bob

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Bob Bob, Jan 24, 2008
    #15
  16. Nomen Nescio

    Cork Soaker Guest


    > windows 95 came out, almost a year late and as buggy as hell. to make
    > the consumer even more irate, microsoft actually charged for the
    > bug-fixes and patches that came out later.


    No they did not.
    Cork Soaker, Mar 28, 2008
    #16
  17. Nomen Nescio

    catchme Guest

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    >
    >> windows 95 came out, almost a year late and as buggy as hell. to make
    >> the consumer even more irate, microsoft actually charged for the
    >> bug-fixes and patches that came out later.

    >
    > No they did not.


    lets see if i recall this correctly:
    windows 95 released in August 95, running so poorly that users were
    complaining that their new o/s wasn't actually 'market ready'.
    The initial release wasnt yet fully functional, and many users felt
    obliged to buy the service release discs (OEM SR1 and 2); some magazine
    articles at the time focused on this as an attempt for Microsoft to get
    more money from its user base, as it either was not widely known, or
    merely overlooked by the press, that these releases were available free
    via the internet.
    Even today, if you should find a support site for windows 95, you will
    be informed that windows 95 isnt stable; and if you MUST USE Windows 95,
    we recommend that you not use it online....

    interesting, that...a mac with an o/s dating back to 1990 (i.e. any mac
    capable of running o/s 7 or greater) is more stable, AND secure, than
    that of Windows 95- even AFTER Microsoft had all that time to get all
    the kinks out of the o/s.




    win. 95 help sites:


    "Securing Windows 95 is a difficult task.
    It is important to remember if using Windows 95 that it is no longer a
    supported Operating System.
    You will find that the software required to provide additional security
    will not function.
    As a result we recommend that you look to upgrading your Operating
    System to a newer one.
    If you must use Windows 95, we recommend that you do not directly
    connect the system to the Internet and
    minimise any network shares that you setup on the computer.
    Do not serve any information to the Internet from your system, such as
    using Personal Web Server to host a web site."

    http://www.hpcfactor.com/support/patching/win95/

    "As discovered when trying to restore systems after a total crash, the
    number of Windows 95 information sites is rapidly diminishing as the
    focus changes to newer systems."

    http://www.95isalive.com/
    catchme, Mar 28, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. billyw

    arsehole of the week

    billyw, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    506
    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=
    Jul 18, 2003
  2. William Poaster

    Re: William Poaster Exposed

    William Poaster, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    630
    William Poaster
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Fred Nile

    William Poaster

    Fred Nile, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    965
  4. Anonymous

    William Poaster the Lying Arsehole

    Anonymous, Mar 1, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
    Anonymous
    Mar 1, 2008
  5. Anonymous

    William Poaster the Lying Arsehole

    Anonymous, Mar 1, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,438
    Anonymous
    Mar 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page