OT – AOL readers of alt.fashion

Does anyone know what's going on with the newsreader on AOL? For the last
month (maybe longer), there have only been about 25 posts per day on
alt.fashion. There used to be over 100 posts per day. At first, I thought it
was because of the holidays, but it is still going on.
As an example, there would usually be a bunch of threads about what people were
wearing at the Golden Globes. I did not see any posts on the newsgroup or on
google. WTH is going on? Is there an alternative for reading alt.fashion that
I don't know about? Please advise.
Thanks,
Shari
Shari

On 18 Jan 2005 04:49:32 GMT, slee...@aol.com (Sleepi8) coughed
and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
yes, Shari, there is. and thank you for asking. i'm sure many
other people have the same question. the answer is, ditch aohell
and get a decent provider and better newsreader (like Forte
Agent). hth. :)
david
––
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/derbarbier/
(ebay sales)
http://shops.half.com/derbarbier
ten tod labolgcbs ta reibrabred

wsfeed.media.kyoto–u.ac.jp!news–feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontie
rnet.net!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.co
m!prodigy.com!postmaster.new
NY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESAL...@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_
C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]...@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_...@VJM
That wasn't her question––she didn't ask you for your opinion of her ISP. Why
do people who don't use AOL, and who are not forced to use AOL, feel free to
butt in and make these rude remarks. There are a lot of good things about AOL
that are obviously not visible to people who are ignorant about its
subscriber–only features and content.
Secondly, using AOL does not automatically mean that someone is a loser.
Indeed, many AOL users have other accounts and know quite a bit about
computers––for example, I also have a UNIX account that I keep for sentimental
reasons because that's how I used to get online 15 years ago.
I don't understand the ever–present need on the part of some people on
alt.fashion to bash AOL and to insult its users. I'm guessing that it's
inadequacy in other areas manifesting itself via choice of ISP.
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

Charles writes:
(Jjjjulie writes:)
I'm guessing that it's inadequacy in other areas manifesting itself via
choice of ISP.
This is a moronic statement Charles. Why should *anyone* be put in a position
to have to defend their choice of ISP? You and a handful of others seem to
feel that AOL subscribers are somehow intellectually inferior and in need of
training wheels to get around the net. I am a software engineer with 20+ years
experience in the aerospace industry. I write software that the electrical and
mechanical engineers use for their pwa and component housing designs. I am
also a webmaster for a website I designed and implemented as a side job at
work, a responsibility that is shared with the department secretary. I'm also
a designer on a team that has created, and is currently maintaining and
enhancing, an extremely sophisticated java/oracle/web based database
application.
Don't talk down to me or any other AOL users. Contrary to the image you try so
hard to project, it's obvious you are not intellectually superior.
Linda

Secondly, using AOL does not automatically mean that someone is a loser.
The punch line just about writes itself, doesn't it?
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

Amen to that.
IMO AOL has traditionally been the preferred choice of less
sophisticated Internet surfers.
––Maria

let's rephrase that to "the preferred choice of *some* EXPERIENCED internet
surfers".
20–2222

On 18 Jan 2005 12:03:55 GMT, jjjjju...@aol.comehither (Jjjjjulie)
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
did i insult Shari? no, i did not.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:08:00 GMT, Veronica Moonlit
<veronicaMoon...@mchsi.com> coughed and sputtered, and managed to
choke out these words:
amen, sister.

On 18 Jan 2005 12:03:55 GMT, Jjjjjulie wrote:
yes, Shari, there is. and thank you for asking. i'm sure many
other people have the same question. the answer is, ditch aohell
and get a decent provider and better newsreader (like Forte
Agent). hth. :)
Because we hear over and over again for YEARS about how AOL is broken.
The rational approach may very well be to R&R AOL.
Getting packets from point A to point B must not be one of them,
because that's not a feature that AOL does that well.
I can assure you as a ten–year experienced Webmaster: there's a strong
correlation.
One can write twice "This Web site does not sell shoes" and AOL
weenies will go past that message and ask to buy shoes.
Been there, done that.
Of course, it's not as good as the Nigerian scam–order guy who sends
the mail to every E–mail address listed on my "send mail" Web page
(which, deliberately, includes places to send your SPAM). I wonder
what the FDA and the SEC do with those shoe orders.
I think Richard Hunter pointed out a legitimate method of working
around AOL's known problems.
Nobody has problems with Wal–Mart bashing and AOL is the Wal–Mart of
Internet service. (In fact, AOL provides Wal–Mart Internet Service.)
Better than ignorant chauvinists defending their choice of ISP.

On 18 Jan 2005 23:34:22 GMT, Linda wrote:
(Jjjjulie writes:)
I'm guessing that it's inadequacy in other areas manifesting itself via
choice of ISP.
Better than ignorant chauvinists defending their choice of ISP.
If it's a moronic statement, it's one in response to an even more
moronic statement.
Why people stick with the highest–priced ISP in the market while
complaining the most is beyond me.
On the other hand, we usually don't ask Edsel drivers to defend their
taste in vehicular transportation.
Be like the Concorde... lower your nose out of the air so you can see
where you're going. <grin/duck>

Linda wrote:
She shoots, she scores! (Boy am I glad that I very rarely try to sound
even mildly intelligent, let alone talk down to people.)
Priscilla
–––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in
puppetland!"

On 28 Jan 2005 08:25:03 –0800, "michele317" <michele...@aol.com>
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
is google posting your stuff more than once? i've seen this
message before.
and the <g/d>, while annoying, isn't tacked onto the end of an
insult. it's tacked onto the end of a sentence showcasing
Charles' attempt at humour or irony. maybe you should take
things less personally.
david
––
"Mr. Lancaster" as you call him is soooo full
of donkey doo that it isn't funny. Seeking
his advice is akin to saying "lie to me".
–Walter, AMOE, 01/26/2005

Ruzinthra the Ruki wrote:
That's because she was quoting Linda.
You mean like this?:
Do try to keep up, dear. <grin/duck>

Ruzinthra the Ruki wrote:
That's because she was quoting Linda.
You mean like this?:
Do try to keep up, dear. <grin/duck>

On 20 Jan 2005 12:10:17 GMT, jjjjju...@aol.comehither (Jjjjjulie)
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
<plonk>

Richard Hunter wrote:
Promises, promises.

I'm having the same problems and I just sent them a complaint, too. Will
report back if/when I receive a reply.
EMiriamD
"No fashion is ever a success unless it is used as a form of seduction."
–– Christian Dior

I wrote:
Charles replies:
Be like the Concorde... lower your nose out of the air so you can see
where you're going. <grin/duck>
Well, well, well... look what I stumbled upon via google. Charles
accusing me of the very thing he tries to do on a regular basis.
Part of the problem seems to be that 30 years ago being knowledgeable
about computers was considered novel, and those involved took on a
superior air, looking down their noses at those not computer–literate.
Since then, computers (including internet activity) have become very
mainstream. Even though elementary school kids all the way through
Grandma and Grandpa feel very comfortable with a computer, there's a
segment of computer users/programmers that still want to think of
themselves and their knowledge as novel and somehow superior. They're
not cutting edge anymore, and haven't been for some time now. It seems
some folks are trying to hang on to that geek–nerd snobbery that just
doesn't cut it today like it did 30 years ago. Maybe to those back on
the farm you're a tech wiz, but in general society you're just another
programmer. You've been obsoleted as an intellectual Charles, you just
don't know it yet. But try as you might by googling little factoids
and responding to posts with the drivel you've found, that has little
or no relevance to the topic at hand, your efforts are transparent.
And the little <grin/duck> garbage you tack on to the end of an insult
doesn't make it any less an insult.
As for AOL, it provides many more features than just a connection to
the internet, and as you know, the more features that exist, the more
there is to break. So you'll hear more complaints about a service that
has a rich offering of features than you will about a service that just
connects you to the net.
Linda

I wrote:
Charles replies:
Be like the Concorde... lower your nose out of the air so you can see
where you're going. <grin/duck>
Well, well, well... look what I stumbled upon via google. Charles
accusing me of the very thing he tries to do on a regular basis.
Part of the problem seems to be that 30 years ago being knowledgeable
about computers was considered novel, and those involved took on a
superior air, looking down their noses at those not computer–literate.
Since then, computers (including internet activity) have become very
mainstream. Even though elementary school kids all the way through
Grandma and Grandpa feel very comfortable with a computer, there's a
segment of computer users/programmers that still want to think of
themselves and their knowledge as novel and somehow superior. They're
not cutting edge anymore, and haven't been for some time now. It seems
some folks are trying to hang on to that geek–nerd snobbery that just
doesn't cut it today like it did 30 years ago. Maybe to those back on
the farm you're a tech wiz, but in general society you're just another
programmer. You've been obsoleted as an intellectual Charles, you just
don't know it yet. But try as you might by googling little factoids
and responding to posts with the drivel you've found, that has little
or no relevance to the topic at hand, your efforts are transparent.
And the little <grin/duck> garbage you tack on to the end of an insult
doesn't make it any less an insult.
As for AOL, it provides many more features than just a connection to
the internet, and as you know, the more features that exist, the more
there is to break. So you'll hear more complaints about a service that
has a rich offering of features than you will about a service that just
connects you to the net.
Linda
nothing much to add except big thanks to linda for saying it all. we
all hang on to different levels of, well, technological advancement,
for various reasons. filofax v. palm; answering machine v. voicemail,
etc. why aol use (and yes, most of us who use it are fully aware that
there are other choices out there, many of which are more advanced and
cheaper) is singled out as some sort of signifier of technological
ineptitude is beyond me.

IMO AOL has traditionally been the preferred choice of less
sophisticated Internet surfers.
––Maria
Some of us keep it because we like it, amazing to some of you, I'm sure. I
taught internet classes before some of you were probably in high school. AOL
use doesn't mean you're a dope. It means you like it.
That, and keeping my email address for so many years has allowed me to keep in
touch with friends and clients that might have gotten away from me.
cary

On 19 Jan 2005 00:56:34 GMT, Caryperk39 wrote:
True... E–mail addresses aren't portable.
On the other hand, if you Google where I went to high school, I come
up on the first page.

In article <20050118195634.18102.00000...@mb–m22.aol.com>,
Caryperk39 <caryper...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
I used AOL for years after I got my Unix account on this server back
in 1992. The only reason I dropped AOL was in protest when the
dropped paid support for Geoworks Ensemble with zero notice and
cancelled all accounts for the GW tech reps, including the PERSONAL
accounts of people who paid for their AOL (if AOL only zapped the free
tech rep accounts, that would have been one thing; but to zap the
paying customer accounts because those people who were also tech reps
was uncalled for). Not to mention AOL never giving back the money
people like me paid them to access the special GW tech areas that you
had to subscribe to separately from the AOL account itself.
I have no problems with people who continue to use AOL because they
find some use for it. I left for a specific reason, but I never
expected everyone to stop using AOL because of it.
Wayne
––
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | –Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"

EMD (et al.)
To whom ought a complaint be lodged?
–Joe in SoFla
"Avanti, Commendatore, la vittoria e nostra!"

reader.com!news–spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google
..com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not–for–mail
<1106068423.411008.177...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
posting–account=–P4D6AwAAABu2M4rYNejMOyYin5mCNB4
Of course it has. What was I thinking?
I mean, it can't possibly hold a candle to those intricate, sophisticated free
services like Yahoo or Google.
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

Jjjjjulie wrote:
Path:
reader.com!news–spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google
sophisticated free
Obviously you weren't. (as most who read your post will realize ;) )
––Maria

dude! you're posting from a yahoo address and google... did those become
bastions of intellect when i wasn't looking??? aol's problems are well–known,
but i'm not sure why you'd extrapolate aol use into lack of sophistication. i
use other newsreaders and other internet access, but for 15 bucks a month i can
keep a screen name which i've had for ages and i can access a few aol–only
boards on which i've made close friends. i suppose that may mean my level of
sophistication is low in your esteem, but i'm not sure i mind being held in low
esteem by someone who judges others by the three initials in their screen name.

Michele said:
[snip]
Michele...I see that you took time to mention this. I would have addressed this
issue sooner, but Ma was hollerin' at me to come eat some vittles and then to
fix the outhouse door, 'fore Pa comes back from tendin' to the still...since
revenuers are all over these here hills.
–Li'l Abner in SoFla

michele...@aol.combover (Michele317) wrote in
news:20050123103625.11729.00000...@mb–m03.aol.com:
I keep AOL around for the same reasons but when I checked my monthly hours
of use I found that I use it so little, so I opted for the around $4.95 a
month version. Other than those two uses, I find it a next–to–useless
product. MMV
––
Poetic Badgers
"Snow.. snow, that can't be good for suede, can it?" –Jerry Seinfeld

airam1002...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think of it more as a gateway drug. Like some people go on to harder
stuff, but others just keep sitting there smoking pot.
Now, do crack smokers look down on pot smokers? Do they write them off
as clueless newbies? Perhaps they do.
But then, does anyone care what crack smokers think––or pot smokers, for
that matter? I don't. Drug users of any stamp are notoriously boring,
not to mention unreliable witnesses.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
Priscilla
–––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in
puppetland!"

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:52:56 GMT, Richard Hunter wrote:
I don't understand the ever–present need on the part of some people on
alt.fashion to bash AOL and to insult its users.
I don't think you did either but do you think Jjjjjulie gives a rat's
ham section what we think? <grin/duck>

[posted and emailed]
AOL's newsfeed is more–or–less down at the moment––this has been going on for a
few weeks.
You can read and post to USENET using groups.google.com. The old interface has
changed a bit and it's a bit clunkier, but the posting time has been greatly
improved so it's like reading USENET in real time.
p.s. There was no Golden Globes thread this year, so you didn't miss it. ;–)
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

Posts in newsgroups read on AOL seem to be fine this morning. I have
seen all the posts that my friends have posted in another group very quickly,
which was the problem the past three weeks. I also posted several and saw them
within a minute. Here's hoping the glitch (Or whatever) has been corrected.
Carol
GO Phoenix Suns!!

Thank you to the original poster for asking this question. I had the same
problem, but since I know that AOL is held in such contempt by some, I was
hesitant to even ask. Thank you Julie, for answering the question. Those of you
who had to bash AOL without answering the question that was asked, get over it.
Not everyone is as tech savvy as you are.
lynne

jjjulie writes:
Thanks for the info. I'll give groups.google.com a try until AOL fixes the
problem.
Shari

DCroo76626 wrote:
same
I was
Those of you
get over it.
You're welcome.
And don't be intimidated by the usual chorus who bash AOL––because even
if it were true that all AOL users were losers, if they joined AOL it
would only elevate their current social status.

"DCroo76626" <dcroo76...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050118192211.10996.00000...@mb–m28.aol.com...
of you
over it.
it isn't technical savvy, it's insecurity. intelligent people don't have to
keep pointing out how smart they are.

On 19 Jan 2005 00:22:11 GMT, dcroo76...@aol.com (DCroo76626)
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
hey, i answered the question. leaving AOHell *IS* one way of
getting around the problem that Shari was having. if you can't
admit that it is, your mind is closed to the possibility that
there might be something better out there – something that
doesn't cost $24/mo and have the wealth of problems that so many
people on AOHell complain about.
i did not insult anyone or tell them they were too stupid to own
or use a computer.
david
––
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/derbarbier/
(ebay sales)
http://shops.half.com/derbarbier
ten tod labolgcbs ta reibrabred

Richard Hunter wrote:
Maybe this is too subtle for you, but I'll try anyway:
––The OP asked if there was an alternative for reading USENET.
Suggesting she switch ISPs technically answered the question, but it
did so in a way which was essentially pointless and useless. It's like
going to the doctor with a sore leg and having the diagnosis be "cut it
off." It seemed pretty obvious to me, and others, that she was asking
for practical suggestions on how to read USENET until AOL got its act
together.
––Not wanting to leave your ISP over a temporary USENET glitch
(experienced at times by all news providers) is not having your "mind
closed to possibility." Saying as much is akin to saying someone is
stupid (as is disparging their choice of ISP).
HTH.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:07:32 –0600, Stacy Ferguson
<stac...@stacyef.net> coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke
out these words:
i've been with sbc for nearly a year now and have *NEVER* had a
problem with the newsfeed. that's not to say that i won't; just
that it hasn't happened yet.
they do have problems occasionally that don't allow me to access
the network, but when i do, the newsfeed is always there. :)
david

On 19 Jan 2005 17:46:04 –0800, "jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com>
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
if aol does discontinue its usenet service, she may well have to
leave aol anyway. reading and posting from google is tedious.
david
––
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/derbarbier/
(ebay sales)
http://shops.half.com/derbarbier
ten tod labolgcbs ta reibrabred

jjjjjuliep wrote:
The problem is that AOL has been having USENET glitches for years. At
least as long as I've been reading AF. That's the sort of QoS (Quality
of Service) issue that would encourage me to switch ISP's,
notwithstanding that AOL Dial up is $23.90 which is on the high side.
AOL's own Compuserv and Netscape branded internet services are cheaper
at 19.95 and 9.95 respectively.
Yes, an AOLer could use a separate news provider but that lets AOL off
the hook for bad service. It's an ISP's responsibility/duty/job to
provide quality USENET. AOLers shouldn't have to turn to outside
providers. I think the AOLer's who are complaining to customer service
are doing a good thing.
If AOL's "community" and the AOL specific content is worth putting up
with higher prices and not so good USENET service for some AOLers, I
have no problem with that. But IMHO there are better ISP's out there
than AOL. If one really liked the AOL content one could get
broadband, add AOL for broadband.and use the broadband ISP's USENET
access.
That's another point, with broadband, one can share the connection
with multiple PC's/devices. Mom can be accessing her online broker
while DH is reading recipes, while DD can be practicing with her all
girl SOCOM clan, while DS can be chatting with friends.
It also doesn't tie up the phone line, is "always on" and is much much
faster. It DOES cost more and that is something to consider. But IMHO,
broadband makes the "Internet experience" more enjoyable.
Veronica
––
Makeup, it takes believing in. Like a magic carpet, it's belief that
makes it fly. Otherwise, it's just a rug.
If you believe in it, makeup has a magic all it's own.
Of course, makeup is only dime–store magic. But it works well enough,
when it's used properly.",
the makeup artist, from the book Sooner or Later, based on the 1978 TV
movie of the same name.

In article <20050120074007.13671.00000...@mb–m23.aol.com>,
jjjjju...@aol.comehither (Jjjjjulie) wrote:
Just to clarify, I did whine about the amount of spam I got at my
Newsguy email account but the news feed is as good and reliable as news
feeds can get. However, Julie is correct that AOL is certainly not alone
when it comes to Usenet glitches and I didn't drop my primary ISP,
despite the crappy news feed. I've moved around a lot over the last 20
years and I've had a lot of different ISPs. I'd go so far as to say that
at least 90% of them had unacceptable newsfeeds, at least for someone
who reads usenet regularly and is capable of noticing these things. And
I'm not talking just "glitches" but, rather, they don't care, haven't
cared for at least ten years, frankly admit that they don't care and if
AF were to get 5 articles a day, it would have been a very good day,
indeed.
The only ISP I ever used that had what I'd consider well–maintained
usenet capability was my University of Chicago shell account (RIP) and
that's probably because there were a lot of geeks there...and the home
of Ted Frank and Kia Mennie, once upon a time :) If I were to judge my
ISP on usenet capability every time I moved around, I'd be switching
ISPs almost weekly for the first few months after each move. That got
old and that's why I got the Newsguy account. It can move with me and I
can keep accounts with perfectly good ISPs, most of whom just don't have
usenet on their priority lists.
Stacy

On 19 Jan 2005 17:46:04 –0800, "jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com>
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
wow. it's ok for you to insult me, but not ok for me to not
insult someone else.
f*ck you.

See? It was too subtle for you.
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

Thank you for proving my point so well:
––The OP did not ask for suggestions for a new ISP, nor did she indicate,
beyond asking what was up with AOL's newsfeed, that she was entirely
dissatisfied with AOL as her ISP. Yet there are still responses, none of which
provide her with concrete ways of getting around this glitch, which tell her
she needs to ditch AOL.
––All USENET providers experience problems from time to time. For example, my
primary ISP has a demonstrated commitment to USENET but even it has problems
from time to time––problems beyond its control due to the way that USENET is
structured.
––USENET is generally a perk when choosing an ISP, not a guarantee. This is
how it has always been and how it will continue to be, due to the significant
disparity in the cost to obtain:use ration.
––You say you "don't have a problem" with people paying more, yet you do
because you point out how much other services cost. Is the assumption AOL
users are too stupid to explore other options? People spend incredible amounts
of money on face cream, and they are applauded. No one points out other creams
work more or less the same and cost less. But somehow AOL users don't know
there are other options out there. Here's a newsflash: I, and I suspect a
large percentage of AOL users here in a.f, are not paying full price for our
AOL because we're accessing AOL through another ISP.
This is what was most telling about the attitude of some people here: when
Stacey said her USENET provider had glitches from time to time––indeed,
detailing problems more frequent/common than AOL's, IME––no one rushed in to
tell her she had to get rid of Newsguy.
"Leggy the Legume"
––
Julie P.
"MADE FOR TELEVISION."––Owen Meany

On 20 Jan 2005 15:00:49 –0800, "jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com>
coughed and sputtered, and managed to choke out these words:
a true sign of a troll – changing names to avoid the killfile.
<pl0nk>

Richard Hunter wrote:
Again, promise, promises.
p.s. I have been using this Google account, along with my spamblocked
AOL account, for longer than you have been posting your solely
off–topic nonsense to alt.fashion. Guess you missed that too.

Does anyone know what's going on with the newsreader on AOL? For the last
month (maybe longer), there have only been about 25 posts per day on
alt.fashion. There used to be over 100 posts per day. At first, I thought it
was because of the holidays, but it is still going on.
As an example, there would usually be a bunch of threads about what people were
wearing at the Golden Globes. I did not see any posts on the newsgroup or on
google. WTH is going on? Is there an alternative for reading alt.fashion that
I don't know about? Please advise.
<<
I noticed it too on the groups I read. I also noticed I see a lot of replies
to threads where I never saw the initial post
I think they changed the newsreader or the filters. I'll send AOL a complaint
and see what they say.
Brenda
"Life is what happens while we're making other plans" – John Lennon

Jjjjjulie wrote:
Sigh, the easiest/most cost effective/best way to get around the
glitch IS to dump AOL. That's my honest opinion as a geek.
Other ISP's don't have the continuing USENET problems that AOL does.
AOL has a much higher frequency of issues than the others do. I've
been with Mediacom for almost 3 years now. I haven't had ANY issues
with USENET that weren't client related or that weren't related to the
whole service being down.
But once an ISP sets up their USENET server there shouldn't be any
issues. With the low number of users (as you say) the server shouldn't
be under much strain The servers probably run some kind of Unix,
very stable.
All ISP's give one access to the same internet, the differences being
price, any value added services and speed. The Internet should be
thought of as being more like electricity than anything else.
AF's resident geeks weren't telling her to dump Newsguy because
Newsguy doesn't have a reputation for problems that AOL has.
The AOL problems are not just "temporary glitches", it's a continuing
quality of service problem.that AOL doesn't seem capable of addressing.
Veronica
––
Makeup, it takes believing in. Like a magic carpet, it's belief that
makes it fly. Otherwise, it's just a rug.
If you believe in it, makeup has a magic all it's own.
Of course, makeup is only dime–store magic. But it works well enough,
when it's used properly.",
the makeup artist, from the book Sooner or Later, based on the 1978 TV
movie of the same name.

something's wrong with aol for sure; for the first few days of the problem i'd
check for posts, but i'd given up for a few weeks and when i checked today,
there were quite a few new (old) posts here. i checked google once or twice but
there i'd see threads starting with 're:', as if early posts were also missing
from google. so i can't really help, just empathize...

On 23 Jan 2005 15:28:54 GMT, Michele317 wrote:
They're so embarassing that their corporate parent dropped "AOL" from
their corporate name.
If the rest of Time Warner's products lived up to the quality standard
of AOL, random pages would fall out of FORTUNE while you read it and
about 2/3rds of the ink would rub off on your hands.
I just hope Richard Parsons doesn't read this and get any brilliant
money–saving ideas for the magazine division. <grin/duck>