 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / August 2006Boycott Gettysburg
Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. http://users.snip.net/~hart/ We loved Gettysburg: married there, took dozens of week-long trips, spent many thousands of dollars there, and even considered moving there. But those days are over thanks to park superintendent John Latschar. He's ruining the Gettysburg battlefield. He calls it restoration. Desecration is more descriptive. If we spent another dime we'd be supporting the destruction. We refuse. Trees are being ripped out wholesale. The deer have been slaughtered. Visiting on a November evening is an experience everyone should be able to enjoy, but he shortened the decades-old operating hours so you'll be ticketed and labeled criminals. He threw up so many one-way signs that traffic in town has become a tourist's nightmare. He likes saying, "The time for comment was during the planning, not now." Well, Bozo, the public DID and continues to comment, but you ignore them. Tens of 1000s have voiced their concern, but you act as though the Gettysburg battlefield is your own private domain to use and abuse as you please. It belongs to the taxpayers, not an arrogant, government-appointed bureaucratic freeloader. Gettysburg battlefield ghost hunters have been turned away in droves because he equates them with drug users and drinkers. What a moron. Not only is the town losing a fortune toward the local economy, the park is losing thousands of watchful eyes from some of the most respectful visitors. Those with evil intent will always gain access at night as was proven by recent vandalism. Closing the park merely keeps honest folks out. John Latschar has, in effect, given vandals free rein. Attendance is lagging. He blames everything except his own bumbling. He constantly moans about never having enough money to fix rotting cannons, monuments and buildings, yet continues wasting funds on mindnumbingly senseless projects that divide the townspeople and drives others away. It's typical government ineptness. Looks like John Latschar sits around dreaming up new ways to piss people off. If he's not shooting the wildlife, cutting down 100s of acres of trees, changing the hours or screwing up traffic flow, he'll devise some other dumbass plan. Chances are he'll eventually move on to another location leaving his mess and debts behind for someone else. It wouldn't be the first time. What's worse than allowing John Latschar to inflict so much damage to the Gettysburg battlefield? Most of you sit idly by and let it happen without so much as a whimper. Talk is cheap, but a Gettysburg boycott speaks volumes. We're doing our part. Good bye Gettysburg. You were our favorite place on Earth until John Latschar raped you. Now you're just a memory. What a pity and disgrace. Cassie and Tom http://users.snip.net/~hart/ > Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before > superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. > http://users.snip.net/~hart/ Who uses Internet Explorer any more? Your page sucks. >Who uses Internet Explorer any more? Your page sucks. I do.. but his page probably still sucks.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm > > Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before > > superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. > > http://users.snip.net/~hart/ > > Who uses Internet Explorer any more? Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. > Your page sucks. And you are how old, maybe 10?  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Suddenly, without warning, TBone exclaimed (09-Aug-06 2:02 AM): >>> Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before >>> superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. >>> http://users.snip.net/~hart/ >> Who uses Internet Explorer any more? > > Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. Actually, I think it's more like 90%. But the point is, I think, that it's really bad business to build a website for *one* browser (no matter which it is). Why block out 10% of potential business just because the webmaster is stupid or not properly trained? Yea, pet peeve. I'm a webmaster myself. And off topic. Unless the superintendent put Dodge statues (or took them down) around the battlefields. Or it's "ruined" 'cause he fixes his Ram on one of the battlefields :) jmc >>>Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before >>>superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. And who, do you suppose, are they? The people crowding the middle of the bell curve. Average, computer-semi-illiterate, blissfully unaware folks with malware-infested Dell PCs. >>Your page sucks. > > And you are how old, maybe 10? A "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" page is the stuff of 10-year olds. The sucky page could have accomodated any modern browser equally well. Even IE, if the webmaster didn't try to get too cutting-edge with it. > >> Who uses Internet Explorer any more? > > > > Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. > > And who, do you suppose, are they? > The people crowding the middle of the bell curve. No, they're people that need to buy plane tickets or do banking over the net or run intra-office web-based apps, all of which (like it or not) was designed to function properly with IE. > Average, computer-semi-illiterate, blissfully unaware folks with > malware-infested Dell PCs. Your wrath should be aimed at those running the malware infection platform known as XP. 100% of home computers by rights should have stayed with Win-98 instead of migrating to XP. During XP's "golden years" 2002-2004 it was wide open to 1/2 dozen infection routes just by being connected to the net. The spam explosion came because of so many exploitable XP systems becoming available to hackers. Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. >>>>Who uses Internet Explorer any more? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the net or run intra-office web-based apps, all of which (like it or > not) was designed to function properly with IE. Same people! They can click the IE icon, and then they're just along for the ride. Most webmasters have outgrown the "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" phase though, that's pretty old. >>Average, computer-semi-illiterate, blissfully unaware folks with >>malware-infested Dell PCs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related > security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. Insidious, isn't it? So many PCs get tossed after a couple years when they seem to be too slow, and their owners are clueless. So they buy a new Dell, and the infection process starts over. >>>> Who uses Internet Explorer any more? >>> Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the net or run intra-office web-based apps, all of which (like it or > not) was designed to function properly with IE. Actually, those kind of sites are usually pretty damned universal. Its been a long while since I've hit any brick-walls when surfing with Firefox. My pet peeve is Macromedia Flash. 95% of the time its used in obnoxious ways, the other 5% of the time it requires Flash v9 which isn't available for Linux (I dual-boot kubuntu and XP on my laptop) >> Average, computer-semi-illiterate, blissfully unaware folks with >> malware-infested Dell PCs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related > security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. Win98 has its own set of crappyness. I guess we should have all stuck with PCs slower than 1 ghz (98 has issues with fast hardware) and less than 256MB ram (iirc 98 can't really use more) Hell, I right now have a single legitimate application using 550MB ram (radio propagation prediction app covering a HUGE area at an unreasonably high resolution) and this copy of Thunderbird is eating 38MB ram... Of course, back when Win98 was king I was running NT4 (and eventually Win2k) and cursing every new peripheral that *only* had a USB connector.. I guess theres no reason to rub in the many issues found in the "9x" IP stack over the years. winnuke, pepsi, etc... Plus, who can ever forget the "Error Exception 0E" BSODs that everybody seemed to get... I think a copy of memtest86 would have been a big help with curing most of those... Hell, Win 3.1 booted in about 1.5 seconds on a Pentium 166 with a decent (for the day) 4200 rpm hard drive, why not go back to using it instead? JS >> Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related >> security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. > > Win98 has its own set of crappyness. I guess we should have all stuck > with PCs slower than 1 ghz (98 has issues with fast hardware) and less > than 256MB ram (iirc 98 can't really use more) Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is plenty snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. >>> Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related >>> security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is plenty > snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. Hmm, like living in the stone age I see. What do you drive, a D-3 Cat or a Peugeot's SignatureMoParMaN---Remove Clothes To Reply --SCUD Coordinates 32.61204 North: 96.92993 West-- > Hmm, like living in the stone age I see. What do you drive, a D-3 Cat or a > Peugeot's Why spend the money to upgrade if whats currently running works? I maintain about 200 PC's at my work. 50 are running MS-DOS. Yes, you heard right..good old DOS. Why? Because these PC's run a single program 24/7 for product testing on our assembly line. They never crash, get viruses and they require only low end inexpensive PC's. >>>>Windows 98 was a security paradise compared to XP. Many IE-related >>>>security issues are tied to XP and not Win-98. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hmm, like living in the stone age I see. What do you drive, a D-3 Cat or a > Peugeot's I'm not "in" an age. I ended up with a mix of old and not-so-old, and all of it quality stuff. Still using the same IBM "click" keyboard that came with my 486! I don't like mushy keys. > Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is plenty > snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. Win98 doesn't make good use of memory. It partitions some of it to store screen and user information such as window locations etc. It is a fixed partition size that does not grow as more memory is added. XP makes far better use. Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (09-Aug-06 10:43 PM): >> Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is plenty >> snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fixed partition size that does not grow as more memory is added. XP > makes far better use. yabbut... If someone's still choosing to use Win98, and it's "snappy", I'm guessing that the poorer memory use isn't an issue for them :) My hubby, btw, still uses Win98 and is happy with it. Me? I'm running a 64-bit AMD system that's a couple years old, about to upgrade my kit to a dual-core system, with increased RAM and a better video card. I use my computer hard, it needs the power. jmc >> Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is plenty >> snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fixed partition size that does not grow as more memory is added. XP > makes far better use. Yes, system "resources", which can eventually run low if I try to go 24/7 or run too much at once. I really need to reboot to clear that up. And XP still fragments disk space, just like my 98. I think Unix/Linux/OSX don't do that. >>> Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is >>> plenty snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, system "resources", which can eventually run low if I try to go > 24/7 or run too much at once. I really need to reboot to clear that up. You mean like use the computer? :) > And XP still fragments disk space, just like my 98. I think Yep. Whats funnier is Microsoft claimed NTFS could not get fragmented back in the NT3.1/3.51/4/Win2000 days. Eventually they got slapped by reality. At least XP's defragmenter improves performance. Can't say that for 98's :) > Unix/Linux/OSX don't do that. Hrm, kinda. All FS's can get fragmented, its just some are better at placing files. FAT was designed around maximizing the ability to undelete files. NTFS isn't that much of an improvement. Most unixy OSes will 'defrag' on the fly, keeping the problem down to a minimum. I just wonder when Microsoft is going to get around to releasing a journaling file system. ;) JS >>>> Win98 is working at 2GHz for me, with 512MB RAM. Performance is >>>> plenty snappy. And it's all inside a beautiful Mac G4 case. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You mean like use the computer? :) Sometimes I'll reboot just for the heck of it, to see the free resources number climb back up. But it's been a non-issue. >> And XP still fragments disk space, just like my 98. I think > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > At least XP's defragmenter improves performance. Can't say that for > 98's :) Why not? I use the ME defragmenter, both work. >> Unix/Linux/OSX don't do that. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > isn't that much of an improvement. Most unixy OSes will 'defrag' on the > fly, keeping the problem down to a minimum. Wasn't entirely sure, so did some reading about that. Linux reorders data requests, so that fragmentation has little or no effect. > I just wonder when Microsoft is going to get around to releasing a > journaling file system. ;) Microsoft is waning. Their Golden Age is over. > JS >>>>> Who uses Internet Explorer any more? >>>> Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Hell, Win 3.1 booted in about 1.5 seconds on a Pentium 166 with a decent > (for the day) 4200 rpm hard drive, why not go back to using it instead? we never had problems with DOS 3.1 or earlier, just an observation *grin* Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > > JS > Win98 has its own set of crappyness. I guess we should have all > stuck with PCs slower than 1 ghz (98 has issues with fast hardware) > and less than 256MB ram (iirc 98 can't really use more) Why are you spreading lies about 98? I've got an office full of PC's with 2.5 ghz Pentium-4's with 512 mb of ram and 64 mb NVidia AGP cards with 80 gb hard drives running Win-98. You've fallen into the trap of judging '98 by the standards of the hardware that was available in the late 90's (slow CPU's, piddly amount of RAM, buggy motherboard chipsets, etc). Try running '98 on any motherboard made since 2001 and you'll see how stable it is. > I guess theres no reason to rub in the many issues found in the > "9x" IP stack over the years. winnuke, pepsi, etc... A few harmless DoS vulnerabilities. That pales in comparison to the speed at which any 2K or XP system could get hacked into a few years ago just by having a network connection. Suddenly, without warning, Some Guy exclaimed (09-Aug-06 11:11 PM): >> Win98 has its own set of crappyness. I guess we should have all >> stuck with PCs slower than 1 ghz (98 has issues with fast hardware) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > speed at which any 2K or XP system could get hacked into a few years > ago just by having a network connection. I'm not a fan of '98 myself, but I'm going to have to second that. It's been rock hard stable on my hubby's system, which is a couple years old, but not as old as his OS. jmc Suddenly, without warning, Some Guy exclaimed (09-Aug-06 2:16 PM): >>>> Who uses Internet Explorer any more? >>> Oh, about 95% of the people on the web. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the net or run intra-office web-based apps, all of which (like it or > not) was designed to function properly with IE. Huh? Most DECENT banking, ticket-selling, and intra-office stuff works just fine on Firefox or other browsers, IF DESIGNED PROPERLY. I do all my banking using Firefox. I do all my shopping using Firefox. I do all my surfing using Firefox. If I come across an IE-only site, I write the webmaster, then they lose my business. So, sorry, you're incorrect. In my experience - and yes mine is skewed, I'm surrounded by geeks (and am one myself) - there's a very high percentage of computer literate folks that use Firefox, or Opera, or Konqueror as their primary browser - anything but IE. The few geeks that use IE truly like it, even with it's security problems and non-compliance with web standards. The rest who use IE simply don't know any better. I've created many converts among that group ("try it, you'll like it")... There's simply no valid excuse - none - for coding a web page to work on IE only. Ignorance or laziness. Ok, I'm off my soapbox now. Just to say something on topic, the dealer in Australia can do the recalls for my Dakota I had to put off since the one in the UK wouldn't. But it's taking gawdawful long to get the parts! jmc we had them send the parts by sail boat, should be there by next year. BFG Signature---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs. > Just to say something on topic, the dealer in Australia can do the recalls > for my Dakota I had to put off since the one in the UK wouldn't. But it's > taking gawdawful long to get the parts! > > jmc > > Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before > > superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. > > http://users.snip.net/~hart/ > > Who uses Internet Explorer any more? Your page sucks. Boycott cross posting trolls. JAM >>>Link to Gettysburg photos showing the Gettysburg battlefield before >>>superintendent John Latschar's ego ran amok and ruined it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Boycott cross posting trolls. Tom posted to numerous groups *individually*. Some of the wording varied slightly too, so it doesn't appear to be an easy Copy & Paste job. Probably retyped fresh each time as he looked at his handwritten notes. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.