 | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
(...) Wow. All I can say is thanks a bunch for hosting them while you could. Do we need to pass the hat? :-) (26 years ago, 9-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
(...) I've been willing to pay my dues for a while now. :) Especially if I can go ahead and lock in a prime piece of baseplate. (26 years ago, 9-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
(...) Ya, me too. I heard offline that this bandwidth bill was not that much scratch, it was just the trendline that was worrisome. Or so the rumor said. (26 years ago, 9-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
(...) It would have cost ~$500/month if it had continued at that bandwidth rate. Obviously it would be going down after the 1999 catalogs appear in more stores, but on the other hand it could also have gone up by 5x or more if the readership of (...) (26 years ago, 9-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
Todd and group, I need your help. Are my posts showing up on your newsreader or only mine? I have posted numerous times to RTL lately, they show up in my reader but not on dejanews. I posted the following note on 12/8/98 at 10:30pm with no (...) (26 years ago, 10-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
|
Janet Zorn wrote in message ... (...) You cannot see the messages posted to Lugnet in anywhere except from Lugnet itself. Lugnet is a privately owned disscussion group, and not connected to usenet in anyway. The only technical similarity is they (...) (26 years ago, 10-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
