The Museum of Hoaxes
Library of Life
Posted By:
Myst
Jan 18, 2005
 I stumbled across this on a blog tonight and something about it just seems odd. I ran it through google and can't find The Library of Life mentioned anywhere except their site. Maybe it is new and I am just being suspicious, so I thought I would post it here and see if anyone knows anything about them. It's that Urgent request thingy that always gets me to wondering.....


Urgent request for help from Library of Life and The IFRC


Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been deeply touched by your blog’s coverage of the recent tragedy in Asia. The way ‘Tsunami Help India’ has helped to make the outside world aware of the plight of the affected people, is highly commendable.

I am contacting you with a request for your kind help from the Library of Life; a website (www.libraryoflife.org) whose aim is to compile the life stories of millions of people around the world, thereby creating the world’s first universal record of life that lasts forever. The website raises funds for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and in this time of need they have asked us to create a living memorial to all the victims of this tragedy. This will be done through photographs, text, film, sound and scanned documents on the site.

The Library of Life, in association with the IFRC, is inviting all those whose lives have been affected by the tragedy to create a free memorial to commemorate their loved ones, or post their own experiences as a record for all future generations. We have also set up an online ‘Tsunami Book of Condolence’, which we are inviting the public to sign and express their feelings on this terrible disaster.

In order for this great humanitarian project to be successful it is essential that we have as much information and reach as many people as possible. We therefore, kindly request that you give us your assistance by contributing to the Library of Life through posting your experiences and opinions directly on our site, or allowing us to put some information from your site on our own. Furthermore, if you would be prepared to put a message on your blog about us and a link from your blog to our website, that would be wonderful. In return we will happily give you a reciprocated link from our own site to yours, as well as a complementary membership.

Please have a look at our site and contact me at [email protected] and let me know your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
Henry Hardy

www.libraryoflife.org

Henry Hardy
Library of Life
46 Berkeley Square
London W1J 5AT
Tel: 0207 598 4063
Fax: 0207 598 4071


Here is a link to their web site:
http://www.libraryoflife.org/Home.aspx
Category: Death, Website-Hoax; Replies: 76

Comments
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 | 11:24 AM
This reminds me of the Virtual Memorial Garden.

The difference is that although Library of Life says that it's currently free, it seems to imply that in the future they're going to start charging money. So you could post a 'life story' now, and then in a year get a message telling you that if you don't pay up your tribute to your great uncle (or whomever) will be deleted.

It's also disingenuous of them to describe their website as "the world
Myst
Member
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 | 02:23 PM
At least the Virtual Memorial Garden doesn't seem to want to charge for the memorials. It also looks like they have been around for awhile. Of course this too could disappear, but at least the web mistress admits could happen.

I didn't like the Library of Life saying that right now it is free, but later on they would start charging. They get you in the door then like you said Alex, poof goes your memorial because you didn't pay up. Bad way to do things IMHO. Thanks for you thoughts Alex.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 | 10:50 PM
Reminds me of the Ray Bradbury story where the people living in a mexican village had to pay a regular fee to keep their relatives buried, or they'd be dug up and put on display.

And I couldn't help but add my own name to the Virtual Memorial Garden. I'm just so sacrilegious.
Henry Hardy
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 | 09:25 AM
I am writing to respond to the comments published on your website by some of your members about Library of Life. Contrary to what has been speculated by your members, Library of Life is not a hoax website. We take our commitment to recording people
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 | 10:06 AM
Henry, thanks for your response and for offering the information about your organization.

However, I'm not willing to delete the previous posts on this thread. I delete comments for only three reasons: 1) if they're spam; 2) if they're highly offensive (promoting hate, violence, etc.); 3) if they're wildly off-topic and don't contain any interesting thought or information (I'm thinking mostly about those people whose 'comments' consist solely of random strings of characters).

The above comments don't qualify on any of those counts. Plus, I don't see how open, public discussion can ever be considered a threat to something that's legitimate.
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 | 10:31 AM
Henry Hardy emailed me this London Times article about the Library of Life, part of which I'm posting below (he emailed me a scan of the article, but I found an electronic version of it... but I won't post the whole thing so that I don't get in trouble with the copyright police):

The Times (London)
November 15, 2004, Monday
HEADLINE: Click for your place in history
BYLINE: Ruth Gledhill

A website will be a record of humanity in the electronic age and raise Pounds 50,000 a year for charity, reports Ruth Gledhill

PEOPLE around the world will be able to leave a mark on history with the launch of a not-for-profit website designed to ensure the survival of a record of humanity in the electronic age.

Immortality will be guaranteed on the Library of Life website, which will also raise funds for the 181 Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. In an age when e-mails and text- messaging have taken over from letter-writing, the project aims to create a permanent record for future historians and biographers on the website http://www.libraryoflife.org.

The project has the backing of Prince Michael of Kent, as well as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

The venture is the brainchild of Stephen Forsyth, an entrepreneur who wanted a way to preserve the memory of his late brother, James.

The aim is to record the names and biographical details of as many people as possible. Those who wish to keep their details private will be able to do so, but others can post a full biography.
Myst
Member
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 | 02:56 PM
Thank you Henry and Alex!

To Henry,
I think leaving this thread of discussion here is important. Should someone else question the Library of Life they might find themselves doing a search to find information like I did. When they search they will find this thread here and it may answer the questions they have. Thanks again for stopping in and sending Alex more info.
Hairy Houdini
Member
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 | 04:00 PM
My gosh- I'm glad that Alex will remove any wildly off-topic posts. That's the right thing to do. The whole thing reminds me of that old Brad Raybury story about the big tongue that gave birth to all those baby tongues, who the turned and ate the big tongue. WAIT- that's not off-topic. It... ummmm... illustrates the relation that lingual expression has to lesser tangental offshoots, microcosmically representing a Universal Forum that exponentially self-perpetuates, devouring the original thread. Howzabout those Steelers?
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 | 10:04 AM
Forum Rule #4 (specially for Hairy): Any discussion of Ray Bradbury is always considered 'on topic'.
Hairy Houdini
Member
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 | 11:24 AM
I'm sorry. I made an Asimov of myself.
Timothy Plank
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 04:43 PM
This posts starts with an attack of what is a very ethical web site with strong humanitarian goals.

While leaving food for thought around for others to see might not seem harmful to the editor of a small forum, I would suggest that when the description "Hoax Forum: Library of Life" is returned on a Google search, it becomes damaging to the brand as people have neither the time or inclination to read this entire post.

Nobody had the right to make accusatory remarks without any justification or reason for doing so and while freedom of speech is perfectly okay, damaging a brand without reason or apology will lead to legal action.

Tim
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 05:04 PM
Wah wah wah.

Go join the MPAA, you litigiuos dork.

Nobody in this thread flat out stated that this was fraud or a hoax. They wondered if it might be not entirely truthful, which I am stating right now is a fact. It is not entirely truthful. How can they claim that the records will last forever? They can't, in reality.

So sue me.

Oh, and to "damage the brand" would require that because of something said, the "brand" lost money.

Did it not say that the site was free?
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 05:08 PM
Did you know that instead of Rain-X, you can waterproof your windshield by placing a McDonald's hamburger patty, sans fromage, under each windshiled wiper? The tallow acts like wax, and beads water... Forever.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 05:40 PM
Augh! Hairy! Rotten Ron's is gonna sue us all!

:gulp:
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 05:53 PM
Waht do you mean, "We", Kimosabe?
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 06:09 PM
You becasue you disparaged their "burgers", and then me cause I called them Rotten Ron's again. And then I just bad-mouthed their "burgers" by putting quotes around the word.

Crap, ther I go again!

Damn, the lawsuits are adding up.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 06:20 PM
I do not concur, Professor Roderickericker... Allow me to elucidate (close your eyes): I merely pointed out the scientific fact that the dead cow grease from a McDonalds hamburger patty will permanently permeate glass surfaces. No disparagement there... White Castle patties are best for ceramic or leather surfaces, in case you wondered
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 06:35 PM
Sorry, once I had my eyes closed, I sat for five minutes waiting for you to explain. Eventually I opened them to see what the hold-up was.

And don't forget how well their "apple pies" permanently patch tires.

I'll have to take your word for it. Other than on TV, I've never even SEEN a White Castle.

Do you happen to know what the main use of cowhide is?
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 06:50 PM
I just don't want anyone seeing me elucidate... I don't even elucidate in front of my party pals, the Llama Bros. I'm no Raoul, damn his hide
Katherine
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 09:49 PM
Pishhhhh. My Internet Lawyers are way better than your Internet Lawyers.

And you know, this reminds me of the Ray Bradbury story where a lady gives birth to a glowing blue pyramid... 😝
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 11:04 PM
So, theoretically, if I could fit a Bradbury factoid into my location so it showed on every post, Alex would never ban me?

Cool.

😏
Katherine
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 | 11:32 PM
Hmmmm, I don't know if that would count. Maybe you could just append a "P.S. Bradbury Bradbury Bradbury!" to all your posts?

And speaking of degenerating into wild OT-ness, has anybody out there ever read Bradbury's "The Whole Town's Sleeping"? Or the one (can't remember the title for the life of me) when it's Halloween, and this guy's wife dislikes him (or is leaving him?), so he decides to do something to really hurt her, which evidently means he kills their daughter when they're playing parlor games in the dark...

Scary stuff, yo.
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:09 AM
Tim, every thread in this entire forum starts out with 'Hoax Forum' in its title because THAT'S THE NAME OF THIS SITE. It has nothing to do with calling the Library of Life a 'hoax forum'.
The Curator
in San Diego
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:18 AM
Also, I can see how if you google 'Library of Life' and see a link titled 'Hoax Forum: Library of Life' it could seem as if 'hoax forum' was referring to 'library of life'. However, this is google's fault, not mine. In the context of my page and my site, it all makes perfect sense.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 12:04 PM
Damn, Alex, there ya go using logic and common sense again...

:lol:

P.S. Bradbury Bradbury Bradbury!

Ha. Katherine made me do it.

Well Kat and all the voices.
😊
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 05:18 PM
Coincidentally I was just reading about "brand damaging speech". (I've suddenly developed a huge interest in law, particularly First Amendment law. *shrug*)
The original posts don't fit the criteria as I recall them, nor would it be easy to prove that it was damaging to the brand....especially as the company's rebuttal of sorts was posted and left enedited.

Sooooooo,.... WAH!
Timothy Plank
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 06:38 PM
Rod,

You are amusing, or as amusing as a half-wit lacking intellect or argumentative substance could be, that is. If the basis of your forum is to provoke thought then your argument should at least be somewhat responsive to the point.

I said it was attacked, not that it was called a Hoax. I said that by the nature of the forum name and the subsequent google reference, it would be perceived as such.

FYI: Because something is said to be currently free, in NO way implies that you will be charged at a later date. It simply means that members joining at a later date will be charged.

There's a big difference between something being implied and something being assumed. You carry on assuming, and amuse yourselves in the process.

'wondered if it might be not entirely truthful' - As I was saying, perhaps there should be cause before the assumption is simply made for no reason whatsoever. If I said I thought your mother loved taking it up the rear, would you not expect substantiation? or could I simply post it to every forum in the name of provoking thought. You cannot blatantly post defamatory statements without cause. If you have half a brain you'll get the point.

'to damage the brand would require that because of something said, the "brand" lost money. Did it not say that the site was free?' -
Because a product is distributed at no cost hardly means the brand is worthless. Hotmail is free yet was sold for $400m - And yet according to your logic, the brand could suffer no damage. Care to explain?

Go back to school, get an education, then try again. Oh, and while you're at it, turn your forum into an outlet for those wanting to spew mumbled nonsense, you're much better at it.

T.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 06:50 PM
Dude... Hey Rod, challenge him to a duel like Raoul... he insulted your Mother, bro... are you gonna take that?
Katherine
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:14 PM
Timothy darling--

Have you ever heard of ad hominem? Attack the argument, not the person.

Love and kisses,
Katherine
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:22 PM
Yeah, Timmy- don't attack his mom's hominem, neither
Smerk
in to mischief
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:26 PM
It's funny how some people take these comments so personally! 😊
Tim
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 07:50 PM
Hmmm. Getting personal...

My first post was clear and to the point. I did not say, nor suggest, that I was going to sue anyone, simply that a blanket statement without cause could potentially lead to legal action.

Rod's response was:
"Wah wah wah. Go join the MPAA, you litigiuos dork"

My dropping to his level was in the hope that he might better understand the point made.

Rod, there is really nothing wrong with the 'fact' that your mother 'apparently' loves it up the back door. It is the 21st century after all, let her live as she chooses.

T
Gerry
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:05 PM
Bizarre, I think Tim might be right cause as far as I've heard, and the possibility does exist that I could be wrong, Rod's mother is a crack-whore.

If only I knew his surname, I could get some good results coming back through Google when running a search for Rod XXX.

Speaking nonsense and what seems like innocent thought provoking speech is one thing, but slanderous remarks that are damaging, whether you see this or not, become somewhat serious in a world where search engines index every word on a ranking web site.

Alex - It is your problem because you are titling these pages AND you are indexing them in search engines. As a webmaster, you choose which part of your site to index and when placing content in the public domain and allowing it to be indexed, you open yourself to the full extent of the law. If you want to have open debate and make whatever comments you wish, at the very least, block the bots with a Robots.txt file.

I am not here to fight with anyone, and I am as much for open thought as the next. In saying this, I have simply tried to get across the fact that there was no justification for what was said and that the Google result is damaging, and that, is wrong.

Tim
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:07 PM
Fellas, I got it solved... Tim agrees not to be a litigois dork and Rod's Mom lays off slamming the back door... it's all good
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:10 PM
I'd reply, but I'm still too busy crying because Tim called me names.

Okay, I'm all better now.

Apparently Tim, you feel that telling me I'm an imbecile would really wound me in some way.

Lacking intellect or argumentative substance?

How so? What I said in my first post in this thread is 100 percent correct. This is false representation on the part of the website, claiming that this will last forever. (Substance or not? You decide.)

I lack intellect, apparently, because you disagree with me, and attempting to belittle me is your idea of getting the upper hand.

Your idea of an attack was that the website in question's name is paired with the word hoax. That sure looks like you're all pissy because you think people will take it as a hoax when it's not.
Anyway, this has absolutely no bearing on what 'I' had to say, so I'm just going to forget that you're trying to cloud the subject.

If you go back and read my post, I also did not mention what I thought of the site's practices of charging. Why are you defending it to me when I never even mentioned it?

I never posted any defamatory statments, nor ones without cause. I simply pointed out the truth. How is this defamatory?

Free usage of their product does not mean that Hotmail sees no money. They also provide 'extended' email services for a charge. By YOUR logic, just because part of their service is free, it means that they never make any money. Part of the service is not the whole service.

As for the rest of the nonsense crap in your post, Tim, use your head. All you are doing is showing people the results of an inadequate personality.

And, last time I checked, just because someone disasagrees with me does NOT mean that I have to go somewhere else. If you've got a problem, tough titty. Someone already tried that tactic, didn't work.

This is in reference to the "Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 06:38 PM" post. I see that you've already posted more, but I have not yet read them, and will respond to them after I post this.
Tim
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:25 PM
Rod,

I am not going to carry on with this because you don't have the mental dexterity to follow the argument to an intellectual end.

I will, however, point out that you have completely missed the entire point.

T

P.S. - FYI: Hotmail and Yahoo are incredibly powerful brands through the marketing leverage they have secured from the size of their user base and critical mass of traffic. Your counter-argument once again missed the point in that you tried to relate a brand's strength to the physical cost of a product. A brand can be as powerful without any money ever changing hands. The internet, television, radio etc. afford us this luxury.

P.P.S. Seriously mate, go back to school, and keep your mum off the crack.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:26 PM
Gerry, apparently, is still pissed about the last disagreement we had, and feels that by perpeuating their moronic activity, it somehow makes ME look bad. Guess again.

And, by the way, Gerry, NO results come back in my name anywhere on the net. And I've spent NUMEROUS hours looking, just to see. Having my last name would not get you any info at all. Not even my current phone number.

But yes, I agree, you probably WOULD get some good results by googling "Rod XXX".

Gerry, look up slander. Does the definition include "making truthful statements which can be easily verified"?


And, yes, Tim, a vague reference to possible future litigation, however veiled, is still a threat, just as a vague reference about mailing someone a bomb is still a threat, even though you didn't flat out state that.
If you believe so greatly in the above site, why is your name not in their database?

As for the whole 'backdoor momma' thing, want to buy some videos?
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:34 PM
"Rod,

I am not going to carry on with this because you don't have the mental dexterity to follow the argument to an intellectual end." - Tim

Translation - "Wah! I'm losing! Screw you guys, I'm going home."

'I' missed the point? Just because you babbled a bunch of stuff not relating to what I said does not mean that 'I' missed the point.

I never tried to relate the brand's strength to the price of the product. I simply pointed out your faulty usage of Hotmail as "free".

Do you stand behind all of your convinctions so strongly, Tim, that as soon as someone tells you that you are wrong, you run and hide?

And yes, Tim, the references to my "lack of intelligence" and my mother's private life truly DO show off your inadequate personality to all.
Sharruma
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:35 PM
I don't have a backdoor
I have some patio doors though, will they do?
Tim
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:37 PM
Boy, you're even dumber than I originally thought!

Stay in la la land, you're safe there.

Goodbye Rod and good luck with your life. Sigh!!
Tim
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:40 PM
Sharruma -

Yip, those will be fine. I've heard she's not fussy and takes it any which way you can imagine.

Hey, whatever keeps her in crack....
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 08:48 PM
"Boy, you're even dumber than I originally thought!" - Tim

Wow, you just can't stop making yourself look bad, can you?
Sharruma
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 09:01 PM
Ray Bradbury is 85 years old
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:29 PM
Tim,

Just curious, why are you posting as both "Tim" and "Gerry"?
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:31 PM
Though at least "Tim" isn't responding to "Gerry" and vice versa. 😊

That makes me feel better.
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:32 PM
Oh, and Ray Bradbury.

:D
Katherine
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:36 PM
Haha...eighty-four, actually, if you want to nitpick. He was born August 22, 1920, so no birthday yet this year. (Does it make me a bad Bradbury fan if I admit that I honestly thought he was dead until I looked that up?)

Tim or Gerry or whatever the devil you want to call yourself--ad hominem. Ad hominem. Do you have any idea what that means? If not, I can tell you: attacking someone's personal character in lieu of actually addressing their argument or making a valid point of your own. Besides being a logical fallacy, it's a plain fact that people will be far less likely to listen to any valid points you make if you liberally intersperse them with comments like "HA HA, YOU SUCK" or "YOUR MOM" or things of that nature.

What was posted was NOT even remotely libelous. Slanderous. Defamatory. Whatever. There are no valid grounds for a lawsuit here, and if anyone were so foolish as to sue, I would laugh and laugh. And then laugh some more when it was completely thrown out of court, and buy Alex a mail-order martini, or possibly a gin and tonic if he'd rather. 😊
Myst
Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 10:56 PM
Tim an Gerry (both happen to have the same IP btw),

I started this tread because I do not believe everything I read or see on the computer. I had never heard of the Library of Life and wanted to know a bit more about the site. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, it is something I have learned to with anything I find on the Internet, never assume anything about an unknown site is my motto. There are a lot of scam sites and stuff out there, knowledge protects you and those you care about from being taken advantage of.

As for your concern regarding the image of the Library of Life your posts alone have done more to harm the sites reputation than any of us have. You could have very simply stated the truth about the site as you know it and left a good impression with anyone who may have found this thread.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:01 PM
It seems the average person always assumes the other has missed the point of the arguement, rather than thinking first that he himself isn't articulating properly. If the average person would take the time to explain himself, instead of throwing up his arms and exclaiming that the other doesn't have enough "mental dexterity" to understand him, we'd have a lot less conflict and a lot more understanding.

I'm begining to think that classes in communication, which I originally thought to be girly and stupid, should be a mandatory part of public education.
Smerk
in to mischief
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:12 PM
Winona said - Tim, Just curious, why are you posting as both "Tim" and "Gerry"?

Thank goodness I wasn't imagining it! I read that post several times and couldn't work out why he was suffering an identity crisis mid-post...submit as Gerry, sign off as Tim? 😕
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:22 PM
Maybe he has MPD. Or maybe he just wanted to look as if he had supporters?
Myst
Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:30 PM
I hadn't noticed Gerry signed off as Tim. How's that for being observant. :blank:
Smerk
in to mischief
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:40 PM
That was my problem - being too observant. I wondered if he'd done a copy and paste job of one of Tim's previous posts and forgot to delete his name off the bottom. When searching through Tim's posts, I couldn't find anything relating to what Gerry posted. So I was feeling rather confused about it. 😖
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 | 11:41 PM
Whatever happened to that TV show Bradbury used to have? I haven't seen it in a while. I don't remember if it was good, either. "Something Wicked This Way Comes" made an alright movie though, but it's a lot better to read.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 12:01 AM
Thank you, people, for your support.
Believe it or not, it really means a lot.

I never even noticed until Winona pointed it out that he had put both names on one post.

I kinda had an inkling when he hadn't put his bio on the website above that there was a problem here somewhere. I guess that's why I never got an answer when I asked him about it.

Again, Katherine, Myst, et al (sorry if I missed you, I'm running three programs on a 200 Mhz computer, and it's so slow that I don't want to scroll back up because it takes so long...) THANK YOU for the support.

Is "The Ray Bradbury Theater" still being produced? I loved that show, when I had the opportunity to see it.
Myst
Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 12:25 AM
I'm running three programs on a 200 MHz computer

Ouch! I remember my poor old Pentium II which had a 250 MHz processor, fortunately I was able to move up to a used 800 MHz computer.

Your welcome for the support. I can't understand people who think they have to resort to such behavior like Tim aka Gerry did.
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 12:28 AM
IMDB says <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088591/">the show</a> was over in '92. Damn.

The re-runs are still worth watching, though.

I didn't realize them damned Canucks produced it, though...

😜
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 12:33 AM
Actually, it's not even a Pentium. It'a an Athlon-K6-Compaq-piece-of-crap-if-it-wasn't-free-I'd-never-have-it type of computer.

I really have to get a faster one, but there are too many actually important things to pay for first.

Like power and the phone, and food.

And beer. 😊
Myst
Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 12:43 AM
I know what you mean about paying the bills and beer, well actually I prefer Irish Creme but it is a bit more expensive than beer.

I could only afford this computer because I am friends with a guy who owns a computer store. He sold me a used Dell for $150.
Winona
in USA
 Member
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 01:24 AM
Talking about older computers makes me feel old (should I admit I'm 32).... I remember when I was *thrilled* to get my old k-6 whatever - so cutting edge, lol. I started out on a MacII, and was still using that when I got on the net in about 1991.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.