Andy Kunz wrote:

> Or COBOL.  Which reminds me of a joke I have.  To save bandwidth, I
> won't post it, but if you want it PRIVATE mailto: andy@rc-hydros.com

  It involves cryo-suspension, doesn't it?

Wagner Lipnharski wrote:

> Paul, you are so naive... :)

  Well, *that*'s a turn-around!

> so as you can see, they have few problems yet, but Paul, you need to
> learn more, just read more those UFO's magazines and watch more
> MTV....so you will understand what means "decent mailer" ;)

  Well put.

> the funny thing here is that some phone or radio announcing a web site
> turns to be terrible, because the announcer (often not a web sailor)
> worries so much to say perfectly the three "W" spaced and perfectly
> pronounced followed by the "dot",
...
> DoubleU DoubleU DoubleU Dot    #@$&%    Dot COM
> We often need to replay the message 3 times to understand it.
> What is the matter with that people?

  When *I* was small, TV announcers on the National TV (and radio)
Network (i.e., government-sponsored; the ABC) were the bastions of the
English language.  Sadly, nowadays they seem to be lucky to be able to
read fast enough.

Sean Breheny wrote:

> Microsoft Internet Exploder
...
> I think these should be in wider use ;-)

  "Exploder" *is*, I am surprised you hadn't noticed.  The other is a
Wagner original. :)

> BTW, as for recognizing URLs, I don't think it is based on the WWW
> portion, I think that most programs just look for http://

  Which is not surprising, since the DEFINITION of a URL (Uniform - note
that - Resource Locator) is something which starts with a protocol
identifier.  That's why it is a URL and why I refer to "not URLs".  In
short, a URL is a URL is a URL, and if it's not, it's not.

  WWW means something different.  As Mitch Miller (message just in)
points out.
--
  Cheers,
        Paul B.