I just want a simple wired broadbad connection!

[DanS]

No, it just won't work right until you get the cables
straightened out.


I'm sorry, but without specific error messages and test
results, your report of a melt down is basically
meaningless. My guess is that it's about a 98-99% chance of
user error.


If you believe it happened, you're one step ahead of me.
;-)

It's far easier to blame eveything else than admit you have no clue what you are doing.

 

[Char Jackson]

But, not anything like you said...."If TW is like Comcast, and I suspect it is, then Internet
and TV are cheaper than Internet alone."...which really has no other meaning than what
I interpreted.

No, it's actually exactly like what I said. I'm not sure where I'm
losing you.

Internet+TV, billed amount is $54/month.
Internet only, billed amount is $63/month.

$63 is more than $54. Ergo, it's cheaper to keep TV service, even
though I don't want it and don't use it.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

No, it's actually exactly like what I said. I'm not sure where I'm
losing you.

Internet+TV, billed amount is $54/month.
Internet only, billed amount is $63/month.

$63 is more than $54. Ergo, it's cheaper to keep TV service, even
though I don't want it and don't use it.

OK, we're getting down to brass tacks here at last.

Can you actually *prove* that, as you said, $63 is more than $54?

Aah, Usenet

But you know, as I think about it, I'm not so sure that I could in fact
prove the above, and I consider myself a math & physics kind of guy...It
seems to come down to definitions.

 

[Char Jackson]

OK, we're getting down to brass tacks here at last.

Can you actually *prove* that, as you said, $63 is more than $54?

Aah, Usenet

Since when do we have to prove what we say on Usenet? ;-)

But you know, as I think about it, I'm not so sure that I could in fact
prove the above, and I consider myself a math & physics kind of guy...It
seems to come down to definitions.

I saw something about 15-20 years ago, (paraphrasing badly, I'm sure),
where someone was trying to prove that "1+1=1, for sufficiently small
values of 1". It was a thread that went on forever, with neither side
conceding.

Anyway, thanks for dropping in. I always enjoy your visits.

 

[DanS]

No, it's actually exactly like what I said. I'm not sure
where I'm losing you.

Internet+TV, billed amount is $54/month.
Internet only, billed amount is $63/month.

$63 is more than $54. Ergo, it's cheaper to keep TV
service, even though I don't want it and don't use it.

Well that's just bizarre.......and pretty cheap.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Since when do we have to prove what we say on Usenet? ;-)


I saw something about 15-20 years ago, (paraphrasing badly, I'm sure),
where someone was trying to prove that "1+1=1, for sufficiently small
values of 1". It was a thread that went on forever, with neither side
conceding.

Anyway, thanks for dropping in. I always enjoy your visits.

Thanks.

But you have confused me. Isn't 1 + 1 = 1 for *all* values of 1?

{Oh lord - I hope we haven't triggered a long thread such as you
describe!}

 

[Char Jackson]

Thanks.

But you have confused me. Isn't 1 + 1 = 1 for *all* values of 1?

Don't disregard the lunatic fringe who hold steadfastly to their world
view that 1+1=2. (I'm part of that fringe. ;-) )

{Oh lord - I hope we haven't triggered a long thread such as you
describe!}

Oh, I don't know. Most people here are pretty reasonable, with a few
notable exceptions.