http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 9
messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
* SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
* The World Largest Online Digital Library. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/e8c2ee41f71a5e09?hl=en
* Cheaper Kindle - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:17 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>
>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>> challenged again.
>>>
>>
>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>
> And divorces do not come from marriages????
Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
Honestly.
>
> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
Of course it took place. There was a license and everything. Maybe
even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
:Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
I'd be interested in that too.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:42 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>>> challenged again.
>>>>
>>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>> And divorces do not come from marriages????
>
> Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
> Honestly.
They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
Williams which you conveniently deleted.
>
>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>
> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything. Maybe
> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
under a criminal law. Even if the issue of full faith and
credit had been before it, the Supremes would not have had
to decide that issue. They had more than enough room under
the equal protection and due process clauses. Courts as a
matter of course will not decide issues that they do not
need to reach if other issues are decisive. Besides,
appellate courts do not argue issues that were not argued in
the courts below them. In Loving, the decision of the
Virginia Supreme Court was that the state law did not
violate equal protection. The ACLU had brought the Virginia
state appeal on that ground. They wanted to show that race
based restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional under
the equal protection clause. Using the full faith and
credit clause would not have achieved that. So, the Supreme
Court could not have ruled on an issue that was not argued
either below or in the Supreme Court itself.
>
> :Look. Show me a place where a state was forced to recognize a
> marriage as legal because of FFaC and we'll talk. Oh, and if you'd
> like to explain why FFaC doesn't make DOMA facially unconstitutional,
> I'd be interested in that too.
>
Why do you think Williams came up? What do you think the
court had in mind in the quote from page 301? Did you
bother to read it before you snipped it? For the last time,
do your assigned homework before you post.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 8:04 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>> provision.
>
> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
No. DOMA, if it is not repealed, will fall to an equal
protection argument and the reasoning will be parallel to
the reasoning in Loving. That is the simplest way to attack
it. the FF&C argument only comes up in situations involving
two states and the person challenging the law. You will
notice that the Texas judge did not use DOMA to avoid the
divorce issue. Now it is possible that the appeal to be
taken by the Texas Attorney-General will bring DOMA into the
picture, but I do not know if it was so argued in the trial
court and that could limit the appealability of that issue
in the higher courts.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:00 pm
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>
>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>would be clearly unconstitutional.
DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:20 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>
>>
>
> For the third (fourth?) time, _please_ read the Supreme
> Court cases I cited which say the opposite of what you say.
> You completely do not understand.
If I'm wrong, point out where FFaC has been used to force a state to
recognize a marriage.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:24 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>>>> challenged again.
>>>>>
>>>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>>> And divorces do not come from marriages????
>>
>> Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
>> Honestly.
>
> They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
> Williams which you conveniently deleted.
Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not marriage.
I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.
>
>>
>>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>>
>> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
>> Maybe
>> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
>
> Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
> under a criminal law.
If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
exactly honoring that marriage, is it?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:26 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>
>
> No. DOMA, if it is not repealed, will fall to an equal
> protection argument and the reasoning will be parallel to
> the reasoning in Loving.
You think Kennedy will vote that way? None of the four assholes will.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:28 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
David DeLaney wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>> DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
> actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
> etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has
> actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
> unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
> executive branches, as everyone knows.
DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage to
test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 11:35 pm
From: Butch Malahide
On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
> laws that are unconstitutional
Nothing stops them? What about their oath to support and defend the
constitution?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 7:47 pm
From: Robert Carnegie
Dan Clore wrote:
> PRESS RELEASE
>
> EVENT:
>
> Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon, by Dan Clore, published by
> Hippocampus Press, is now available.
We worry, as always, for the typesetters. Does the doctor see any
signs of recovery yet? Well, early days, early days. Hmm...
shouldn't have put it like that.. :-)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 8:17 pm
From: "$Zero"
On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Idiots. Numskulls. Patsies and Pushovers! How antithetical to a
> laissez-faire democracy can this get? This is NOT like mandatory auto
> insurance, which is restricted to a liability policy. You get deaf,
> blind and clueless on the road, it protects the other guy. But when
> Congress gets deaf, blind and clueless, where is the liability
> insurance I can buy against that?
>
> Every citizen is here imposed upon to empty his wallet to keep all
> those greedy, price inflating, fat flying bastards in the medical
> industry rich. I do not WANT to make them rich. Why am I being forced
> to keep those leaches full, fat and engorged with my life's blood? I
> DON'T want to give them my money. Pass the public option and it
> becomes my duty as a citizen to participate, just as I pay my taxes.
> With no public option this is forcing me to patronize a business I'd
> rather piss on than look at; participate in my own financial
> destruction to the benefit of those greedy rats. This is not money
> going to our own collective health care account, it is going into the
> bottomless investment schemes of the insurance companies; it is the
> building of another Too Big to Fail corporate hegemony not one whit
> different than AIG.
>
> Why am I being forced to do business with anyone? I thought that was
> MY choice! And not only that, I am coerced under penalty of fine do
> business with precisely the kind of sleaze-bags that I despise more
> than any other. Yeah, I'd rather do business with the Mafia or the Tea
> Baggers than shell out one cent to the people that are making these
> crooks in Congress like Baucus all so rich and sassy as we see.
>
> I don't WANT to do business with those people, so WHY should I? What
> the hell kind of government is this anyway that it operates to mug its
> own citizens to prop up the profits of a class of bureaucrats that,
> given the public option, have no earthly reason to exist?
>
> Some investigative reporter needs to put a tail on Baucus and Snow,
> get to the bottom of this and find out what other than graft can be
> causing them to turn traitor to the principles of their own parties.
> What gives them the chutzpah? What? You KNOW what.
> --
> JM
>
> http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
i think it's some sort of national IQ test.
they want to see just how much they can get away with before people
tear themselves away from Dancing w/ the Stars and American Idol long
enough to say: WTF?!
my guess?
those show's ratings will go thru the fricken' roof for many years to
come.
Americans are the dumbest fucking people on planet earth, bar none.
-$Zero...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The World Largest Online Digital Library.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/e8c2ee41f71a5e09?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 8:35 pm
From: sonam
The World Largest Online Digital Library.
You Can Download here 1000 Plus Books on Computer, Urdu , English,
Science, Historical, Hindi, Islamic, Poetry, Funny Books, Novels,
Poetry,Food Recipies, English Guru , Earning Tips, Amazing Pictures,
and Get more Information about World Hotels & Motels.
www.kitaabfair.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheaper Kindle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:05 pm
From: mike muth
On Oct 14, 1:51 am, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2009-10-13 16:34:34 -0700, peachyashiepassion
> <exquisitepe...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Gysin wrote:
>
> >> peachyashiepassion sent the following on 10/10/2009 9:11 PM:
> >>> netcat wrote:
> >>>> In article <hal6pa$8t...@solani.org>, k...@busiek.com says...
> >>>>> On 2009-10-08 05:17:52 -0700, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> said:
>
> >>>>>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
> >>>>>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willad...@aol.com says...
> >>>>>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system that is not
> >>>>>>>> under remote control? i.e., no files can be deleted from the device
> >>>>>>>> unless the operator of the device deletes them?
> >>>>>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any DRM files
> >>>>>>> and don't worry about such.
> >>>>>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices that phone
> >>>>>> home.
>
> >>>>>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do that again.
> >>>>>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically impossible for them to
> >>>>>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can the Kindle
> >>>>>> wireless connection be disabled?
> >>>>> It can be turned off, if that's what you mean.
>
> >>>>> It's not required -- you can buy stuff, download it to your computer
> >>>>> and put it on the Kindle by hooking up your Kindle to your computer;
> >>>>> the phone link is a convenience rather than a requirement, so you could
> >>>>> theoretically leave it off at all times.
>
> >>>>> In normal use, you kep it turned off most of the time anyway, because
> >>>>> it drains the battery quickly while in use, so the way you get that
> >>>>> two-week battery time they promote is to leave it off when you're not
> >>>>> actually buying something.
> >>>> So it's possible to turn if off in a way that it won't start again
> >>>> unless _you_ turn it on? Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.
>
> >>> You know, that's why I didn't answer. I'm not at all sure they
> >>> didn't leave some back door in. If they are sufficiently evil, they
> >>> may well have.
>
> >> I was gonna ask you what you're doing on RAM, and then I saw the
> >> crosspost. At least none of the usual dysfunctional groups was
> >> included!
>
> >> As for the Kindle or any other similar device, I'd almost be surprised
> >> if they *didn't* build in a "feature" like that for themselves.
>
> > True enough.
>
> > You CAN always make a backup copy of everything on your Kindle, so
> > if they swipe your stuff, you would still have your backup.
>
> I do that as a matter of course. I've got a 2 GB memory stick that I
> use simply for backup copies of e-books. Not because I think Amazon's
> out to get me, but in case of untoward mistakes.
I download kindle books to my PC. (I haven't turned on the wireless
interface for the Kindle for more than a year.) From there, I copy it
via USB to the Kindle. The folder of e-books (2,500 books in various
formats) gets backed up to my NAS and from there onto my wife's PC.
Every month or so, I add the e-book folder to my regular backup to
DVD.
On the other hand, the books on my iPhone are not restorable except
through Amazon. As far as I know, there is no app to allow the
transfer of Kindle books from PC to the Kindle iPhone app. I only
keep books I reference or am currently reading on the iPhone, anyway.
--
Mike
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:08 pm
From: mike muth
On Oct 12, 8:30 pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote innews:MPG.253d59958810609c989d3f@news.octanews.com:
>
> >> It won't read html files natively, but you can e-mail an html file to
> >> Amazon, where it'll be converted into an azw file (the Kindle-specific
> >> format).
>
> > It'd be easier then to convert html to text myself and upload it
> > locally. This e-mailing a file to them for conversion is as pointless as
> > mailing canned tuna somewhere for opening and waiting to get it back in
> > an opened state.
>
> > I guess there's no azw converters floating around out there?
>
> I just got an iPhone and the Kindle software that goes with it. How can *I*
> upload things locally, anyone?
As far as I can tell, you can't. I seem to recall reading that the
capability was not enabled. I'm not sure the iPhone app can read
other formats, either.
--
Mike
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 10:18 pm
From: mike muth
On Oct 11, 4:14 am, peachyashiepassion <exquisitepe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Stanley Moore wrote:
> > "William George Ferguson" <wmgfr...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:hlcsc5do1ehv1k0bllh9pgtb07at4nhrna@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:17:52 +0300, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
> >>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willad...@aol.com says...
> >>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system that is not
> >>>>> under remote control? i.e., no files can be deleted from the device
> >>>>> unless the operator of the device deletes them?
> >>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any DRM files
> >>>> and don't worry about such.
> >>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices that phone
> >>> home.
>
> >>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do that again.
> >>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically impossible for them to
> >>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can the Kindle
> >>> wireless connection be disabled?
> >> On the original Kindle, there's a Wireless On/Off switch on the back of
> >> the
> >> device (beside the Power On/Off switch). On the Kindle II and the Kindle
> >> DX, there's a menu selection to turn the wireless connection on/off.
> >> Basically, it's there for power usage conservation, you more than cut your
> >> power usage in half by not having the wireless connection on (from
> >> personal
> >> experience with the DX, it takes the battery about two days to run down
> >> with the wireless connection turned on, and about a week with the wireless
> >> turned off, if you are reading it regularly).
>
> >> If you're really paranoid, you could leave the wireless connection turned
> >> off all the time, send any kindle item you buy to your computer, and
> >> download it to your kindle from your computer with a direct USB
> >> connection.
>
> >> I haven't seen anything yet that says Amazon can remotely activate your
> >> wireless connection if it is turned off at your end. I don't think you
> >> could get the level of energy savings that are present if the device was
> >> regularly turning the connection on to phone home (I don't think I could
> >> get four times the battery charge life using it regularly with wireless
> >> off
> >> if it were periodically turning the wireless back on to phone home).
>
> > Plus, even it Amazon could do it (which I doubt) why would they? <G> Like
> > Amazon is that interested in everyone's Kindle stuff. I keep my wireless off
> > unless I want to buy something and it works great. I normally use my PC to
> > order stuff (the keyboard on the DX is too small to be practical) and then
> > turn on the wireless to automatically download the book. Take care
>
> Interesting. I find the navigation unwieldy for searching, so I
> search online and then send a sample to my Kindle for use to purchase.
> I don't like to purchase on the computer because it makes me go through
> the checkout for every book. It annoys me
I buy my kindle e-books with one-click. I set that up when I got the
Kindle 16 months ago and it still works fine. I recently bought
_Unseen Academicals_ by one-click.
--
Mike
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment