Adult factual proof Dan Purgert posts are the product of a child's brain

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:06:31 -0700, Sea wrote:

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cslrnr191ua.221.dan%40djph.net %3E
There are many more, as you know. Anyone can find them.

Hi Sea,

Stop playing silly idiotic worthless childish games with us, Sea.
o Just stop it.

I've been on Usenet for decades, so I'm well aware that morons like you
base your entire imaginary belief system upon what is trivially easily
shown to be your ownership of a child's facultative comprehension ability.

I fully expect Dan Purgert to prove to own a child's facultative ability.
o But I was _hoping_ you, Sea, could prove to own adult cognitive skills.

Stop proving you don't own even rudimentary adult cognitive skills, Sea.
o Just stop it.

For the permanent Usenet record...
o It's clear this "Sea" has _already_ formed his (clearly faulty)
conclusion based purely upon what amounts to a mere child's comprehension
of the stated facts.

This "Sea" needs to either grow up or evolve adult cognitive skills.
(Pick one.)

He has just proven either to be an idiot, or he's playing childish games.
o Pick one.

If his intent on responding is to play his silly games - I ask he stop it.
o *He should correspond with Dan Purgurt if all he can do is play games*.

If we graciously assume "Sea" is not a native English speaker, I will
kindly _repeat_ what I said in the post "Sea" responded to, but I expect
adults to own basic adult cognitive skills if they wish to attempt to
refute proven facts.

Adults should comprehend what I posted where I expect "Sea" to stop making
conclusions based on his clearly faulty comprehension of what I said, and I
expect "Sea" to stop playing silly childish games with us if he does own
adult comprehensive skills.

Here's what Sea responded to:
************
"*Dan Purgert has _never_ in the entire history of Usenet _ever_ added*
*even a _single_ thread of on-topic technical value to this newsgroup*."
************
The issue before us is to name just one thread of on-topic adult technical
value that Dan Purgert has _authored_ to this newsgroup in his entire life.
--
Adults should base their opinions on facts and not, as Sea just did, adults
should not make their claims based on what proves to be a child's cognitive
ability.

On 03/11/2020 04:59 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

Sea wrote:
On 03/11/2020 07:49 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
Even worse is the result, for the permanent Usenet record to
record, that Dan Purgert has_never_ in the entire history of
Usenet_ever_ added even a _single_ thread of on-topic
technical value to this newsgroup.

Not even one.

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cslrnr191ua.221.dan%40djph.net %3E



There are many more, as you know. Anyone can find them.


I quite like this one (or the others in that thread)
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=ms...0djph.net %3E


Good discussion. Did you _purposely_ bring adult
content to the potluck picnic?

I have a Nanostation M2 here, belongs to my ISP, and wish I could
commandeer it to get another PC downstairs online. I guess another
Nanostation of my own is needed. Alas, that thread went whoosh! and I've
made no progress. I never had a modem. Didn't even know this "thing" was
a Nanostation, or a modem, until that thread. It doesn't look like a modem.

On 03/11/2020 07:23 PM, Sea wrote:

..................... modem................................
...............modem, ........................... modem.

Everywhere that I said modem, means router.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 23:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

I quite like this one (or the others in that thread)
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=ms...0djph.net %3E

For the permanent Usenet record, I must admit it's hard for me to respond
to this clear & obvious proof of how Dan Purgert's child-like mind works!

As always, all I need is point to Dan Purgert's own words to prove:
o *Dan Purgert proves, yet again, to own cognitive skills of a small child*.

Did Dan even _read_ the thread he points to of his reputed great value?
o No?

Really?
o Not even once?

For adults who are not aware of his reputed thread of "value" that Dan
Purgert points to as his "one and only valuable contribution" to Usenet,
I'm well aware of that thread, because I spent probably 20 or 30 hours
writing it and documenting the facts that are contained within that thread.

Why would I know that thread of reputed great value so well?
o Well, um, er ... this thread of value Dan points to was authored by me!

Yup. ***That's a thread of high value _I_ authored; not Dan Purgert***!

The permanent Usenet record will note the clear and obvious fact that the
thread Dan Purgert claims that has the most value of "his posts", is a
thread that I authored, and which I posted scores of well annotated
graphics, containing over 400 detailed posts by scores of authors.

Given that obvious fact...

You have to admit that it's hard to write this and not shake my head in
wonderment why Dan Purgert insists on always proving this thread correct.

The fact remains:
*** *** *** ***
"*Dan Purgert has _never_ in the entire history of Usenet _ever_ added*
*even a _single_ thread of on-topic technical value to this newsgroup*.
... ... ... ...
/Worse, most of the time, Dan Purgert is hurling childish insults/
/whenever someone _does_ try to post a topic of technical value/
/to this newsgroup/".
*** *** *** ***

Notice the only thread Dan Purgert can find which he claims is his best
value isn't a thread he authored - but - get this - a thread _I_ authored!
--
People like Dan Purgert instantly prove, by what they write, to own the
cognitive skills of a child - which is fine - if they didn't also prove to
be utterly devoid of any adult value whatsoever in authoring threads of
value.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:27:35 -0700, Sea wrote:

Everywhere that I said modem, means router.

Hi Sea,

*You couldn't possibly have picked a better example to prove my point*.

I'm sadly shaking my head in utter disbelief, as it's horrifically
petrifying, even to me, how uncannily consistently both you and Dan Purgert
_repeatedly_ insist on proving my point as stated clearly in this thread:

"*Dan Purgert has _never_ in the entire history of Usenet _ever_ added*
*even a _single_ thread of on-topic technical value to this newsgroup*.

The permanent Usenet record will note that the one thread Dan Purgert
claims purportedly has the most on-topic technical value, and which you,
Sea, apparently seem to concur with, is literally a thread to this ng that
_I_ authored, not Dan Purgert!

*You literally couldn't have picked a better example to prove the point*.
--
Only 2 kinds of people are on Usenet: Those adding value & those who can't.

On 03/11/2020 07:04 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:06:31 -0700, Sea wrote:

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cslrnr191ua.221.dan%40djph.net %3E


There are many more, as you know. Anyone can find them.

Hi Sea,

Stop playing silly idiotic worthless childish games with us, Sea. o
Just stop it.

I've been on Usenet for decades, so I'm well aware that morons like
you base your entire imaginary belief system upon what is trivially
easily shown to be your ownership of a child's facultative
comprehension ability.

I fully expect Dan Purgert to prove to own a child's facultative
ability. o But I was _hoping_ you, Sea, could prove to own adult
cognitive skills.

Stop proving you don't own even rudimentary adult cognitive skills,
Sea. o Just stop it.

For the permanent Usenet record... o It's clear this "Sea" has
_already_ formed his (clearly faulty) conclusion based purely upon
what amounts to a mere child's comprehension of the stated facts.

This "Sea" needs to either grow up or evolve adult cognitive skills.
(Pick one.)

He has just proven either to be an idiot, or he's playing childish
games. o Pick one.

If his intent on responding is to play his silly games - I ask he
stop it. o *He should correspond with Dan Purgurt if all he can do is
play games*.

If we graciously assume "Sea" is not a native English speaker, I
will kindly _repeat_ what I said in the post "Sea" responded to, but
I expect adults to own basic adult cognitive skills if they wish to
attempt to refute proven facts.

Adults should comprehend what I posted where I expect "Sea" to stop
making conclusions based on his clearly faulty comprehension of what
I said, and I expect "Sea" to stop playing silly childish games with
us if he does own adult comprehensive skills.

Here's what Sea responded to: ************ "*Dan Purgert has _never_
in the entire history of Usenet _ever_ added* *even a _single_ thread
of on-topic technical value to this newsgroup*." ************ The
issue before us is to name just one thread of on-topic adult
technical value that Dan Purgert has _authored_ to this newsgroup in
his entire life.

I already knew the reason you needed to say threads, and not posts. It
was your means of filtering out the purposefully helpful adult content
that Dan Purgert can, and does, contribute to threads, while puffing
yourself up as the OP. There's something wrong with you, Arlen. You,
yourself, alluded to that once.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:25:08 -0700, Sea wrote:

There are many more, as you know. Anyone can find them.

Hi Sea,

You claim "there are many"...
o And yet, you can't even find a _single_ one.

Your belief system, Sea, is entirely imaginary (like that of a child).
o Like flat earthers, you have nary a _single_ fact underlying your beliefs.

Your belief system is easily proven to be based on exactly zero (0) facts!
o If you're not a sock of Dan Purgert, you may as well his exact duplicate.

It's actually scary that both of you so easily prove so overwhelmingly so
to not own even these most basic of the rudimentary adult cognitive skills.

You claim Dan Purgert has authored threads of value...
o And yet, not only can you not find a _single_ thread of Dan's of value
.... but ... the _only_ thread you can find of value ... happens to be mine!

Are you, Sea and Dan Purgert, one and the same?

Both of you conclude, sans a _single_ fact backing up your belief system
o That Dan Purgert has authored a thread of on-topic value to this ng.

And yet, neither you, nor anyone on the planet, can _find_ that thread!

Why?
o It's simply why nobody on the planet can find a thread from Dan of value.

What's not so simple to comprehend is why both of you find that the only
valuable thread you can even point to, happens to be one of mine.

Given that shocking fact...

What petrifies me is how shockingly easily both you and Dan prove my point:
"*Dan Purgert has _never_ in the entire history of Usenet _ever_ added*
*even a _single_ thread of on-topic technical value to this newsgroup*.
--
Only 2 kinds of people are on Usenet: Those adding value & those who can't.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Sea wrote:
On 03/11/2020 04:59 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

Sea wrote:
On 03/11/2020 07:49 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
Even worse is the result, for the permanent Usenet record to
record, that Dan Purgert has_never_ in the entire history of
Usenet_ever_ added even a _single_ thread of on-topic
technical value to this newsgroup.

Not even one.

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cslrnr191ua.221.dan%40djph.net %3E



There are many more, as you know. Anyone can find them.


I quite like this one (or the others in that thread)
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=ms...0djph.net %3E


Good discussion. Did you _purposely_ bring adult
content to the potluck picnic?

It was more an accident

FCC doesn't care if you don't know the transmission power limits.


I have a Nanostation M2 here, belongs to my ISP, and wish I could
commandeer it to get another PC downstairs online. I guess another
Nanostation of my own is needed. Alas, that thread went whoosh! and I've
made no progress. I never had a modem. Didn't even know this "thing" was
a Nanostation, or a modem, until that thread. It doesn't look like a
modem.

Downstairs PC doesn't already have WiFi capabilities?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5qEM 0ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFAwAf+I3iJpVMovbW8cZbTYTf+oaLJz9hshDkUrrb9jX609h +p7U6o0XzrG3KL
9XMiwXQ3KyNz1QRB7OPWmVJfAg+iCftj1bBS/d47cQFsVCrdVFvNJcpUWfhjbySo
jZ15Hgs/N99gN5DNfvanJR7uP04KlOcbZtlxzahwIxDriPvc84Z6rEnQzV h/3OCe
/FzzY5Ku8Nvw9nVgDVdF1ss55BtwbYmdbsf0+kUg10jvbLXd1W4 aAAH8ElwwZBZF
cG6indUiSF9N/ff/VxEjOdC0PXHCwLHN2Rqwa3L6PpR+a05xFV8qDcNKbZmKLUWH
t26lJLGBDjfUvpenTzTQ+3kRIvm2/w==
=Qtf+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 03/12/2020 03:37 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Sea wrote:
On 03/11/2020 04:59 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:


FCC doesn't care if you don't know the transmission power limits.


I have a Nanostation M2 here, belongs to my ISP, and wish I could
commandeer it to get another PC downstairs online. I guess another
Nanostation of my own is needed. Alas, that thread went whoosh! and I've
made no progress. I never had a modem. Didn't even know this "thing" was
a Nanostation, or a modem, until that thread. It doesn't look like a
modem.

Downstairs PC doesn't already have WiFi capabilities?

No, but that isn't the hurdle. How to configure my ISP's Nanostation, to
get another PC on, isn't apparent.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Sea wrote:
On 03/12/2020 03:37 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
[...]
Downstairs PC doesn't already have WiFi capabilities?

No, but that isn't the hurdle. How to configure my ISP's Nanostation, to
get another PC on, isn't apparent.

You might not have to do anything more than plug a switch in between the
computer currently connected to the nano, and the nano's PoE brick (the
"LAN" side). Typically nanostations can provide DHCP for a small number
of clients connected in this way (say 5-10 or so).

Best approach would probably be to check with the ISP though -- they
might need you to use a router between the nanostation and your LAN.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl5qhp cACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFYagf/UXCqEiNev44NPUuOa1AJ6RH9u5vl7TvilMt+KXEwVugyGjjRmH Ua6D3p
nSz2CzU2Bb7o2+0kuhbDxyy5uEnbTtudPfuxsDsVe9/JHy45pM50DsOkT57VjRdC
DHuWrdO74QyjIdO+NOkH9fu8GLdkSvLqZ6vX2BzawOOMd0+1UV PfibxewKsQmeal
rEzEdmy9NDiaP8F1D1r6BrTYPr4E9vHBr9fvtFq37PRn8V9pk3 CsP4UygEDCzin8
ti3o6ywVkFOcrYGcUGSwIHGP+JlaxrSm3XlpSpuM2dUz5fyu+d 9Pv6FnuyJz45XT
HUdD2tQJoJsZizwvGJUSOza5BsPjeA==
=tN9h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:13:37 -0400, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:

Please cite your authority for demanding a single thing of anyone else
on this or any other newsgroup.

Hi Panthera Tigris Altaica,

For the permanent Usenet record to record...

I do not expect you to own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend the
answer to your own question, where I _will_ expect the OP, RonM, whom I'm
not acquainted with since he doesn't normally unilaterally taunt me on the
value added threads, to respond as an adult could, and should respond.

Bear in mind I spend considerable time, effort, & energy to add value.
o The common trolls such as Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne, don't.

Worse, those common trolls _hate_ whenever someone _does_ add value!
o It's why they incessantly post their **** on threads of value they hate.

They can't stand it that people are on Usenet to actually add value.
o Because people like Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne _can't_ ever add value.

We've proven this, quite easily, simply by pointing out that very fact.
o Neither of them has ever posted a thread of value in their entire life!

So they'll never be able to even _comprehend_ what it takes to add value.
o People like Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontage just don't own adult cognition.

However ... to the point of _this_ thread (which RonM authored)...
o Not only will the adults note I answered RonM's question in an adult
manner... but the adults will note that I asked RonM an adult question.

How RonM responds to that _adult_ question, will tell us everything.

The _adults_ on this newsgroup will comprehend that if RonM has never even
once spent the considerable time it takes to research, document, and solve
technical issues, writing summaries & updates and tutorials galore, then
RonM likely doesn't have the skills to comprehend the answer to his own
question.

Likewise, you, PTA, already proved you do not own the adult skills to
comprehend the answer to _your_ own question, but, I will provide that
answer (again) since you clearly missed it the first time around.

1. I spend considerable effort documenting value-added threads on Usenet.
2. Here's just the most recent thread, I spent about 8 hours documenting:
o

3. When people like Dan Purgert or Rene Lamontagne _****_ on those threads,
I post a calculated strategic _response_ to their childish taunts.

While I expect _adults_ to comprehend this concept, I don't expect you,
PTA, to comprehend that I do not respond to these childish people in most
threads that I don't author (where mine are intended to be of high value).

In _those_ threads, which I don't author, I follow the Internet maxim:
a. Do not feed the trolls like Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne...
b. Because they will drop you down to their childish level...
c. Where they have more experience than I, as they own a child's mind.

However, if I spend an entire day documenting a valuable hint or problem
set solution or general purpose tutorial, you will simply need to expect me
to respond as an adult should, to the childish taunts of those like Dan
Purgert and Rene Lamontagne who have _never_ even once in their entire
lives ever added even a _single_ thread of adult topical value to this
newsgroup.

Why do you always expect less of an adult Panthera Tigris Altaica?
--
If you've never added any value - you'll never understand adults who do.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:17:23 -0700, RonM wrote:

And waste so much time and energy doing this? Who really cares?

It's an adult question.

Just asking.

Hi RonM,

Please cite, RonM, a single thread of added value you've authored here.
o You only need to cite a _single_ thread to prove you _can_ add value.

Name just one.

My first question to you will _always_ be the adult question of what value
do you add to this newsgroup by asking you to simply cite a thread you've
authored to this newsgroup which added value.

Note if you can't cite even a single thread of yours that added value, then
you'll _never_ comprehend why I do what I do on Usenet.

You just won't have the adult skills to comprehend if you've never once
added value to this newsgroup, RonM.

Note: I'm not saying you've never added value to this newsgroup because I
simply didn't check - but I am saying that if you've never once added
value, then you can't possibly comprehend the adult _answer_ to your
question.

In short, if you can't add value, you can't comprehend the answer to your
own question since you'll have proven you own the mind of a mere child.

Even without the answer to that question from you (which I expect you to
answer as an adult should answer, since you're asking the same of me),
I will prove the obvious and _adult_ answer to your question.

In fact, I provided that adult answer in c.m.a just today, so I'll simply
point to that answer to your question, which every adult knows already.

The answer is in this post, posted to c.m.a just today.
o How to disable the Google Gmail app on Android Pie from communicating
with Google servers
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/DAPSl_8pGvI/gBvujiqiAgAJ

Notice though, how the common trolls will lack value in _every_ post to
this thread, RonM, where all I ask of you is the same you ask of me.

Are you an adult, RonM?
o I don't know - but your response will _prove_ the answer for all of us.

Please cite, RonM, a single thread of added value you've authored here.
o You only need to cite a _single_ thread to prove you _can_ add value.

Name just one.
--
Only 2 kinds of people are on Usenet: Those adding value & those who can't.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:42:41 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

2. Here's just the most recent thread, I spent about 8 hours documenting:
o


Aurgh. I put placeholders for references, but I forget to fill them in!
Mea culpa. The trolls will have a field day as that's all they can do.

The OP, RonM, will note my threads are not random... but rather strategic.
o My response to RonM was an _adult_ response to his question.

And I expect RonM to respond to my question to him, as an adult should.

There's an excellent _adult_ reason I point out trolls from the likes of
o Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne

I spend a _lot_ of energy to add value, where all worthless trolls like Dan
Purgert & Rene Lamontagne can do is write worthless childish posts such as:
"*Who cares about adding value, twit*"

Notice these taunts and worthless trolls are unilateral.

They're completely unprovoked.
o All I do is post added value where the trolls _hate_ added value.

That's why trolls like Dan Purgert & Rene Lamongagne respond to value with:
"*Who cares about adding value, twit*?"

The _adult_ problem is that if we ignore worthless trolls like Dan Purgert
& Rene Lamongagne who simply hate that they can't add any value, this
simply emboldens them to incessantly troll any thread of value they find.

The fact is that worthless trolls like Dan & Rene _hate_ value added
threads.

These worthless trolls like Purgert & Lamontagne hate that _they_ don't
have any skills whatsoever to author a thread of any value.

Which is why Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne have never authored a thread of
any value to this newsgroup in the entire history of Usenet.

Dan and Rene _hate_ that other people _can_ add value that they can't.

Otherwise, why do they post their worthless crap such as Rene Lamontagne's
"*Who cares about adding value, twit?*"

Anyway, the permanent Usenet will show my latest added value tutorial is:
o Tutorial to add over a dozen useful tweaks to Android screenshot
capabilities & four methods for screenshotting snapshots
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/myHx83MFV-U

But that's one of so many tutorials, that even I can't count them all.

And yet, people like Dan Purgert & Rene Lamontagne, who **** on the threads
that do add value (because they _hate_ that they can't add value), can't
point to a _single_ thread in their entire lives they've authored which
added any value.

Hilariously (but more sadly so), I'm petrified for our species that the
_only_ thread Dan Purgert could find where he claims to have added adult
value is in _my_ thread on extending Wi-Fi range for miles on a PC.

Wouldn't _you_ be scared for our species if you comprehend what that
actually means in terms of Dan Purgert's & Rene Lamontagne's utter lack of
adult cognitive skills?

Bear in mind, for the permanent record, I only point this out for the
trolls who clearly _hate_ that I add tons of added value to this newsgroup
who then post their childish taunts because they hate themselves, of:
"*Who cares about adding value, twit*?"
--
If you've never added any value - you'll never understand those who do.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:59:35 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

No, but that isn't the hurdle. How to configure my ISP's Nanostation, to
get another PC on, isn't apparent.

You might not have to do anything more than plug a switch in between the
computer currently connected to the nano, and the nano's PoE brick (the
"LAN" side). Typically nanostations can provide DHCP for a small number
of clients connected in this way (say 5-10 or so).

Best approach would probably be to check with the ISP though -- they
might need you to use a router between the nanostation and your LAN.

Hi Sea,
To always strive to be purposefully helpful in terms of your question...

I have a ton of PCs connected to my WISP's rooftop radio in addition to
using a ton of Ubiquiti & Microtik transceivers to add Wi-Fi capabilities
to Windows laptops & desktops.

I assess that Dan Purgert also has the technical skills necessary to help
this "Sea" sock connect any number of PCs to his WISP's nanostation; but if
this "Sea" sock wishes to compose a question with sufficient detail, I can
also help him where I can, although I suggest this "Sea" sock defer to Dan
Purgert's advice since this "Sea" sock seems to be likeminded with Dan.

Nonetheless, this thread contains _tons_ of added detail, where I'd
estimate I spent, oh, I don't know (if I name any number Cybe(r) Wizard
will troll us to death with his childish taunts), "countless" hours
documenting (containing 400 posts by about 40 different authors):
o Tutorial how to extend the Wi-Fi range of your Windows PC for miles
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/PkD0jfa9GqM/wtLoRrljCgAJ

Suffice to say two things are explained in that value-added thread:
1. How to connect any number of PCs to the WISP's rooftop radio, and,
2. How to extend your PC's Wi-Fi range (sometimes literally for miles).
--
If you've never added any value - you'll never understand those who do.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:35:09 -0700, Sea wrote:

Downstairs PC doesn't already have WiFi capabilities?

No, but that isn't the hurdle. How to configure my ISP's Nanostation, to
get another PC on, isn't apparent.

Hi Sea,
Please see my purposefully helpful response to your question over he
o From: Arlen Holder
o Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
o Subject: Expanding Sea's Network, by Sea & Dan Purgert
o Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:19:34 -0000 (UTC)
o Message-ID:

I spent countless hours documenting all the details to add value, where if
I even attempt to enumerate the effort, utterly worthless pieces of trash
like Cybe(r) Wizard will troll us to death claiming that the estimates are
incorrect (where the fact remains Cybe(r) himself has _never_ once added a
thread of value to this ng - which is why he can only incessantly attack a
simple estimate).

So let's just stick with the fact I expended "countless" hours adding value
to the overall tribal knowledge of this newsgroup, replete with photos,
such as:
https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/DZccY2YD/decibels.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/BZrZpDyp/debug-apps.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/bNMMZ0Nv/wifi-speed.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg
http://img4.imagetitan.com/img4/yC5cnxRWGeZuZZu/18/18_wifi.jpg
etc.

Note that the trolls like Rene Lamontagne _hate_ that they can't add this
kind of value, so these trolls who hate themselves post garbage such as:
"*Who cares about adding value, twit*?"

Please see also this tutorial with about 400 posts from about 40 authors:
o How to connect your PC to the WISP's router or extend Wi-Fi for miles
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/PkD0jfa9GqM/3ax82ojWCAAJ
--
If you've never added any value - you'll never understand adults who do.