Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #82308 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 08:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-20 02:17 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 770 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-18 08:35 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 08:48 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-18 22:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 03:11 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-19 13:49 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-19 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-19 12:15 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-19 11:06 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 11:53 -0600
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:58 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-24 09:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 10:24 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 10:31 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-25 06:52 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2016-02-20 00:44 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-02-24 16:28 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:17 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-02-25 10:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-25 02:54 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0600
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 09:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 09:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:08 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 11:01 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 11:37 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 12:15 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 12:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 15:27 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-02 14:41 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 23:35 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-03 16:44 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-03 01:09 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 13:10 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 23:13 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 10:30 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 23:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 01:12 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-25 11:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 11:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-25 03:21 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 12:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-25 13:19 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-25 20:32 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 21:55 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 14:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-25 23:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 17:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 02:03 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 19:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-25 22:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 11:59 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-25 23:57 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 01:29 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-25 18:19 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 11:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 21:11 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:41 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 19:50 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 17:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-26 20:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-26 11:03 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 19:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 21:04 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 13:13 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-26 19:33 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 21:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:59 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-03 08:20 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 01:02 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-26 19:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-26 19:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-26 12:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:53 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-02-27 08:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-27 16:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-02-27 10:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-26 19:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:56 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-02-26 19:58 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-01 14:38 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-02 11:02 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-02 13:27 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-02 16:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 14:44 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-06 12:00 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 10:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:13 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 10:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 07:55 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 13:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 08:56 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-21 21:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-21 13:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-21 14:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-21 17:49 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-22 11:37 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-22 11:53 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-22 13:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 12:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-22 07:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 12:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-22 12:51 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 13:32 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-22 15:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 21:52 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-03-22 18:02 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 22:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 22:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-22 22:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 23:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 16:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 00:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 20:44 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 01:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-23 01:23 +0000
AWK's 'for' loop (Was: Aargh! Don't do this!) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-23 05:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-23 08:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 23:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 14:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 19:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-23 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-23 22:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 22:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 22:41 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 00:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 21:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 11:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 01:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 02:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 10:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 03:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 11:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 05:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 13:04 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 06:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 13:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:05 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:02 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:44 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 15:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:36 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 11:22 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 16:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-24 13:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-03-24 13:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-24 13:51 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 17:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 17:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 21:19 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 11:21 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 12:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jos V <xjosx@xjosaphatx.co> - 2016-03-26 15:19 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 14:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 22:11 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 09:26 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-25 14:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 06:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 15:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 11:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:29 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-24 11:00 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-04-12 21:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-15 19:13 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 11:19 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-24 11:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 19:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 16:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 10:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 11:49 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 01:15 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-23 00:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-23 11:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:48 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-24 19:03 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 12:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 01:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 12:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:28 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 11:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-25 18:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 12:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 07:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 07:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-25 23:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-26 03:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-26 10:24 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-26 11:28 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 16:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-24 12:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-24 21:21 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 15:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 22:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-24 16:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 13:53 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 01:23 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-25 16:23 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 01:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-24 19:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 16:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-25 09:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 18:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 19:42 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-26 15:49 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-26 20:22 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 21:34 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-03-26 19:36 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 21:43 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-27 04:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-24 23:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-22 15:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-30 17:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-31 08:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 11:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-06 18:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 10:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 00:34 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 17:23 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 11:38 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 12:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:35 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-07 19:42 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-07 18:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 02:14 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-04-08 02:41 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-04-08 16:13 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-08 22:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-04-08 21:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 02:54 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 22:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 15:29 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 10:51 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 19:12 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:45 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:27 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 12:34 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:19 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 11:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:46 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 12:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 04:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 12:31 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 02:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:21 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-09 21:40 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:25 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-10 10:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 04:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 14:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 17:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) - 2016-04-29 07:57 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:23 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-29 11:32 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:38 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-29 13:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-30 16:32 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-29 23:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-30 11:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-30 22:32 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-30 09:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-01 00:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-30 11:31 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-30 09:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-30 15:09 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 00:32 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-01 10:54 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 13:58 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 13:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 05:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 14:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 06:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 07:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 15:27 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 20:43 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-04-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-04-10 01:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 01:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-08 22:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 11:46 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 11:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 07:37 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-08 14:19 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 08:40 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-08 16:52 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 12:47 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 17:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 12:51 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-08 18:26 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-08 20:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-09 15:38 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-09 16:52 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-09 22:33 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-14 14:26 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-14 09:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 13:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-03 20:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 09:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 18:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-05 11:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-08 09:16 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 10:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-08 11:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-08 04:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 13:18 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 18:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 19:09 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 19:38 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 20:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 20:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-08 21:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-08 21:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-08 14:45 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 00:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-05-08 21:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-08 19:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 00:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-09 09:07 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 10:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-05-09 08:57 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 00:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 11:54 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 10:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 11:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 20:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 13:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 14:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 15:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 15:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 21:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 06:59 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 02:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 09:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 13:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 06:57 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-09 22:48 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 15:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 00:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 11:44 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 04:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-10 16:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 08:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 08:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 01:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 08:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 01:04 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 20:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 21:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-10 21:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 13:58 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 12:31 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 06:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 19:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-11 20:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 21:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-11 22:42 -0700
Pronouns (Was: Aargh! Don't do this!) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-11 20:31 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-11 08:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-11 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-11 08:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 08:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-09 17:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-09 09:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:40 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-08 14:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 02:43 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-15 03:12 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 04:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-22 13:39 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-22 10:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-05-22 17:15 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-22 18:47 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 01:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:01 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 03:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-23 09:06 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 06:35 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-05-23 16:56 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 16:55 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-23 18:08 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 10:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 21:55 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-23 23:16 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-05-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-24 10:32 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-26 11:17 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-23 16:31 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-10 06:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-10 14:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-05-10 14:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 19:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-07 03:52 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-07 12:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-09 15:48 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-07 12:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 11:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 14:25 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 17:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-10 20:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-10 20:28 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-11 00:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-11 11:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-11 11:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-11 04:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-11 13:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-11 14:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-11 14:28 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 12:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 08:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 16:33 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 16:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-15 16:39 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-16 12:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-16 14:02 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-16 20:56 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 18:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 18:21 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 11:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 20:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 23:23 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 15:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 21:41 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-15 22:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-11 16:44 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-11 09:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-11 18:47 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-12 11:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-13 10:49 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-13 03:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-13 07:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-12 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 15:15 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 20:13 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-04-14 23:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 12:36 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 12:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:46 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-11 10:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:20 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-15 13:00 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-03 20:46 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-05 14:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 07:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 12:55 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 10:17 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-12 18:29 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 10:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 20:39 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 21:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:24 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:17 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:39 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 04:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 12:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 04:41 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-13 09:00 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:29 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 14:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 13:47 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 07:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:14 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-13 08:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:59 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-13 16:24 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 11:58 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2016-05-13 10:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 04:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 12:37 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 05:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 09:03 -0500
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-14 15:10 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:53 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 17:26 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 14:58 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-13 22:01 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 20:12 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 01:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 03:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 07:42 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 15:56 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 08:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-14 17:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 21:36 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-15 10:30 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 03:10 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 01:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 21:19 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 11:22 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-13 08:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-05-13 16:20 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-13 08:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-12 20:32 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-14 21:37 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-16 19:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-12 18:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 10:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-14 11:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-16 20:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-05-05 19:39 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 08:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-05-05 11:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-10 08:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 20:10 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-07 00:50 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-04-06 21:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 11:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 21:06 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 10:47 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-10 11:07 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 10:26 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-15 19:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-15 12:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-03 13:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-05-09 07:56 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-05-09 02:23 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 12:09 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-31 08:19 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-31 14:11 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-31 10:25 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-31 16:15 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-31 16:41 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 11:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 09:57 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-05 21:05 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-04-05 21:11 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-03-30 17:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 09:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-04-06 17:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-14 07:21 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-30 18:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-30 19:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 07:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 15:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-30 18:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-03-26 20:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 21:44 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 15:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-26 23:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 17:28 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 18:24 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 19:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 08:40 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 16:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 11:55 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 20:13 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 12:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:16 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 13:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 22:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 16:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-28 01:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 22:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-27 22:05 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 22:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-27 17:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-27 15:18 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-27 18:26 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-27 22:11 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-28 14:21 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-29 10:10 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 07:38 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 10:13 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-29 12:48 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-29 13:33 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 11:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-31 08:53 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-31 10:04 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-31 12:14 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 07:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-04-07 10:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 07:08 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 07:31 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 11:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-05 13:51 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-12 13:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-05-12 14:30 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-26 17:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:22 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 00:05 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:08 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 00:47 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 02:07 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 12:43 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 16:40 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:09 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-27 00:05 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-27 21:56 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-27 12:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:38 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:45 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 15:03 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-31 15:25 +1300
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-05 11:59 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:03 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 13:38 -0700
Gcc (Was: Aargh! Something stupid...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-04-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Gcc (Was: Aargh! Something stupid...) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-05 15:56 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-04-06 09:57 +0200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 07:44 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 08:58 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 09:46 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 12:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 15:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-06 16:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-04-06 17:37 -0700
Integer semantics supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-04-07 07:39 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-04-06 10:01 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:34 +1200
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-05-05 08:32 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-30 14:54 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-06 12:50 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 04:27 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 04:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:39 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-06 04:36 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-06 15:26 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-07 02:01 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:53 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-07 15:52 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 09:49 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-06 09:11 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-06 16:51 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:08 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:16 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:29 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:49 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:57 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 10:39 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-03-06 18:55 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 00:47 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-07 10:09 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:36 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:09 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:10 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 04:50 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:32 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:45 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:42 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:40 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-07 13:47 -0800
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-07 21:54 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-03-07 23:45 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 06:30 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 12:15 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-19 17:20 -0400
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-20 11:18 +0000
Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-20 13:22 +0000
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 15:34 -0500
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-03-21 01:33 -0700
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 04:09 -0500
Re: Columbus (Was: Aargh! something or other...) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-21 18:10 +0000
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-17 11:03 +0100
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-03-19 13:34 -0700
Re: Aargh! Don't do this! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-20 02:17 +0100
Page 20 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 39 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0c09163-3fc5-4fe8-a12a-7a331fc876ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87468 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:54:50 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Here's a grammar: > > N -> <empty> | D N > D -> 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 > > and here's an extra rule "strings with leading 0s are excluded". Why > can't I "have" this? I seem to to have it just be writing it out. > You can. Your grammar is <formal notation for sequences of numbers> <informal notation for leading zeroes not allowed> if you strip out the informal notation, you have a grammar for a different but similar system. If you replace the formal notation with my informal notation, you have the same grammar for the same system, but described differently. > > This does not explain why I can't have a grammar and some extra rules as > well. > You can't have rules for football, then some extra rules which aren't really rules. We can agree that we'll play football with an additional rule such as that one outfield player must always remain in the goal area, and then we're no longer playing association football, but a game that is very similar but has slightly different rules. Within our own game, the extra rule is now a rule like any other, the referee must stop the match if the designated defender steps outside the area, just as he must stop the match if a player goes offside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvnzulio.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #87492 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:54:50 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
[...]
>> This does not explain why I can't have a grammar and some extra rules as
>> well.
>>
> You can't have rules for football, then some extra rules which aren't really
> rules.
[...]
You seem to be assuming that rules must be part of the grammar,
or they "aren't really rules".
In C, there are rules that are part of the grammar (see Annex A, or
the "Syntax" sections scattered through section 6 of the standard),
and there are rules that are not part of the grammar (constraints
et al). Both set of rules are "really rules".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871t5bdo5s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #87492 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:54:50 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> > >> Here's a grammar: >> >> N -> <empty> | D N >> D -> 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 >> >> and here's an extra rule "strings with leading 0s are excluded". Why >> can't I "have" this? I seem to to have it just be writing it out. >> > You can. Didn't you say I can't have a grammar and some extra rules? > Your grammar is > <formal notation for sequences of numbers> > <informal notation for leading zeroes not allowed> No, because (as you yourself said) this is not a grammar. The original grammar and the rules determine a language which has its own grammar. It won't be the same as the grammar above (unless the rules are, literally, inconsequential) but it has one. By the way, the apparent informality of "strings with leading 0s are excluded" is not important. I'm talking about languages where the extra rules can be made 100% formal -- it's just much simpler to state them in English. Saying "x+y denotes the sum of x and y" does not mean that the underlying idea is an informal one, just that I can't be bothered to write out the axioms of arithmetic. "Strings with leading 0s are excluded" was intended to be an example of a formal rule. > if you strip out the informal notation, you have a grammar for a different but > similar system. If you replace the formal notation with my informal notation, > you have the same grammar for the same system, but described > differently. I don't follow this. Is a system a language? How can your informal notation be a grammar? I'm using the term grammar to mean any of the many formalisms used to describes languages (sets of strings). >> This does not explain why I can't have a grammar and some extra rules as >> well. >> > You can't have rules for football, then some extra rules which aren't really > rules. We can agree that we'll play football with an additional rule such as > that one outfield player must always remain in the goal area, and then we're > no longer playing association football, but a game that is very similar but > has slightly different rules. Within our own game, the extra rule is now a > rule like any other, the referee must stop the match if the designated > defender steps outside the area, just as he must stop the match if a player > goes offside. I follow the words, but I don't see how this impinges on anything I said. In particular I don't see what is analogous to a grammar here because all your rules are of the same type. I was describing C that uses syntax rules (collectively called the grammar) and constraints. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <162f8ac5-b145-4f95-81b4-c6870e11ed71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87509 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:31:07 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't follow this. Is a system a language? How can your informal > notation be a grammar? I'm using the term grammar to mean any of the > many formalisms used to describes languages (sets of strings). > A "grammar" is a set of rules which define "acceptable" versus "unacceptable" constructs. usually applied to natural languages. So you can buy a "Latin grammar" that tells you what is accepted by the Latin-using community and what isn't. "Romanes eunt domus" is unacceptable, "Romani ite domum" is a correct form. The grammar and the notation for the grammar are two separate things. In fact we don't understand natural language well enough to really have a formal notation for its rules, though people try (So what does domus take? "Accusative?" Slap, slap. "Locative!") - a real Roman wouldn't have had a clue what "locative" meant and it's just a joke. For toy computer languages you can however write grammars in formal notation. We can describe Latin grammar to a large extent using a mixture of informal English and highly technical terms, but we can't define it, there will always be some Latin constructs which are allowed or disallowed, but the machine couldn't pick up. Computers can't talk, we don't know how to set about constructing a machine which can speak Latin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvb2nszw8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #87514 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:31:07 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I don't follow this. Is a system a language? How can your informal
>> notation be a grammar? I'm using the term grammar to mean any of the
>> many formalisms used to describes languages (sets of strings).
>>
> A "grammar" is a set of rules which define "acceptable" versus
> "unacceptable" constructs. usually applied to natural languages.
It's still hard to tell, but I think you're using the word "grammar" in
a way that's inconsistent with the way the C standard uses it.
Let me ask a concrete yes/no question.
Given:
int main(void) {
int n = "hello";
}
I presume we agree that that's an invalid C program (i.e., that a
conforming implementation must diagnose an error). Do you claim that
the rule that program violates is a "grammar" rule?
If so, you've been using the word "grammar" in a way that might or might
not make sense when discussing English or Latin, but that is absolutely
inconsistent with the way the term is used when discussing C.
Take a look at N1570 Annex A. *That's* what I mean by "grammar" in the
context of C. If you mean something else, please (a) define what you
mean, and (b) pick a different word for it.
The program above does not violate the C grammar. It does violate a
constraint.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfd4d7d1-5b63-4367-b96a-05be7b36a8c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87519 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> Let me ask a concrete yes/no question.
>
> Given:
>
> int main(void) {
> int n = "hello";
> }
>
> I presume we agree that that's an invalid C program (i.e., that a
> conforming implementation must diagnose an error). Do you claim that
> the rule that program violates is a "grammar" rule?
>
Yes.
In MiniBasic the equivalent error would be
Let n = "Hello";
whilst
Let N$ = "hello"
would be correct. The way the MiniBasic parser is written, it detects
that the left side is either an LVALUE or an LSTRINGVALUE. Depending
on which, the right side must be either an "expression" or a "string
expression". So it's pretty clearly part of the grammar.
C has a rather more complicated type system that maybe makes that
cumbersome. So the formal notation for the grammar isn't up to
describing the rules concisely and the language definition is kludged.
But that doesn't mean that the grammar doesn't exist.
The key is that the grammar is defined by the behaviour of the compiler,
not the documentation. Just as Latin grammar is defined by what real
Romans said and wrote, not by the "nominative", "vocative" and so on
you read in your Latin primer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd1ouub2c.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #87528 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> Let me ask a concrete yes/no question.
>>
>> Given:
>>
>> int main(void) {
>> int n = "hello";
>> }
>>
>> I presume we agree that that's an invalid C program (i.e., that a
>> conforming implementation must diagnose an error). Do you claim that
>> the rule that program violates is a "grammar" rule?
>>
> Yes.
Then you're wrong. Specifically, you are using the word "grammar"
incorrectly.
> In MiniBasic the equivalent error would be
[snip]
I don't care about MiniBasic.
[...]
> The key is that the grammar is defined by the behaviour of the compiler,
> not the documentation. Just as Latin grammar is defined by what real
> Romans said and wrote, not by the "nominative", "vocative" and so on
> you read in your Latin primer.
Nor do I care about Latin. (Well, actually I suppose I do, but not in
this context.)
That's simply not what "grammar" means in the context of C.
In another article, you wrote:
> Some authors might be sloppy on "the grammar" and "the notation for the
> grammar", because usually the distinction doesn't make much difference.
> It starts to become relevant when people start to think of "the grammar
> plus some extra rules". That's just not possible. The grammar is not
> the grammar of the language under those circumstances.
That is complete nonsense.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83cc681c-6c91-4f19-997e-f7d7183c633a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87531 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:21:56 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Then you're wrong. Specifically, you are using the word "grammar" > incorrectly. > > > In MiniBasic the equivalent error would be > [snip] > > I don't care about MiniBasic. > > [...] > So you can't extend beyond the C standard. I haven't checked, but it's likely that the authors of the standard are using the word "grammar" incorrectly, or, more likely, don't realise that you inherently can't have a "grammar" that doesn't fully describe the language, because you inherently can't have a grammatical construct which is incorrect or an ungrammatical construct which is correct. The situation is that an assignment has to be of an compatible type. In MiniBasic, we have only two types, strings and numbers. So there's no problem there assignment -> LET string_assignment | number_assignment string_assignment -> identifier $ = string_expression number_assignment -> identifier = numerical_expression in C, you've got to write assignment -> lvalue = compatible_expression but then the notation breaks down because compatible_expression needs to see lvalue to know if it is compatible. So that type of notation isn't up to the task of describing the grammar of C. But int x = "Fred"; is ungrammatical. You can't have grammatical C which is rejected by the compiler, any more than you can have grammatical English which is incorrect, because grammar by definition distinguishes correct from incorrect (or accepted from non-accepted) forms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 06:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lh3ilagn.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #87547 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > So you can't extend beyond the C standard. I haven't checked, but > it's likely that the authors of the standard are using the word > "grammar" incorrectly, or, more likely, don't realise that you > inherently can't have a "grammar" that doesn't fully describe the > language, because you inherently can't have a grammatical construct > which is incorrect or an ungrammatical construct which is correct. Or, you know, its possible that your assertions based on half digested ideas, misremembered definitions and odd opinions are, once again, at odds with how the rest of the world understands these things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 02:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <023fad2e-024a-428d-ba57-3c8d8aa31206@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87548 |
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:59:46 AM UTC+1, gwowen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > So you can't extend beyond the C standard. I haven't checked, but > > it's likely that the authors of the standard are using the word > > "grammar" incorrectly, or, more likely, don't realise that you > > inherently can't have a "grammar" that doesn't fully describe the > > language, because you inherently can't have a grammatical construct > > which is incorrect or an ungrammatical construct which is correct. > > Or, you know, its possible that your assertions based on half digested > ideas, misremembered definitions and odd opinions are, once again, at > odds with how the rest of the world understands these things. > Its clear that some people here have a pretty weak understanding of what the word "grammar" means. Which isn't surprising. If you have a grammar and "constraints" the constraints are part of the grammar. Just as if if have a particle simulation and "constraints" on the particles, the "constraints" are part of the simulation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4ma5ud36.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #87547 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:21:56 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> Then you're wrong. Specifically, you are using the word "grammar"
>> incorrectly.
>>
>> > In MiniBasic the equivalent error would be
>> [snip]
>>
>> I don't care about MiniBasic.
>>
>> [...]
>>
> So you can't extend beyond the C standard.
Non sequitur. I care about a lot of things. The C standard is one of
them. It just happens that MiniBasic is not. More to the point,
MiniBasic is not relevant to this discussion.
> I haven't checked,
Why on Earth not? Are you so convinced you're right that you refuse to
look at evidence?
> but
> it's likely that the authors of the standard are using the word
> "grammar" incorrectly, or, more likely, don't realise that you
> inherently can't have a "grammar" that doesn't fully describe the
> language, because you inherently can't have a grammatical construct
> which is incorrect or an ungrammatical construct which is correct.
You have your own idea of what the word "grammar" means, and you
insist that your definition is right and everyone else is obviously
wrong. Your only support for your stance is repetition.
Your usage of the word "grammar" is inconsistent with the way it's
used when discussing programming languages.
Please read this: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar>.
I can provide multiple citations that consistently use the word
"grammar" in the way I've described, as something that defines the
*syntax* of a programming language. A Google search for "programming
language grammar" will provide as many citations as you like.
I've seen *none* that agree with your definition. (The meaning
of the word "grammar" when applied to natural languages *might*
be a bit different, but that's not what we're talking about.)
Can you provide a citation, from a source that *you* didn't write,
that supports your usage of the word "grammar"? Can you provide
enough such citations to demonstrate that you're right and the rest
of us are wrong? Or will you simply assert one more time that you're
using the word correctly and everyone else is wrong?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f83173a0-5945-4267-8230-362190f37b33@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87572 |
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:50:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Non sequitur. I care about a lot of things. The C standard is one of > them. It just happens that MiniBasic is not. More to the point, > MiniBasic is not relevant to this discussion. > MiniBasic has the exact same issue with assignments needing to match, and the rules are described by its grammar. It's a left-right recursive descent parser and it has routines with names like "string_expression". So of course if you try to assign a numerical expression to a string, it will try to match "string_expression", fail, and reject the program. So you agree that this is purely, simply, and uncomplicatedly a grammatical rule?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ngt4je$hf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87574 |
On 10/05/2016 17:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:50:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> Non sequitur. I care about a lot of things. The C standard is one of >> them. It just happens that MiniBasic is not. More to the point, >> MiniBasic is not relevant to this discussion. >> > MiniBasic has the exact same issue with assignments needing to match, and > the rules are described by its grammar. It's a left-right recursive descent parser > and it has routines with names like "string_expression". So of course if > you try to assign a numerical expression to a string, it will try to match > "string_expression", fail, and reject the program. > > So you agree that this is purely, simply, and uncomplicatedly a grammatical > rule? Such a Basic would be simpler than C. A string-expression might for example be made up of string constants, and names ending with "$", and the lhs of a string-assignment would also be such a name. Then: a$ = b$ + "." +c$ ' or do names /start/ with "$"? is well-formed. In languages such as C however you can't depend on characteristics of names to tell your their type: a = b + "." + c The syntax specification for the language will tell you that this is a well-formed assignment (term = expression); it's the correct 'shape'. But it's hard to specify that each term must have compatible types. That's not part of the visual appearance of the code; extra rules are needed. Or more sophisticated grammars. (I've no idea what they would look like; I just use an informal syntax then fill in the details by other means. syntaxes I create have ambiguities anyway.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b323038-0711-49a6-b210-e746c818e81d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87575 |
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 10/05/2016 17:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Such a Basic would be simpler than C. A string-expression might for > example be made up of string constants, and names ending with "$", and > the lhs of a string-assignment would also be such a name. Then: > > a$ = b$ + "." +c$ ' or do names /start/ with "$"? > > is well-formed. > MiniBasic is a lot simpler than C. The only types are numbers and strings, and a string variable always has a dollar sign suffix. Unlike some other languages, it is not allowed to assign to a string variable from a numerical variable directly. However the STR$ function returns a string representation of a number. > > In languages such as C however you can't depend on characteristics of > names to tell your their type: > No, C allows any valid identifier to be used for a variable of any type. Which is probably the superior system. The MiniBasic approach cold be expanded to integer variables (marked with ampersand in some Basics), but you can't expand indefinitely or you run out of symbols.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5735fcd8.1983406@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #87581 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:12:44 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > On 10/05/2016 17:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > Such a Basic would be simpler than C. A string-expression might for > > example be made up of string constants, and names ending with "$", and > > the lhs of a string-assignment would also be such a name. Then: > > > > a$ = b$ + "." +c$ ' or do names /start/ with "$"? > > > > is well-formed. > > > MiniBasic is a lot simpler than C. Obviously. That's why it, and its author's imagined redefinition of the word "grammar", are irrelevant to any discussion about C. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr3d9sryz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #87574 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:50:30 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> Non sequitur. I care about a lot of things. The C standard is one of
>> them. It just happens that MiniBasic is not. More to the point,
>> MiniBasic is not relevant to this discussion.
>>
> MiniBasic has the exact same issue with assignments needing to match,
> and the rules are described by its grammar. It's a left-right
> recursive descent parser and it has routines with names like
> "string_expression". So of course if you try to assign a numerical
> expression to a string, it will try to match "string_expression",
> fail, and reject the program.
>
> So you agree that this is purely, simply, and uncomplicatedly a grammatical
> rule?
Either agreeing or disagreeing would require learning more about
MiniBasic than I care to spend time on. Apparently it's your
language, so I'll tentatively take your word for it that assigning
a numerical expression to a string would be rejected by the parser.
(Presumably it's not possible for a simple identifier to be either
a numeric expression or a string expression.)
MiniBasic is not C.
The relevant point is this: In C, `int n = "hello";` must be
diagnosed, but it will be parsed successfully according to the
*grammar* (i.e., syntax) defined by the C standard (see N1570
Annex A). The equivalent construct might violate a grammatical
rule in MiniBasic. It does not do so in C.
You've ignored the bulk of my previous article, including several
direct questions that I asked you. What shall I infer from that?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngtb40$vcg$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #87578 |
In article <lnr3d9sryz.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >You've ignored the bulk of my previous article, including several >direct questions that I asked you. What shall I infer from that? That you (Keith) are an a-hole and that Malcolm is just too much of a gentleman to say so (unlike me). -- Watching ConservaLoons playing with statistics and facts is like watching a newborn play with a computer. Endlessly amusing, but totally unproductive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 06:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87posulajd.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #87531 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >>> Diagnose an error). Do you claim that the rule that program violates >>> is a "grammar" rule? >>> >> Yes. > > Then you're wrong. Specifically, you are using the word "grammar" > incorrectly. > Well, colour me amazed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h9e6dhsx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #87514 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:31:07 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> I don't follow this. Is a system a language? How can your informal >> notation be a grammar? I'm using the term grammar to mean any of the >> many formalisms used to describes languages (sets of strings). >> > A "grammar" is a set of rules which define "acceptable" versus > "unacceptable" constructs. usually applied to natural languages. How odd. Why not say that you are not using the usual meaning from the theory of programming languages right away? Was it not clear that I was? Presumably you know that CS meaning so I feel I should ask if you actually disagree with anything I said? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 15:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7db8b752-d8e5-41ec-9ccc-15909a7c5932@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87526 |
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:48:23 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > How odd. Why not say that you are not using the usual meaning from the > theory of programming languages right away? Was it not clear that I > was? Presumably you know that CS meaning so I feel I should ask if you > actually disagree with anything I said? > Some authors might be sloppy on "the grammar" and "the notation for the grammar", because usually the distinction doesn't make much difference. It starts to become relevant when people start to think of "the grammar plus some extra rules". That's just not possible. The grammar is not the grammar of the language under those circumstances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 39 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 39 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web