Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61095 > unrolled thread
| Started by | root <NoEMail@home.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-19 17:09 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-11-20 18:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 842 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Joy of this, Joy of that root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2024-11-19 17:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2024-11-20 02:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 02:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-20 03:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-20 15:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 02:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 08:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-01-14 12:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-21 13:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2024-11-21 20:19 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 05:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 23:57 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 05:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 20:23 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 02:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-24 00:16 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 20:17 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 17:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-24 22:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 02:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:55 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 12:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 22:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 23:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-26 10:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-26 09:15 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 09:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 18:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 21:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 01:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 01:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 11:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 19:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 01:39 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 22:46 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 05:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:56 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 08:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 04:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 19:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 05:06 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-30 00:16 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 06:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 23:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 04:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 11:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-01 16:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 00:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 20:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:57 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 21:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-02 23:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:03 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:13 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 07:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-08 03:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 08:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-08 16:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 18:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-08 04:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 03:05 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 10:15 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 12:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 20:16 +0000
Re: The Joy Of Democracy Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 00:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:19 +0100
Re: The Joy Of Democracy Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 22:40 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 04:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:27 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 02:05 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 13:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-09 01:22 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 15:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 21:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-10 04:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-12 03:38 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-13 04:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-13 02:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 08:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:42 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-13 11:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:34 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-14 05:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 13:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-09 11:39 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 20:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-12 03:07 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 08:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 08:13 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-13 01:55 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 08:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-13 07:53 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:45 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-05 20:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:33 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-07 07:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 02:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-30 00:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 06:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:39 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 09:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 11:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 20:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-02 07:13 +1000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-01 23:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 01:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 05:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:47 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-25 19:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-26 07:09 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 19:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 09:02 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 18:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2024-12-02 23:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-03 00:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:53 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-24 22:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 08:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-21 17:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 08:10 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-20 17:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-20 23:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 23:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-21 01:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-21 02:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-22 20:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 10:45 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 23:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-21 20:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-22 03:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:25 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-22 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-22 13:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-22 23:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 00:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 01:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 01:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 08:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 23:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 22:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-24 05:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-25 11:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 01:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 19:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 23:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 19:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 21:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 15:21 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 03:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-24 19:35 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 00:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 01:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 06:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 21:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 03:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-25 10:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 21:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 04:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-26 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 01:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 10:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 19:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-27 21:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-28 19:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 21:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 23:12 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 05:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 02:22 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 08:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 03:18 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 01:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 11:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 18:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 04:24 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:42 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 03:21 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-29 18:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-29 22:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 07:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-29 18:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 00:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 12:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 21:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 18:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 13:19 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 02:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 01:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 00:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:22 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 09:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:23 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-12-08 09:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 10:18 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-07 12:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 04:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:16 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 17:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 01:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 20:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 02:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-02 07:23 +1000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 20:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:06 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 03:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-04 17:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 19:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 22:01 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 11:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 18:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 02:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:08 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 20:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-04 17:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:53 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 00:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 18:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 21:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:15 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-01 10:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 18:32 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-01 18:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 22:14 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 01:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 10:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 14:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 21:36 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-04 04:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 12:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-04 14:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:31 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 09:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 13:17 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:23 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 19:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 21:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 01:04 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:55 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 08:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:48 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 07:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:18 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 20:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 20:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:07 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 01:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:33 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:41 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-09 21:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:59 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 22:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 02:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 21:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:26 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:56 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:14 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:04 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 23:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-11 10:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:36 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 03:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 12:10 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 22:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 23:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 10:20 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 22:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-11 01:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-11 11:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 01:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 20:08 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 21:31 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 01:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:13 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:03 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:40 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 19:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 12:11 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-15 12:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 19:28 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-13 10:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:54 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 18:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 23:01 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 19:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 00:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 11:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-15 01:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-15 11:27 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 11:17 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 11:28 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-14 13:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 19:07 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2024-12-11 12:33 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2024-12-11 15:16 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-12 05:06 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 08:24 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 10:37 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-12 20:15 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-12 21:33 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Joy of Translation rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-13 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of Translation D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-14 12:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-10 19:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 21:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 11:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:21 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 02:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 00:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 12:24 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:42 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 17:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:51 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 17:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 16:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 22:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 21:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:26 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 22:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 10:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:44 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 09:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-08 00:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-08 08:13 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-08 19:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-08 12:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-08 21:49 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 11:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:38 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-10 00:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-10 15:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-09 03:02 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-09 21:47 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-09 12:42 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-09 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-12-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:32 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-02 10:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-02 15:02 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:30 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 10:13 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-03 21:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 01:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 10:37 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:56 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-04 00:44 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 11:12 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 07:58 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:52 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:37 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-12-06 04:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 05:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:29 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:31 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 20:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-07 00:19 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 05:37 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 13:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 19:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 23:43 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-07 05:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:43 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 18:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 18:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 23:25 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-04 18:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-04 21:55 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-05 01:42 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-05 07:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-06 01:40 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 08:00 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-05 10:30 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-05 07:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2024-12-06 03:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 05:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 10:00 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:04 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:09 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 19:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 21:39 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-06 21:15 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-07 11:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 09:58 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-06 13:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-06 18:24 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2024-12-06 17:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 19:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:20 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 23:50 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-30 06:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-30 09:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-30 11:57 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 04:11 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-01 18:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 00:10 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-01 03:54 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-12-01 11:19 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 12:35 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-28 11:03 +0100
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 02:41 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:11 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 10:25 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-24 21:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 01:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:41 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 09:07 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 22:59 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 04:43 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-26 05:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 08:49 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-26 05:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 15:43 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-03 10:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-03 19:23 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 02:33 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-25 19:54 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-25 23:58 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 02:29 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 08:52 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:28 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 21:02 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-21 19:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-21 23:14 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:51 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 12:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-22 18:53 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-22 20:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:44 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 09:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-23 19:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 10:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:34 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 12:46 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 20:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-25 08:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 21:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-26 08:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:22 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:30 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:36 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-26 17:55 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 01:48 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 12:05 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 16:33 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 17:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 18:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 08:35 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-28 14:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 18:19 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 10:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-27 18:32 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-28 09:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-29 10:01 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-27 18:51 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 04:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2024-11-26 22:38 -0700
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 09:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-27 22:06 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-27 23:59 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-28 00:57 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:38 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:58 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:45 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-25 04:40 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-25 06:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-11-25 18:20 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 09:10 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-11-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-23 20:50 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 01:28 -0500
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:47 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 14:09 -0800
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 23:39 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-21 01:27 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-21 04:31 +0000
Re: Joy of this, Joy of that rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-20 18:53 +0000
Page 12 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 43 Next page →
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhoeap$r8gq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61179 |
On 11/21/24 15:45, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 11/21/24 3:09 AM, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/20/24 21:05, Rich wrote: >>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 >>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do >>>>> a survey ..... >>>> >>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify >>>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to >>>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I >>>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since >>>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real complexity >>>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially if we >>>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers... >>> >>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of >>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants >>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time. >>> >> >> For me: BBC Basic, VAX Basic, Visual Basic (&VBA). >> >> GOTO was deprecated before BBC Basic circa 1981. I never really saw >> it, apart from reasonable GOTO error usages. Wasn't it more a sign of >> lack of training than a linguistic feature? > > I found a good way to use GOTO however - in a handheld > device where you had to enter several kinds of data > about a location. The structure was a sort of "ladder" > and pressing buttons would take you up and down the > ladder via GOTOs. If you needed to edit yer last entry > you just jumped one step up. The handheld only had a > 4-line display alas, so you couldn't show even one > entire record, only one prompt at a time. > > Now each entry was only a few lines of code - the input, > an error-detector and the up/down GOTO thing. Easy to > keep track of. GOTO made the pgm simpler and more > compact. Sounds like a jump table. We still do that, but with functions rather than jumps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-21 20:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0OCcnUL4TZF9Q6L6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #61191 |
On 11/21/24 6:04 PM, Pancho wrote: > On 11/21/24 15:45, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> On 11/21/24 3:09 AM, Pancho wrote: >>> On 11/20/24 21:05, Rich wrote: >>>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 >>>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do >>>>>> a survey ..... >>>>> >>>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify >>>>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to >>>>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I >>>>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since >>>>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real >>>>> complexity >>>>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially >>>>> if we >>>>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers... >>>> >>>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of >>>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants >>>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time. >>>> >>> >>> For me: BBC Basic, VAX Basic, Visual Basic (&VBA). >>> >>> GOTO was deprecated before BBC Basic circa 1981. I never really saw >>> it, apart from reasonable GOTO error usages. Wasn't it more a sign of >>> lack of training than a linguistic feature? >> >> I found a good way to use GOTO however - in a handheld >> device where you had to enter several kinds of data >> about a location. The structure was a sort of "ladder" >> and pressing buttons would take you up and down the >> ladder via GOTOs. If you needed to edit yer last entry >> you just jumped one step up. The handheld only had a >> 4-line display alas, so you couldn't show even one >> entire record, only one prompt at a time. >> >> Now each entry was only a few lines of code - the input, >> an error-detector and the up/down GOTO thing. Easy to >> keep track of. GOTO made the pgm simpler and more >> compact. > > Sounds like a jump table. We still do that, but with functions rather > than jumps. In my app - and the people I wrote it for used it for nearly a decade and could easily add/subtract bits - it wasn't even a "table". The 'rungs on a ladder' was an apt description. GOSUBs and such are great, but in this case there was less code/mem/cycles involved using the GOTOs and the devices did NOT have much space for program. Anyhow, that was my neatest use of GOTO. Nothing really WRONG with such jumps, they're being done in the background by other forking logic anyway, it's just that if BADLY used you get unmaintainable spaghetti code. Even today, Free Pascal supports GOTO ... but you LABEL the destination point so you don't have to worry about changing line numbers like with older versions of BASIC. FORTRAN did, some versions still do, support I think two version of GO TO ... labeled and 'calculated'. Sometimes you just CAN'T cleanly structure what you want - and GOTO is a secret way out of some deep deep if-then's and while's and such. In any case - part of what I was wondering was how many young coders have ever used BASIC, at least for more than a few lines of VBA or whatever. It used to be THE all-around computer language, but that became Python instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lqadirF6qj2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61195 |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 20:31:11 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > Even today, Free Pascal supports GOTO ... but you LABEL the > destination point so you don't have to worry about changing line > numbers like with older versions of BASIC. FORTRAN did, some versions > still do, support I think two version of GO TO ... labeled and > 'calculated'. Sometimes you just CAN'T cleanly structure what you > want - and GOTO is a secret way out of some deep deep if-then's and > while's and such. The computer goto was declared 'obsolescent' in F95 in favor of 'case' but afaik it still will compile. Put enough lipstick on the pig and you wind up with a vtable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 01:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o86dnUK6wspCvt36nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #61200 |
On 11/21/24 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 20:31:11 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > >> Even today, Free Pascal supports GOTO ... but you LABEL the >> destination point so you don't have to worry about changing line >> numbers like with older versions of BASIC. FORTRAN did, some versions >> still do, support I think two version of GO TO ... labeled and >> 'calculated'. Sometimes you just CAN'T cleanly structure what you >> want - and GOTO is a secret way out of some deep deep if-then's and >> while's and such. > > The computer goto was declared 'obsolescent' in F95 in favor of 'case' but > afaik it still will compile. > > Put enough lipstick on the pig and you wind up with a vtable. Heh !!! :-) Well, I don't see FORTRAN as a "pig" really - a totally useful, still well-supported, lang. Still do little FORTRAN utils just to stay in practice. Anyway, sometimes you have to nest/flag deep if/then's and whiles and such so deep that there's really no clean escape in a special or exception condition. This is where a 'bail-out' GOTO or two can make yer code a LOT simpler/smaller. Not 101% aesthetic, but it works very well. Use conservatively. Ultimately you judge code by what it DOES - less by to how it "looks". It's all "working the machine".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Jq40P.70905$EQue.45224@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #61195 |
On 2024-11-22, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: > Anyhow, that was my neatest use of GOTO. Nothing > really WRONG with such jumps, they're being done > in the background by other forking logic anyway, > it's just that if BADLY used you get unmaintainable > spaghetti code. The undisciplined use of subroutine calls can be as bad as the undisciplined use of GOTOs. It's still spaghetti code, only now the strands are doubled. After all, what is a subroutine call other than a GOTO paired with a "come from"? -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqrli$1b2t7$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61223 |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:53:29 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > After all, what is a subroutine call other than a > GOTO paired with a "come from"? A stack of call frames and return addresses. LIFO discipline applies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhpmq3$14s79$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61191 |
On 21/11/2024 23:04, Pancho wrote: > On 11/21/24 15:45, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> On 11/21/24 3:09 AM, Pancho wrote: >>> On 11/20/24 21:05, Rich wrote: >>>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 >>>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do >>>>>> a survey ..... >>>>> >>>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to qualify >>>>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my go-to >>>>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I >>>>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since >>>>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real >>>>> complexity >>>>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially >>>>> if we >>>>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers... >>>> >>>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every one of >>>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants >>>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time. >>>> >>> >>> For me: BBC Basic, VAX Basic, Visual Basic (&VBA). >>> >>> GOTO was deprecated before BBC Basic circa 1981. I never really saw >>> it, apart from reasonable GOTO error usages. Wasn't it more a sign of >>> lack of training than a linguistic feature? >> >> I found a good way to use GOTO however - in a handheld >> device where you had to enter several kinds of data >> about a location. The structure was a sort of "ladder" >> and pressing buttons would take you up and down the >> ladder via GOTOs. If you needed to edit yer last entry >> you just jumped one step up. The handheld only had a >> 4-line display alas, so you couldn't show even one >> entire record, only one prompt at a time. >> >> Now each entry was only a few lines of code - the input, >> an error-detector and the up/down GOTO thing. Easy to >> keep track of. GOTO made the pgm simpler and more >> compact. > > Sounds like a jump table. We still do that, but with functions rather > than jumps. > Case statements... -- For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhq1f7$16bou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61217 |
On 11/22/24 10:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/11/2024 23:04, Pancho wrote: >> On 11/21/24 15:45, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>> On 11/21/24 3:09 AM, Pancho wrote: >>>> On 11/20/24 21:05, Rich wrote: >>>>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 >>>>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? Should do >>>>>>> a survey ..... >>>>>> >>>>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to >>>>>> qualify >>>>>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my >>>>>> go-to >>>>>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I >>>>>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since >>>>>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real >>>>>> complexity >>>>>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially >>>>>> if we >>>>>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers... >>>>> >>>>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every >>>>> one of >>>>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different variants >>>>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> For me: BBC Basic, VAX Basic, Visual Basic (&VBA). >>>> >>>> GOTO was deprecated before BBC Basic circa 1981. I never really saw >>>> it, apart from reasonable GOTO error usages. Wasn't it more a sign >>>> of lack of training than a linguistic feature? >>> >>> I found a good way to use GOTO however - in a handheld >>> device where you had to enter several kinds of data >>> about a location. The structure was a sort of "ladder" >>> and pressing buttons would take you up and down the >>> ladder via GOTOs. If you needed to edit yer last entry >>> you just jumped one step up. The handheld only had a >>> 4-line display alas, so you couldn't show even one >>> entire record, only one prompt at a time. >>> >>> Now each entry was only a few lines of code - the input, >>> an error-detector and the up/down GOTO thing. Easy to >>> keep track of. GOTO made the pgm simpler and more >>> compact. >> >> Sounds like a jump table. We still do that, but with functions rather >> than jumps. >> > Case statements... > In OO, switch/case statements were deprecated too :-) I can't remember exactly why. I think it was because we were supposed to use polymorphism instead. In practical project terms, giant switch statements were a pain in the bum, because everyone would constantly be modifying that bit of code and you would get source code merge conflicts. It's coming back to me, VAX BASIC programs would be designed to consist of a massive "do processing" loop, which would consist of a big switch statement containing a case for every type of report or behaviour the program was supposed to handle. Every time a new report was added, the switch had a case added. Then it reminds me of the Gang of Four visitor pattern, every time I saw it, it took me a whole morning's thinking energy to understand that it was just a simple switch :-). Coding is always a balance between flexibility and clarity, there is no "right" answer. You can make code more flexible by adding another layer of indirection, but it becomes harder to understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqm4g$1aarf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61220 |
On 22/11/2024 13:37, Pancho wrote: > On 11/22/24 10:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 21/11/2024 23:04, Pancho wrote: >>> On 11/21/24 15:45, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> On 11/21/24 3:09 AM, Pancho wrote: >>>>> On 11/20/24 21:05, Rich wrote: >>>>>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:37:58 -0500 >>>>>>> "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmmmmmmmm ... how many now have EVER programmed in BASIC ? >>>>>>>> Should do >>>>>>>> a survey ..... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lord, who hasn't!? Well, probably depends on how you choose to >>>>>>> qualify >>>>>>> it - we still use VB6 in-house at $EMPLOYER, and FreeBASIC is my >>>>>>> go-to >>>>>>> for hacking together quick utility applications in daily life, but I >>>>>>> haven't touched old-school line-number spaghetti-Gotoese BASIC since >>>>>>> childhood, and certainly never built any application of real >>>>>>> complexity >>>>>>> with it. Bet more than a few people here have, though, especially >>>>>>> if we >>>>>>> cross-posted over to a.f.computers... >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the typical age of most posters here, I'd say nearly every >>>>>> one of >>>>>> us has written /something/ in one or more of the 75 different >>>>>> variants >>>>>> of "BASIC" that have existed over time. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me: BBC Basic, VAX Basic, Visual Basic (&VBA). >>>>> >>>>> GOTO was deprecated before BBC Basic circa 1981. I never really saw >>>>> it, apart from reasonable GOTO error usages. Wasn't it more a sign >>>>> of lack of training than a linguistic feature? >>>> >>>> I found a good way to use GOTO however - in a handheld >>>> device where you had to enter several kinds of data >>>> about a location. The structure was a sort of "ladder" >>>> and pressing buttons would take you up and down the >>>> ladder via GOTOs. If you needed to edit yer last entry >>>> you just jumped one step up. The handheld only had a >>>> 4-line display alas, so you couldn't show even one >>>> entire record, only one prompt at a time. >>>> >>>> Now each entry was only a few lines of code - the input, >>>> an error-detector and the up/down GOTO thing. Easy to >>>> keep track of. GOTO made the pgm simpler and more >>>> compact. >>> >>> Sounds like a jump table. We still do that, but with functions rather >>> than jumps. >>> >> Case statements... >> > In OO, switch/case statements were deprecated too :-) I can't remember > exactly why. I think it was because we were supposed to use polymorphism > instead. > > In practical project terms, giant switch statements were a pain in the > bum, because everyone would constantly be modifying that bit of code and > you would get source code merge conflicts. > > It's coming back to me, VAX BASIC programs would be designed to consist > of a massive "do processing" loop, which would consist of a big switch > statement containing a case for every type of report or behaviour the > program was supposed to handle. Every time a new report was added, the > switch had a case added. > > Then it reminds me of the Gang of Four visitor pattern, every time I saw > it, it took me a whole morning's thinking energy to understand that it > was just a simple switch :-). > > Coding is always a balance between flexibility and clarity, there is no > "right" answer. You can make code more flexible by adding another layer > of indirection, but it becomes harder to understand. > > I echo that. The 'nogoto' was really a fool's rule. The wise man's guidance was 'make it clear what you are doing because you or someone else - may need to understand it in a years time' I dpnt find OO in general makes code easier to understand. > > > -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 21:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhqrjn$1b2t7$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61225 |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:30:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The 'nogoto' was really a fool's rule. I have never written a goto in (production) C code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 07:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ocf0P.211279$pZ%.119177@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #61234 |
On 2024-11-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:30:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> The 'nogoto' was really a fool's rule. > > I have never written a goto in (production) C code. I have two in a large old production program - well, actually 12, but there are only two target labels. Someday I might get around to re-working the code to eliminate them, but there's always something else to do first, and that part of the program has been stable for 30 years. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-22 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhr2r7$1cdln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61225 |
On 11/22/24 19:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Coding is always a balance between flexibility and clarity, there is >> no "right" answer. You can make code more flexible by adding another >> layer of indirection, but it becomes harder to understand. >> >> > I echo that. The 'nogoto' was really a fool's rule. The wise man's > guidance was 'make it clear what you are doing because you or someone > else - may need to understand it in a years time' > I dpnt find OO in general makes code easier to understand. > It's hard for me to understand reluctance to use OO. I learnt Smalltalk before I learnt C. I never did much development in C, mainly maintenance, but when I did it had an OO feel. When C++ came along I was very happy. To me saying you don't like OO is a bit like saying you don't like structs. Yes, instead of a struct you could use a block of memory and offsets, but why would you want to when you have a struct. I find it hard to imagine any other way of coding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhr8hh$1ddh7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61237 |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:07:19 +0000, Pancho wrote: > I learnt Smalltalk before I learnt C. Smalltalk is an interesting language. But I think it’s considered a little too unconventional these days ... Does it do multiple inheritance? I can’t remember.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhr9u1$1dh3s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61239 |
On 11/23/24 00:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:07:19 +0000, Pancho wrote: > >> I learnt Smalltalk before I learnt C. > > Smalltalk is an interesting language. But I think it’s considered a little > too unconventional these days ... > > Does it do multiple inheritance? I can’t remember. No, not that I remember. Classes, Metaclasses, Single inheritance, very clean. I think Smalltalk was more a teaching tool rather than anything people used commercially. It was early enough in my development that OO concepts were like a first language to me. Perhaps if I had had a solid coding background in something like C before being introduced to OO, I would think differently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhrbsr$1dqca$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61240 |
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:08:16 +0000, Pancho wrote: > On 11/23/24 00:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:07:19 +0000, Pancho wrote: >> >>> I learnt Smalltalk before I learnt C. >> >> Smalltalk is an interesting language. But I think it’s considered a >> little too unconventional these days ... >> >> Does it do multiple inheritance? I can’t remember. > > No, not that I remember. Classes, Metaclasses, Single inheritance, very > clean. “Metaclasses” were just a bit of a hack to implement what Python would call “classmethods”. Python also has “metaclasses”, in the sense that classes, being first-class objects, must be instances of something -- and that something is the metaclass. Not sure if any other language has that meaning for “metaclass”. > I think Smalltalk was more a teaching tool rather than anything > people used commercially. I’m pretty sure it has been used commercially, back in the 1980s or so, maybe even the 1990s. I found a mention of a game framework originally written in Squeak <https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/23/croquet_for_unity/>, though the main news in the article is that it had been reworked in ... wait for it ... JavaScript.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhs3ji$1kb5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61241 |
On 11/23/24 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:08:16 +0000, Pancho wrote: > >> On 11/23/24 00:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 23:07:19 +0000, Pancho wrote: >>> >>>> I learnt Smalltalk before I learnt C. >>> >>> Smalltalk is an interesting language. But I think it’s considered a >>> little too unconventional these days ... >>> >>> Does it do multiple inheritance? I can’t remember. >> >> No, not that I remember. Classes, Metaclasses, Single inheritance, very >> clean. > > “Metaclasses” were just a bit of a hack to implement what Python would > call “classmethods”. I think the Smalltalk idea of treating classes as objects, is the opposite of a hack. It is a very clean and simple idea. Even today I still think metaclasses are the easiest way to imagine some behaviour of OO languages. I would say C++ static methods and static variables are a hack. C# type reflection is a hack. Just as value types are a hack in C#. Things that are sensible for performance reasons, but that add complexity. It was easy to see where Python metaclasses came from. > Python also has “metaclasses”, in the sense that > classes, being first-class objects, must be instances of something -- and > that something is the metaclass. > > Not sure if any other language has that meaning for “metaclass”. > >> I think Smalltalk was more a teaching tool rather than anything >> people used commercially > > I’m pretty sure it has been used commercially, back in the 1980s or > so, maybe even the 1990s. Probably, just as some people program in Haskell or Prolog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 11:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhse2e$1m6qu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61258 |
On 23/11/2024 08:26, Pancho wrote: > On 11/23/24 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> I’m pretty sure it has been used commercially, back in the 1980s or >> so, maybe even the 1990s. > > Probably, just as some people program in Haskell or Prolog. > It has occasionally. Back in the day when I scanned job adverts 'must be proficient in smalltalk has been seen. But the reason why the majority of work was 'experienced in C Unix and vi' was on the job was because it was positive feedback loop. The more people used it the more people learnt it in order to maintain and extend it. -- The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about. Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhtht6$1s5d5$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61258 |
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:26:26 +0000, Pancho wrote: > On 11/23/24 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> “Metaclasses” were just a bit of a hack to implement what Python would >> call “classmethods”. > > I think the Smalltalk idea of treating classes as objects, is the > opposite of a hack. That is an elegant idea, but I don’t think it’s what Smalltalk did -- not with metaclasses, anyway. If you look at the draft (abandoned) ANSI Smalltalk spec <https://github.com/johnwcowan/smalltalk-standard>, it says “because classes are not specified as the implementers of behavior, metaclasses are not needed to provide the behavior of class objects”. This is in contrast to Python, where metaclasses are very much an integral part of the behaviour of classes. > I would say C++ static methods and static variables are a hack. They are there to provide access to the innards of a private/protected class, without having to go through instances of that class. In a language like Python, which doesn’t bother constraining visibility to the innards of a class, they are just a convenience for grouping purposes, nothing more. Much more useful are classmethods, which get passed the class object itself as an argument. But that’s only possible in a dynamic language, not like C++, or even Java or C♯. > C# type reflection is a hack. Is that like the convoluted “reflection” API in Java? (Mind you, most APIs in Java seem to be convoluted ...) > Just as value types are a hack in C#. Things that > are sensible for performance reasons, but that add complexity. Presumably, like Java, these mechanisms are there to avoid the need for the services of the full language compiler at runtime. > It was easy to see where Python metaclasses came from. Not really. Which language used metaclasses to instantiate classes before Python? Python also does multiple inheritance. And it does it quite nicely, benefiting from lessons learned in earlier attempts at “linearization” (coming up with a consistent and minimally-surprising method resolution order across all the base classes).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-23 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhtplb$1tioh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61282 |
On 11/23/24 21:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:26:26 +0000, Pancho wrote: > >> On 11/23/24 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> “Metaclasses” were just a bit of a hack to implement what Python would >>> call “classmethods”. >> >> I think the Smalltalk idea of treating classes as objects, is the >> opposite of a hack. > > That is an elegant idea, but I don’t think it’s what Smalltalk did -- not > with metaclasses, anyway. If you look at the draft (abandoned) ANSI > Smalltalk spec <https://github.com/johnwcowan/smalltalk-standard>, it says > “because classes are not specified as the implementers of behavior, > metaclasses are not needed to provide the behavior of class objects”. > The full quote... "Class objects have no special significance other than having names and having behaviors and state distinct from that of their associated instance objects. Unlike classic Smalltalk definitions [Goldberg83], they are not defined as being the containers or implementers of their instances' behavior. The techniques used to implement the behavior of objects is left to the implementers. Finally, because classes are not specified as the implementers of behavior, metaclasses are not needed to provide the behavior of class objects. " I learnt Smalltalk nearly 40 years ago, needless to say I learnt from the Goldberg Smalltalk-80 bluebook, not the current spec. To be honest, I don't have an idea what classes not being the implementers of instance behaviour means. Where is instance behaviour implemented? > This is in contrast to Python, where metaclasses are very much an integral > part of the behaviour of classes. > >> I would say C++ static methods and static variables are a hack. > > They are there to provide access to the innards of a private/protected > class, No, C++ static means class method or class variable. > without having to go through instances of that class. In a language > like Python, which doesn’t bother constraining visibility to the innards > of a class, they are just a convenience for grouping purposes, nothing > more. > > Much more useful are classmethods, which get passed the class object > itself as an argument. But that’s only possible in a dynamic language, not > like C++, or even Java or C♯. > >> C# type reflection is a hack. > > Is that like the convoluted “reflection” API in Java? (Mind you, most APIs > in Java seem to be convoluted ...) > Dunno, I very rarely used it. It was more for things like generic serialisation to JSON. >> Just as value types are a hack in C#. Things that >> are sensible for performance reasons, but that add complexity. > > Presumably, like Java, these mechanisms are there to avoid the need for > the services of the full language compiler at runtime. > No they are there for performance, because you don't want to have to do a malloc and instance initialisation for every number you use. >> It was easy to see where Python metaclasses came from. > > Not really. Which language used metaclasses to instantiate classes before > Python? > erm!, erm! I know this one... Smalltalk. Smalltalk-80 if you want to be picky. > Python also does multiple inheritance. And it does it quite nicely, > benefiting from lessons learned in earlier attempts at “linearization” > (coming up with a consistent and minimally-surprising method resolution > order across all the base classes). Yeah, we discussed this in the past. I'm totally unconvinced of the desirability of complex multiple inheritance linearization. I'm actually quite unconvinced by Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-24 00:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhts55$1tu8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61291 |
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 23:48:59 +0000, Pancho wrote: > To be honest, I don't have an idea what classes not being the > implementers of instance behaviour means. Where is instance behaviour > implemented? From further up: “A behavior is the set of methods used by an object to respond to messages”. Since a class itself has no such “behavior”, it doesn’t need to be an instance of anything, unlike Python. >>> I would say C++ static methods and static variables are a hack. >> >> They are there to provide access to the innards of a private/protected >> class, > > No, C++ static means class method or class variable. There are no “class methods” or “class variables” as such in C++: in C terms, they have “static linkage”. The “class” part is just a visibility restriction. >>> Just as value types are a hack in C#. Things that are sensible for >>> performance reasons, but that add complexity. >> >> Presumably, like Java, these mechanisms are there to avoid the need for >> the services of the full language compiler at runtime. >> > No they are there for performance, because you don't want to have to do > a malloc and instance initialisation for every number you use. Ah, like the distinction between “primitive types” and “reference types” in Java. Python manages to avoid this arbitrary separation: “int”, “float”, “str”, “dict” etc are builtin types, and they are classes almost exactly like classes you define yourself; and in particular you can subclass them. >> Python also does multiple inheritance. And it does it quite nicely, >> benefiting from lessons learned in earlier attempts at “linearization” >> (coming up with a consistent and minimally-surprising method resolution >> order across all the base classes). > > Yeah, we discussed this in the past. I'm totally unconvinced of the > desirability of complex multiple inheritance linearization. It is useful, for example, for creating enumerations of fixed instances of some particular base class. You inherit from both your particular base class as well as the generic “enum.Enum” base class, to get suitable properties of both. > I'm actually quite unconvinced by Python. Python manages to provide a small, powerful language core that includes features that, for example, Java and C♯ had to leave out: lexical binding, functions and classes as first-class objects, operator overloads, arbitrary-precision integers, list comprehensions, dictionary and set expressions, descriptors, metaclasses ... this then allows for library modules to build on this core to provide powerful facilities in the form of “domain-specific (sub)languages” (DSLs) that are specialized to particular problem areas. For example, you don’t need “generics” or “templates”, à la Java/C++ etc, because you can define a “class factory” function that constructs new classes at runtime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 43 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 43 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web