Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #164962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-28 16:19 +0000 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 73 participants
Thread has 1303 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers | Browse in flat view
Thread has 1303 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:02 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 17:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-14 06:39 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-06-14 11:47 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-15 14:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-06-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-15 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-16 12:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 13:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 15:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 14:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 19:48 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-15 20:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 21:29 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 23:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:46 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-13 23:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-14 09:41 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-15 08:19 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-14 09:48 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 00:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 13:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 12:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 15:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:19 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 22:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-15 18:07 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-15 18:06 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-20 13:25 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-20 18:25 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-21 16:11 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-21 21:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-21 19:49 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-22 07:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-22 09:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-22 09:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-22 05:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-24 18:58 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 03:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 23:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:03 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 10:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 04:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-02 14:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 08:13 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 12:36 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-15 04:54 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-01 22:17 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 21:35 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 20:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 22:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 12:03 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 18:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 03:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 09:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:42 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 22:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-04 11:03 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-05 10:12 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 18:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Alan Frisbie <Usenet03_REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com> - 2016-07-04 09:16 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-04 09:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 15:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 14:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-04 16:50 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-04 16:27 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 17:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 14:51 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-05 02:49 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:26 +1000
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 23:18 +0000
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-07-04 08:24 +0000
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-04 09:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 16:15 -0400
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:55 +0000
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 11:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-04 15:47 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-07-05 10:12 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:31 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:10 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 21:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 00:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 00:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 11:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 01:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:35 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 00:07 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 13:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 14:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:42 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-07-05 22:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 06:44 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 09:45 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:14 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 21:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:05 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 12:03 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 12:35 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 18:03 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:39 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:40 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:42 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 15:20 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:50 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-04 16:28 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:13 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 06:36 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 13:21 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:12 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 19:52 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:51 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:32 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 17:05 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 20:00 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 21:16 -0600
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 15:01 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:49 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 10:45 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:00 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:46 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 07:23 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 04:30 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 10:44 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-06 11:34 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:32 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:56 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:25 +0000
Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:10 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:35 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-05 17:18 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 21:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-06 06:12 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-06 11:21 -0700
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 19:41 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-07 08:35 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:51 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-04 23:04 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 20:35 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:54 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-04 21:54 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:40 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-05 18:51 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:28 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:38 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-04 14:52 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 17:22 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:39 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 23:37 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 20:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-14 10:20 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-15 08:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 03:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-02 10:30 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 16:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 11:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-02 06:23 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 08:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 22:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 12:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-18 18:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-18 12:25 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:50 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-07-01 20:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-01 20:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-01 23:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-01 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 11:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-02 12:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-02 19:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:06 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-03 10:41 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 11:29 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:39 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 18:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 17:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 19:48 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 15:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:24 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-05 17:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 18:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-06 09:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 23:07 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 09:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-07-06 15:43 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 07:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 00:26 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-04 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 18:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-02 13:09 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 23:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:19 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 00:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-03 08:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 08:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 12:24 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-07-02 07:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 09:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 13:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 14:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 16:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:18 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 11:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-07 16:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:33 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-07 18:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-08 12:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:30 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 21:52 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-08 12:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-08 12:48 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-08 07:30 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-08 09:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-08 16:00 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-08 08:43 -0600
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-08 14:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-08 18:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-08 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-08 11:35 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-07 07:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 23:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-09 00:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 12:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-09 14:07 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 14:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:40 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-09 09:02 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-09 13:09 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-10 19:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-10 19:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-10 21:03 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 22:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-11 02:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2016-07-11 09:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 01:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-10 14:38 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-07-10 21:29 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 07:25 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 11:35 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-07-12 16:56 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-11 18:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 18:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 16:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 16:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 21:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-10 12:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 14:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-11 11:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-11 14:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 10:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-11 15:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 11:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-11 13:19 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-12 09:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 14:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-11 15:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 11:46 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-11 17:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:50 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 16:13 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-11 11:00 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 16:17 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-12 12:41 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 16:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 16:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-12 12:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-12 10:36 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-13 12:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-12 08:43 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:05 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:56 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-11 10:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 21:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-12 12:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-12 12:44 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-12 11:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 16:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-12 18:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-12 10:36 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-12 13:34 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-12 19:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-12 17:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-12 12:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 16:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 18:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 18:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-11 11:03 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-07-11 20:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-07-12 07:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-12 10:14 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-07-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-12 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-13 12:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-12 18:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-12 18:04 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-12 17:52 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-13 09:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 15:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-13 12:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-14 12:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-12 18:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-12 13:23 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-12 19:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-12 19:09 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-07-13 03:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-13 06:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-07-12 20:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-13 12:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:48 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 06:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 15:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-07-08 10:56 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-08 19:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:43 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 19:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-08 12:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-08 11:06 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-10 12:25 -0500
Compiler Design was Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-08 19:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:36 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-06 00:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-07-02 13:09 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-03 09:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2016-06-13 20:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:42 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 20:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:48 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:14 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 10:22 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-14 15:24 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? colonel_hack@yahoo.com - 2016-06-15 16:30 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-15 20:07 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-16 09:38 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 09:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:05 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 10:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-16 21:11 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-17 09:00 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 17:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:45 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:34 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:44 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> - 2016-06-14 08:35 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 15:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:37 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 12:25 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 15:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:09 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 17:02 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 10:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 12:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:59 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:15 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 19:44 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 11:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-16 07:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-16 07:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-17 12:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-17 10:44 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-17 13:02 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 19:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 19:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-17 20:15 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 09:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:49 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 12:08 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 20:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Hall <sweet_stevie@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-18 08:38 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-19 13:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:05 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-17 15:26 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-20 13:39 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:36 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-21 17:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-21 19:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-21 21:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-20 13:31 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:47 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 22:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-16 09:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:06 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-16 09:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 10:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-16 10:15 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-16 17:46 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-16 17:38 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-16 16:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 17:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-16 17:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-16 17:14 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-19 18:35 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-19 10:05 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-19 20:18 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-20 02:45 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 09:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-19 20:21 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-06-17 08:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 08:07 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:55 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 16:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-17 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-17 20:05 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 12:27 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:29 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 19:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:15 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 10:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 09:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 13:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-19 13:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:53 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 11:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:42 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 19:14 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:27 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:56 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-18 08:43 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 19:20 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-18 17:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-18 21:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-18 21:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-18 21:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:11 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-18 15:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 14:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-20 11:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-20 13:54 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-18 08:30 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-19 21:49 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-20 07:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-19 14:13 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 22:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-19 19:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 11:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 12:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 13:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 06:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-20 06:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 10:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-20 08:31 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-20 09:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:43 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-06-20 18:09 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-20 16:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-22 15:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-20 13:50 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-20 19:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-21 11:02 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-21 19:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-21 20:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 05:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-21 11:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 20:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-21 22:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-22 05:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 04:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-22 06:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-22 12:47 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-23 15:57 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-24 12:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:29 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 19:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-28 10:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 10:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-28 11:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-28 14:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 15:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-28 13:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 13:09 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 08:36 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-29 11:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-28 14:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-22 19:02 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-23 14:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-24 12:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-24 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-24 13:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-23 09:08 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-23 15:51 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-23 18:33 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-24 12:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-24 15:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-25 20:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-26 13:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-26 20:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-27 05:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-27 08:33 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-27 13:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-27 20:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-27 11:37 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-28 14:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-28 14:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-28 14:27 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-28 16:45 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-28 16:19 +0000
Page 14 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 50 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <PM000536E2B688E239@aca41e7f.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166582 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>> a third MQ register. >>> >>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>> >>> >> >> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >> > CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. > > A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a > database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. > A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 15:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlgf7s$dm8$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166601 |
On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>> a third MQ register. >>>> >>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>> >> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >> >> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >> > A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. wyse terminals too? But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest > > /BAH > -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <m2d1msq7ma.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #166613 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>>> a third MQ register. >>>>> >>>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>>> >>> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >>> >>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>> >> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. > > wyse terminals too? > > > But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. > > I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 19:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlgvlt$ec2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166689 |
On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>>>> a third MQ register. >>>>>> >>>>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>>>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>>>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>>>> >>>> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >>>> >>>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>>> >>> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. >> >> wyse terminals too? >> >> >> But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. >> >> I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest > > I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user > (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. > IIRC they were under £100 -- "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll look exactly the same afterwards." Billy Connolly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 21:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <m28txfrjc3.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #166697 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>>>>> a third MQ register. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>>>>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>>>>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>>>>> >>>>> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >>>>> >>>>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>>>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>>>> >>>> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. >>> >>> wyse terminals too? >>> >>> >>> But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. >>> >>> I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest >> >> I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >> (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >> > > IIRC they were under £100 In 1991, the Wyse 60 cost $295 from Paradise Computers (according to an ad in PC Mag of March 16, 1991).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlh1t3$j39$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166698 |
On 05/07/16 20:11, Raymond Wiker wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > >> On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>>>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>>>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>>>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>>>>>> a third MQ register. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>>>>>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>>>>>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >>>>>> >>>>>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>>>>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>>>>> >>>>> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. >>>> >>>> wyse terminals too? >>>> >>>> >>>> But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. >>>> >>>> I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest >>> >>> I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >>> (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >>> >> >> IIRC they were under £100 > > In 1991, the Wyse 60 cost $295 from Paradise Computers (according to an > ad in PC Mag of March 16, 1991). > Well at around $1.6= £1 that is £184. I think at that time am entry level PC/ST with screen and keyboard was around £900. Then add software... its about that today. Maybe a little less. Of course its a far BETTER PC :-) In general the Wyse was about the same as a color monitor. Was the Wyse 50 cheaper? I do remember that the chief reasons for a PC was that ethernet and telnet clients made the whole deal cheaper than serial cables everywhere - and faster too. But you needed the DOS licenses ;-( -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 00:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlhkmn$agd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166701 |
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:30:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Was the Wyse 50 cheaper? > The source I quoted above was offering all Wyse terminal models from 30 to 520 at £199, except for the 150 (£225), 325 and 370 (£295). -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <20160705200902.cfaff4a4b551499d2c5df8ed@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #166697 |
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:52:48 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user > > (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. > > > > IIRC they were under £100 Wow, they were more like a thousand when I was buying them for use with MP/M machines, which would have been a few years earlier than SCO Unix (or even SCO XENIX which came first). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlh1vg$j39$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166699 |
On 05/07/16 20:09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:52:48 +0100 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >>> >>> I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >>> (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >>> >> >> IIRC they were under £100 > > Wow, they were more like a thousand when I was buying them for use > with MP/M machines, which would have been a few years earlier than SCO Unix > (or even SCO XENIX which came first). > No, PCS were £1000 Wyse terminals were much much cheaper No disk drive for a start -- Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 00:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlhk9f$agd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166702 |
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/07/16 20:09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:52:48 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >>>> (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >>>> >>>> >>> IIRC they were under £100 >> >> Wow, they were more like a thousand when I was buying them for use >> with MP/M machines, which would have been a few years earlier than SCO >> Unix (or even SCO XENIX which came first). >> > No, PCS were £1000 Wyse terminals were much much cheaper No disk drive > for a start > ... but counterbalanced by better phosphor, higher quality CRT and better quality electronics. I bought a used paper-white Wyse 160 for £200 in the late '80s and thought I got a real bargain - and I would have checked prices before getting it. I have a feeling that new ones cost north of £400 at the time. A quick look shows that 'remanufactured' Wyse 160s with keyboard are currently on offer for £200 with a 2 year guarantee. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <877fcz212d.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #166699 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:52:48 +0100 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >> > >> > I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >> > (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >> > >> >> IIRC they were under £100 > > Wow, they were more like a thousand when I was buying them for use > with MP/M machines, which would have been a few years earlier than SCO Unix > (or even SCO XENIX which came first). That jives with my memory, too -- I had to source half a dozen of them (WY-50s) for a project in 1986 and remember it being $4800-ish for the lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <530944771.489454910.156794.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #166719 |
Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:52:48 +0100 >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 05/07/16 19:09, Raymond Wiker wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure that the Wyse terminals cost more per user >>>> (ajusted for inflation) than a typical entry-level PC does today. >>>> >>> >>> IIRC they were under £100 >> >> Wow, they were more like a thousand when I was buying them for use >> with MP/M machines, which would have been a few years earlier than SCO Unix >> (or even SCO XENIX which came first). > > That jives with my memory, too -- I had to source half a dozen of them > (WY-50s) for a project in 1986 and remember it being $4800-ish for the > lot. > > If they were just glass ttys the price probably dropped dramatically once the more intelligent devices like the Hazeltines and the DEC VT100s became common. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <8737nn1sxr.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #166723 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >> That jives with my memory, too -- I had to source half a dozen of them >> (WY-50s) for a project in 1986 and remember it being $4800-ish for the >> lot. >> >> > > If they were just glass ttys the price probably dropped dramatically once > the more intelligent devices like the Hazeltines and the DEC VT100s became > common. WY-50s were reasonably intelligent - I can't SWEAR to it today, but I'm pretty sure that VT100 was one of the 'bigger name terminals' it could emulate. I do remember that they would emulate the Televideo-950, because that's the one we used -- giving the best mix of features and O/S support at the time. They were also one of the few terminals that could do 38,400 bps all day and all night without dropping characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 21:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <1bvb0j5udq.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #166735 |
Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> writes: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>> That jives with my memory, too -- I had to source half a dozen of them >>> (WY-50s) for a project in 1986 and remember it being $4800-ish for the >>> lot. >>> >>> >> >> If they were just glass ttys the price probably dropped dramatically once >> the more intelligent devices like the Hazeltines and the DEC VT100s became >> common. > > WY-50s were reasonably intelligent - I can't SWEAR to it today, but I'm > pretty sure that VT100 was one of the 'bigger name terminals' it could > emulate. I do remember that they would emulate the Televideo-950, > because that's the one we used -- giving the best mix of features and > O/S support at the time. > > They were also one of the few terminals that could do 38,400 bps all day > and all night without dropping characters. Disposing of my Wyse (50? not sure) was one of my bigger mistakes. I figured a terminal emulator on a laptop would do everything it could, and I was right -- except give me the same confidence when things weren't working that the problem was somewhere other than my terminal. I didn't realize how important that confidence was....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 21:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlh7l3$2ruj$1@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #166613 |
>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >> > A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. Fifty terminals on a KA-10? The one we had at Yale was pretty busy with a dozen. On the other hand, software system design counted for a lot. At Dartmouth, they had a GE 635, about the same size as a KA-10, and a Datanet 30 or two to handle the low level TTY stuff, and they ran 50 users with great performance. Internally it was more like a transaction system, with the TTYs all talking to one big monitor job for the usual editing stuff, and you only got your own process when you typed RUN. Contrary to rumor, DTSS was not BASIC-only (although their BASIC was better than anyone else's.) It had the usual set of languages and you could write in assembler if you wanted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <PM000536F6D3DAF7B9@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166714 |
John Levine wrote: >>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>> >> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. > > Fifty terminals on a KA-10? The one we had at Yale was pretty busy > with a dozen. JOBMAX was 50, IIRC. Pink scheduling would start to happen when about 30 users were hammering the system. This was 4S72 and not Level D file system (a pre-quel to TOPS-10). > > On the other hand, software system design counted for a lot. At > Dartmouth, they had a GE 635, about the same size as a KA-10, and a > Datanet 30 or two to handle the low level TTY stuff, and they ran 50 > users with great performance. Internally it was more like a > transaction system, with the TTYs all talking to one big monitor job > for the usual editing stuff, and you only got your own process when > you typed RUN. Contrary to rumor, DTSS was not BASIC-only (although > their BASIC was better than anyone else's.) It had the usual set of > languages and you could write in assembler if you wanted. > We bought their BASIC and used it for the first training course where kids learned how to use the computer more than how to program. Before that, FORTRAN II on the 1620 was used to train kids how to use the gear and get exposure to fundamentals of programming. /BAH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 15:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <slrnnnq7a9.7eq.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #166791 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> On the other hand, software system design counted for a lot. At >> Dartmouth, they had a GE 635, about the same size as a KA-10, and a >> Datanet 30 or two to handle the low level TTY stuff, and they ran 50 >> users with great performance. Internally it was more like a >> transaction system, with the TTYs all talking to one big monitor job >> for the usual editing stuff, and you only got your own process when >> you typed RUN. Contrary to rumor, DTSS was not BASIC-only (although >> their BASIC was better than anyone else's.) It had the usual set of >> languages and you could write in assembler if you wanted. >> > > We bought their BASIC and used it for the first training course > where kids learned how to use the computer more than how to > program. Before that, FORTRAN II on the 1620 was used to > train kids how to use the gear and get exposure to fundamentals > of programming. I once worked on a HP 2000 minicomputer system that was running BASIC time-sharing for 32 users. Wrote some programs for it, including a compiler that accepted a "structured" BASIC language with block structure, local variables, long variable names etc. and output a plain HP 2000 BASIC program that would run on that system. Another user wrote a userfriendly editor to edit the program text. Googling for it I found that someone still collects programs for it, but unfortunately I have discarded my box full of papertapes last year when cleaning out the cellar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <PM0005370B2DD126B8@aca40f79.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166799 |
Rob wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> On the other hand, software system design counted for a lot. At >>> Dartmouth, they had a GE 635, about the same size as a KA-10, and a >>> Datanet 30 or two to handle the low level TTY stuff, and they ran 50 >>> users with great performance. Internally it was more like a >>> transaction system, with the TTYs all talking to one big monitor job >>> for the usual editing stuff, and you only got your own process when >>> you typed RUN. Contrary to rumor, DTSS was not BASIC-only (although >>> their BASIC was better than anyone else's.) It had the usual set of >>> languages and you could write in assembler if you wanted. >>> >> >> We bought their BASIC and used it for the first training course >> where kids learned how to use the computer more than how to >> program. Before that, FORTRAN II on the 1620 was used to >> train kids how to use the gear and get exposure to fundamentals >> of programming. > > I once worked on a HP 2000 minicomputer system that was running BASIC > time-sharing for 32 users. Wrote some programs for it, including a > compiler that accepted a "structured" BASIC language with block > structure, local variables, long variable names etc. and output a > plain HP 2000 BASIC program that would run on that system. > Another user wrote a userfriendly editor to edit the program text. > > Googling for it I found that someone still collects programs for it, > but unfortunately I have discarded my box full of papertapes last year > when cleaning out the cellar. That's something which will pop up into your regret consciousness :-(. I have quite a few regrets but most of them were out of my control. If I was prescient, I would have "stolen" DEC materials and stored them in my house. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31e61f8c87b659fc98a325@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #166613 |
In article <nlgf7s$dm8$2@news.albasani.net>, tnp@invalid.invalid says... > > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: > >>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two > >>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit > >>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The > >>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided > >>>>> a third MQ register. > >>>> > >>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers > >>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s > >>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. > >>> > >> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. > >> > >> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a > >> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. > >> > > A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. > > wyse terminals too? > > > But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. > > I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest The per desktop cost of computing today is as low as you want it to be. A Raspberry Pi has plenty of power for office work and costs less than a decent keyboard and way less than a decent monitor. > > > > > > > /BAH > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 10:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlijvq$gj6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166733 |
On 06/07/16 01:49, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <nlgf7s$dm8$2@news.albasani.net>, tnp@invalid.invalid says... >> >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 11:36, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/16 22:03, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>> This was a machine with 4096 words of 12 bit core memory, two >>>>>>> registers, the program counter and the accumulator, and a one bit >>>>>>> "link" that you could use to check for carries. That's it. The >>>>>>> multiply/divide option (it was expensive and I never used it) provided >>>>>>> a third MQ register. >>>>>> >>>>>> So about what an entry level 50c PIC has. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the topics in this group,is how much work got done with computers >>>>> that would be laughable today. 360s got us to the moon and back. PDP8s >>>>> were the backbone of a lot of laboratories, publications, etc. >>>>> >>>> CP/M was mire than enough too run most businesses off and type letters on. >>>> >>>> A PC running SCO unix was fine for up to around 50 terminals run9ing a >>>> database, several printers, text processing, and even a basic spreadsheet. >>>> >>> A KA-10 with 48K core did similar work in 1969. >> >> wyse terminals too? >> >> >> But exactly. The Sco UNIX PC was cheaper though. >> >> I think that was when the per desktop cost of computing was at its lowest > > The per desktop cost of computing today is as low as you want it to be. > A Raspberry Pi has plenty of power for office work and costs less than > a decent keyboard and way less than a decent monitor. > > You totally misunderstand me. In the commercial world, offices running IT kit have an avvpunting rem that tries to calculate the cost of the employee in wages and NI, the cost of the physical space he occupies including things like aircon and a janitor, and the cost of putting a suitable worlkstation on that desktop. A Raspeberry PI doesn't come under 'suitable workstation;' At one point, a Windows equipped PC, with software licenses, technical support to fix it every other day, and depreciation was reckoned to cost a City company upwards of £3000 ($5000) p.a. Not huge in terms of £75k salaries of course. -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web