Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163878 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 598 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-24 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-24 16:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-25 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-25 16:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-26 12:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-28 13:17 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-29 10:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 19:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:41 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:49 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:36 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-29 15:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:54 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Larry <lelmore76@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:29 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:45 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-25 17:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-25 22:04 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 00:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 10:07 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:55 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-26 15:57 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:00 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-27 11:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:49 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-28 13:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-28 17:53 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-29 13:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 16:33 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-05-31 14:10 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 22:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 07:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 10:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:11 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-01 17:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:41 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 15:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 10:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 11:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:14 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 16:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 17:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 10:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 09:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 10:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:59 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 10:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 11:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-09 16:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:00 -0700
Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-06-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:17 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 15:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 23:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:05 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:24 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 22:41 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:54 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 07:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 09:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 21:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 21:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 21:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 06:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 09:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 07:33 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 17:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 20:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:09 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:18 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 13:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-01 13:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-02 02:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-24 11:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-24 20:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-24 18:26 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-25 05:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 07:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 08:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 19:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-27 19:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 23:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 07:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 08:02 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 10:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 14:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 12:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 15:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-28 21:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-29 12:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:25 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-29 17:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-25 07:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:02 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 12:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 16:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-26 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-27 15:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-28 22:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 22:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-28 20:25 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 10:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 23:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-30 18:27 +0000
PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:20 -0400
Re: PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-28 00:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:47 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 20:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:48 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 07:50 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:38 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 12:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 10:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 07:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 06:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 07:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 08:52 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 14:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-05 10:04 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:20 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-04 15:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 16:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 17:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 19:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 12:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 13:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:44 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:07 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-03 17:04 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 12:08 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 10:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:51 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:05 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 15:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 06:12 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 07:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:24 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:48 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:29 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:47 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:45 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:48 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 13:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 14:57 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:21 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 14:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 09:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 12:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-07 18:08 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 09:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-08 19:06 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 18:17 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 09:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 12:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:02 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 21:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 03:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 22:42 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:51 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 22:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 18:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 23:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 23:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 09:25 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:05 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 20:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-09 07:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:13 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 10:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-05 17:53 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:53 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 22:06 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-07 13:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-08 00:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:39 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:14 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:45 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-03 15:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 12:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:05 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 06:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-10 11:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-16 17:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 16:15 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:49 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 12:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:23 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 02:15 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 14:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-31 16:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:41 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 13:37 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 12:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 16:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 07:04 -0400
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-01 13:15 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-01 15:38 -0500
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 18:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 11:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-27 13:36 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 16:07 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-27 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-28 20:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:51 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:25 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-27 05:43 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 05:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-26 12:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 15:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 05:38 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:53 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-30 07:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 14:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-30 22:29 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700
Page 2 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 30 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164199 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > > > The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of > > babes posing as "users" or "operators". > > They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal > > office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was > > obvious. > While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads > were definitely more understated and professional than say ads > for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be > reasonably dignified. Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat less so. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160601074119.df78b8f952ff47b7762dc1a5@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164204 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > > > > > The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of > > > babes posing as "users" or "operators". > > > They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal > > > office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was > > > obvious. > > > While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads > > were definitely more understated and professional than say ads > > for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be > > reasonably dignified. > > Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were > somewhat less so. I recall trade shows in the 80s (during the time of the ubiquitous plain box with QIC tape slot in front, serial ports behind and UNIX inside) where some of the young lady shills extolling the virtues of yet another fridge like unix box would be somewhat sparsely covered. -- 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 | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 10:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k5k22d-tj7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164204 |
In article <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> > The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of >> > babes posing as "users" or "operators". >> > They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal >> > office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was >> > obvious. > >> While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads >> were definitely more understated and professional than say ads >> for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be >> reasonably dignified. > >Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat >less so. They still had babes, even IBM; even if very properly (but still somewhat skimpyly) dressed. And the hardware was ALWAYS a mockup. There were never more than 2-3 cables in any picture (a real supermini cabinet often had 200+ cables coming out of it) and the power lights were not lit. And the images on the screens were obvious fakes. But the models faked interest in the hardware, with varying degrees of success. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 06:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b884b55be3ccb598a1f7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164217 |
In article <k5k22d-tj7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> > >> > The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of > >> > babes posing as "users" or "operators". > >> > They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal > >> > office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was > >> > obvious. > > > >> While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads > >> were definitely more understated and professional than say ads > >> for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be > >> reasonably dignified. > > > >Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat > >less so. > > They still had babes, even IBM; even if very properly (but still somewhat > skimpyly) dressed. > > And the hardware was ALWAYS a mockup. There were never more than 2-3 cables > in any picture (a real supermini cabinet often had 200+ cables coming out of it) > and the power lights were not lit. And the images on the screens were obvious > fakes. > > But the models faked interest in the hardware, with varying degrees of success. I remember a demonstration at some computer show I attended in NYC one time. Tandem was showing the reliability of their machines. Very pretty bikini clad young lady pulled half the boards out of the machine and tossed them on the floor, while output scrolled by on an attached terminal. Then she picked those boards up and stuck them back in, after which she pulled out the other half of the board and tossed them on the floor, and the output never faltered. Of course there could have been a PC hidden in the woodwork providing the output for all I know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053436FB4F3D4A@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164217 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>> > The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of >>> > babes posing as "users" or "operators". >>> > They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal >>> > office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was >>> > obvious. >> >>> While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads >>> were definitely more understated and professional than say ads >>> for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be >>> reasonably dignified. >> >>Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat >>less so. > > They still had babes, even IBM; even if very properly (but still somewhat > skimpyly) dressed. > > And the hardware was ALWAYS a mockup. There were never more than 2-3 cables > in any picture (a real supermini cabinet often had 200+ cables coming out of it) > and the power lights were not lit. And the images on the screens were obvious > fakes. > > But the models faked interest in the hardware, with varying degrees of success. DEC did it differently. One of the Tape Prep gals was very photogenic so they used her as a model. They used the Marketing PDP-10 and she did know what she was doing when she was shown working at the console. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1321849231.486486622.139076.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164247 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com>, >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> >>>>> The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of >>>>> babes posing as "users" or "operators". >>>>> They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal >>>>> office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was >>>>> obvious. >>> >>>> While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads >>>> were definitely more understated and professional than say ads >>>> for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be >>>> reasonably dignified. >>> >>> Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat >>> less so. >> >> They still had babes, even IBM; even if very properly (but still somewhat >> skimpyly) dressed. >> >> And the hardware was ALWAYS a mockup. There were never more than 2-3 cables >> in any picture (a real supermini cabinet often had 200+ cables coming out of > it) >> and the power lights were not lit. And the images on the screens were > obvious >> fakes. >> >> But the models faked interest in the hardware, with varying degrees of > success. > > DEC did it differently. One of the Tape Prep gals was very photogenic > so they used her as a model. They used the Marketing PDP-10 and she > did know what she was doing when she was shown working at the console. > Wasn't you, was it? <g> -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005344A87FCA84C@aca41013.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164257 |
Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <43430c0f-4b5f-455f-b284-4014a7960c35@googlegroups.com>, >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The computer industry also had calendars and promo pictures of >>>>>> babes posing as "users" or "operators". >>>>>> They were usually in what could marginally be passed as formal >>>>>> office attire somewhere far from IBM, but the babe factor was >>>>>> obvious. >>>> >>>>> While they did utilize attraction young women, computer ads >>>>> were definitely more understated and professional than say ads >>>>> for automotive equipment. The mainframe makers tended to be >>>>> reasonably dignified. >>>> >>>> Quite, but at least in the seventies, a few of the mini makers were somewhat >>>> less so. >>> >>> They still had babes, even IBM; even if very properly (but still somewhat >>> skimpyly) dressed. >>> >>> And the hardware was ALWAYS a mockup. There were never more than 2-3 cables >>> in any picture (a real supermini cabinet often had 200+ cables coming out of >> it) >>> and the power lights were not lit. And the images on the screens were >> obvious >>> fakes. >>> >>> But the models faked interest in the hardware, with varying degrees of >> success. >> >> DEC did it differently. One of the Tape Prep gals was very photogenic >> so they used her as a model. They used the Marketing PDP-10 and she >> did know what she was doing when she was shown working at the console. >> > > Wasn't you, was it? <g> Never. I don't like my picture being taken. Note that, at that time, we all were wearing miniskirts. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zOKdnXuV9o9pYdfKnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164098 |
On 29/05/2016 11:03, mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-05-28, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>>> Of course, as mentioned, the Penn Central railroad news letter >>>> always featured a pretty young female secretary on the cover >>>> every month, standing on a boxcar or other piece of equipment. >>>> That was pretty commonplace back then. Attitudes were that >>>> secretaries were honored to be selected. >>>> >>> >>> Still get this with calendars that are distributed to machine shops, >>> service stations, etc. They're great to look at, but I always find myself >>> wondering what the girl in skimpy clothes has to do with the lathe, etc. >> >> I haven't seen any such 'cheesecake' calendars in years. Too many >> gas stations have women customers who wouldn't like seeing such a >> calendar posted in the office. A lot of shops have women assistants >> (like the owner's wife) who would also find them objectionable. >> >> Do places like machine shops still have them? >> >> In the old days, however, such calendars (and advertisements in >> auto/machine shop magazines) were very cheesecake--girls in rather >> skimpy bikinis posed on the hardware. >> > > A couple of things about pictures of girls fascinate me (!). > Ones in fashion magazines are so unattractive, I think that they are > aimed at a different market than glamour pictures. The pictures that > are described above (Pirelli tyres calenders for instance) hide the > fact, that, in my experience, girls like those photographed are so > egocentric and `contrary' that one is better off away from them. > I think that I will go and have a cold bath. > > One of the most offputting things that, on visiting a friend in psychiatric > hospital, the good-looking girls that were there with severe anorexia. > How did the idea that becoming thinner than they were would make theem > more attractive?. > > > Fashion magazines are bought by women plus men who sell clothes to women. A very different group from male car mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2aed79f-c446-40b7-8683-67b86a0fd85f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164116 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-6, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 29/05/2016 11:03, mausg@mail.com wrote: > > One of the most offputting things that, on visiting a friend in psychiatric > > hospital, the good-looking girls that were there with severe anorexia. > > How did the idea that becoming thinner than they were would make theem > > more attractive?. > Fashion magazines are bought by women plus men who sell clothes to > women. A very different group from male car mechanics. Yes, and clothes are more flattering to women if they are slimmer, within reason. This reminds me of something I once read in an interview about Star Trek. In looking for actresses who were truly "beautiful", as opposed to just pretty or attractive, I suppose, the interviewee claimed that this was actually difficult - but they had success by hiring actresses who had worked before on soap operas. An example of this would, I suppose, be Terry Farrell, and indeed she is beautiful by any definition. Thus, I suspect that as her face and eyes are particularly good features, these are the criteria for that particular definition of "beautiful". John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <858868521.486213255.560319.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164092 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:22:13 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> Of course, as mentioned, the Penn Central railroad news letter >>> always featured a pretty young female secretary on the cover >>> every month, standing on a boxcar or other piece of equipment. >>> That was pretty commonplace back then. Attitudes were that >>> secretaries were honored to be selected. >>> >> >> Still get this with calendars that are distributed to machine shops, >> service stations, etc. They're great to look at, but I always find myself >> wondering what the girl in skimpy clothes has to do with the lathe, etc. > > I haven't seen any such 'cheesecake' calendars in years. Too many > gas stations have women customers who wouldn't like seeing such a > calendar posted in the office. A lot of shops have women assistants > (like the owner's wife) who would also find them objectionable. > > Do places like machine shops still have them? > > In the old days, however, such calendars (and advertisements in > auto/machine shop magazines) were very cheesecake--girls in rather > skimpy bikinis posed on the hardware. > > I think I saw one last year or so, but I admit I was surprised. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cajekbhpodvjm5kfudfin1kidme3utq8qr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163991 |
On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:19:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:13:55 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> Most kids (with some >> exceptions, of course) do not ever want to perceived as "weird" >> or "geeky". Kids today are very conformist for the most part. > >Well, I'd take out the word "today", for one thing. > >Social pressures can point in different directions, with influence from the >surrounding culture, and hence even from something so potentially malleable as >the mass media. > >Damon of Athens wrote, "Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who >writes its laws". While I believe in the part of the basic principle of the >First Amendment that protects every viewpoint in political debate, so that the >people have the ability to be the ones to decide what their representatives >should do, allowing censorship and control of entertainment, so that it >elevates rather than degrades, so that it does not sink to the lowest common >denominator, does not seem to be unreasonable. > >If someone tried to make the case for genocide with facts and figures, he would >not get far, but dramas or comedies that perpetuate stereotypes can engender >hatred. > >John Savard Scum Goebbles did such a thing with the movies he had made, like the one comparing rats and the Jewish people. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 06:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b09ff2ed1021e98a1d4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163990 |
In article <f74c3cc8-ceae-44bf-ba85-5d450bfb1e42@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:30:49 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > > Yeah, blame it on NOW (haven't heard that acronym > > since 1985). Anyone who has been in the business for > > for the last 35 years knows simply from observation > > that females in computing have gone from 38% of the > > workforce to 18% of the workforce between 1985 and 2016, and the > > numbers continue to decrease. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Statistics_in_the_workforce > > My own observation is that the percentage of women programmers has > remained stable. But I do know that in the I.T. world there has always > been great variation from one site to another, as well as from one sub- > specialty to another. > > > > It's more appropriate to blame it on pop culture (and the general > > disdain in which "geeks" are held therin). > > They have conducted studies that little children have innate tendencies > and preferences, despite what progressives want to believe. For instance, > boys are the ones that tend to gravitate toward construction toys, and > girls to other fields. (Not every boy nor every girl will do so, most > kids will do so.) > > Fortunately, at least today, a girl who wants to be a civil engineer > can do so (as done by my neighbor, who is doing quite well.) There > are also many girls' sports team for those who are interested. > > Today, progressives are worried about the lack of girls' interest > in science and technology. I don't know if that's merely because > girls just aren't naturally interested, or, if social pressures > play a role. > > It is clear that among youth today, social pressures, reinforced by > the media and fashion, play a big role. Most kids (with some > exceptions, of course) do not ever want to perceived as "weird" > or "geeky". Kids today are very conformist for the most part. > > I do not know how much peer pressure influences--consciously or > sub-consciously--in discouraging girls from science and technology. > But I suspect it plays a part. Kids have always been very conformist. The reason they are seen as nonconformist is that they tend to conform to the peer culture, not the parental culture. In the '60s it was "do your own thing" as long as your own thing included jeans, tie-dye shirts, and rock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 06:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b09ee8437e3ed498a1d3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163970 |
In article <cOh1z.273$Ia.50@fx13.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home says... > > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > > NPR has > >been airing pieces about how males keep females out of the computer > >biz. I simply don't understand this and have been suspecting that > >it's another NOW scheme to "prove" inequality. There were always > >females where I worked. > > Yeah, blame it on NOW (haven't heard that acronym > since 1985). Anyone who has been in the business for > for the last 35 years knows simply from observation > that females in computing have gone from 38% of the > workforce to 18% of the workforce between 1985 and 2016, and the > numbers continue to decrease. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Statistics_in_the_workforce > > It's more appropriate to blame it on pop culture (and the general > disdain in which "geeks" are held therin). It's kind of strange where I work--lot of women at very high levels but as you move down and the employees get younger we see fewer and fewer. Everybody in the chain of command between me and the CEO is a woman, but all but one of the developers other than my supervisor is male. Not because there's any bias there--I was part of the hiring process on the last person we hired and the consensus was that we'd have hired an orangutan if it could write decent code--but because that's who is applying for the jobs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Larry <lelmore76@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e643104-3201-448b-a00c-ea09fdf2979d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163970 |
Not where I currently work! 40% is more like it, though a very large percentage of those are of Indian or Chinese or Vietnamese extraction. Not all are recent immigrants, a fair number are American by birth. I think those cultures are less likely to allow their children to major in the various useless "studies" degrees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <31bbkbl3a27i807e010druubjs31t0uke8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163968 |
On 25 May 2016 13:11:31 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Quadibloc wrote: >> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> The story of how a single >>> language answers >>> the question, "Can a >>> young girl with no previous >>> programming >>> experience find happiness >> >> Well, there you are. This explains why PL/I never caught on, while FORTRAN >and >> COBOL continue to this day. >> >> What self-respecting programmer would use a language that's designed for... >> girls! > >Patui! What self-respecting girls would choose PL/I? > >> >> And, of course, this is despite the fact that Grace Hopper was pivotal in >> bringing COBOL into existence, or that most computer programmers, having >> undergone the transition known as "puberty", don't quite look upon girls the >> way boys in Grade 1 do. (But back in the 1960s, their view of women probably >> hadn't yet broadened to include thinking of them as equal colleagues in such >> fields as computer programming!) > >Women have been "programming" way before any males did. Think of crochet >and knitting patterns. Think of the geometries of quilting. NPR has >been airing pieces about how males keep females out of the computer >biz. I simply don't understand this and have been suspecting that >it's another NOW scheme to "prove" inequality. There were always >females where I worked. > >/BAH Weren't where I have worked. Most of the places I worked, women were secretaries, admin assistants, or janitors. Not in IT nor managers. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddfut5u7ew.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163968 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> The story of how a single language answers the question, "Can a young girl
>>> with no previous programming experience find happiness
>> Well, there you are. This explains why PL/I never caught on, while FORTRAN
>> and COBOL continue to this day.
>> What self-respecting programmer would use a language that's designed for...
>> girls!
> Patui! What self-respecting girls would choose PL/I?
Nan Detlaff and Marj Benson, to name two of my acquaintance (though Nan usually
used BAL, since she was an OS/360 systems programmer).
Nan was manager of the systems programmers at the Computer-Assisted Education
Laboratory of the College of Education at the University of Texas when I was a
lowly work-study lab monitor (who happened to know programming, which
fascinated her).
Marj was the manager of Financial Systems at the University of Chicago
Computation Center who hired me as a junior programmer/analyst after I finished
class work for my Ph. D. in another field entirely. It was her mandate that
all non-vendor code (mostly COBOL) be written in PL/I.
And I'd say both of them respected themselves with good reason.
Make that three: My high school girlfriend, Lin Nielsen (now Cochran), made a
good living with her library science degree and DBA skills. She's the one who
gave me a book on programming the System/360 as a graduation present.
PL/I rules! Just because it was ported to the VAX under VMS doesn't mean it's
a bad language.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 22:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni5lcu$djl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163986 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Quadibloc wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >>>> The story of how a single language answers the question, "Can a >>>> young girl with no previous programming experience find happiness > >>> Well, there you are. This explains why PL/I never caught on, while >>> FORTRAN and COBOL continue to this day. > >>> What self-respecting programmer would use a language that's designed >>> for... girls! > >> Patui! What self-respecting girls would choose PL/I? > > Nan Detlaff and Marj Benson, to name two of my acquaintance (though > Nan usually used BAL, since she was an OS/360 systems programmer). > > Nan was manager of the systems programmers at the Computer-Assisted > Education Laboratory of the College of Education at the University of > Texas when I was a lowly work-study lab monitor (who happened to know > programming, which fascinated her). > > Marj was the manager of Financial Systems at the University of Chicago > Computation Center who hired me as a junior programmer/analyst after I > finished class work for my Ph. D. in another field entirely. It was > her mandate that all non-vendor code (mostly COBOL) be written in > PL/I. > > And I'd say both of them respected themselves with good reason. > > Make that three: My high school girlfriend, Lin Nielsen (now Cochran), > made a good living with her library science degree and DBA skills. > She's the one who gave me a book on programming the System/360 as a > graduation present. > > PL/I rules! Just because it was ported to the VAX under VMS doesn't > mean it's a bad language. Over the years, I had little respect for PL/I. Then the time came when I had to use PL/I for a serious enhancement to existing PL/I code. The language did not let me down. I found it quite easy to write the simple parts with simple code and when I had to get into more sophisticated stuff, I found the language has some nice advanced features. Of course it makes no difference whether the coder is wearing a dress or a pair of slacks. I think referring to the coders sex was an attempt to be cute. Which I found annoying. Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster you replied to. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 00:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e9f51b6-7f22-41cd-890e-1c2e9aff4daa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163993 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-6, D_J_E wrote: > Over the years, I had little respect for PL/I. Then the time came when > I had to use PL/I for a serious enhancement to existing PL/I code. The > language did not let me down. I found it quite easy to write the simple > parts with simple code and when I had to get into more sophisticated > stuff, I found the language has some nice advanced features. PL/I did indeed have good features. It treated numerical constants as being intrinsically decimal, rather than binary, however, which was potentially confusing to some programmers. Also, it was ahead of its time: because it needed to pass information on the type and size of variables, it couldn't use the simple subroutine calling sequence that was the "standard" for the 360 which FORTRAN (and, I think, COBOL) used. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bfni1d-ev2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163993 |
In article <ni5lcu$djl$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >>> Quadibloc wrote: >> >>>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>>>> The story of how a single language answers the question, "Can a >>>>> young girl with no previous programming experience find happiness >> >>>> Well, there you are. This explains why PL/I never caught on, while >>>> FORTRAN and COBOL continue to this day. >> >>>> What self-respecting programmer would use a language that's designed >>>> for... girls! >> >>> Patui! What self-respecting girls would choose PL/I? >> >> Nan Detlaff and Marj Benson, to name two of my acquaintance (though >> Nan usually used BAL, since she was an OS/360 systems programmer). >> >> Nan was manager of the systems programmers at the Computer-Assisted >> Education Laboratory of the College of Education at the University of >> Texas when I was a lowly work-study lab monitor (who happened to know >> programming, which fascinated her). >> >> Marj was the manager of Financial Systems at the University of Chicago >> Computation Center who hired me as a junior programmer/analyst after I >> finished class work for my Ph. D. in another field entirely. It was >> her mandate that all non-vendor code (mostly COBOL) be written in >> PL/I. >> >> And I'd say both of them respected themselves with good reason. >> >> Make that three: My high school girlfriend, Lin Nielsen (now Cochran), >> made a good living with her library science degree and DBA skills. >> She's the one who gave me a book on programming the System/360 as a >> graduation present. >> >> PL/I rules! Just because it was ported to the VAX under VMS doesn't >> mean it's a bad language. > >Over the years, I had little respect for PL/I. Then the time came when >I had to use PL/I for a serious enhancement to existing PL/I code. The >language did not let me down. I found it quite easy to write the simple >parts with simple code and when I had to get into more sophisticated >stuff, I found the language has some nice advanced features. > >Of course it makes no difference whether the coder is wearing a dress or >a pair of slacks. I think referring to the coders sex was an attempt to >be cute. Which I found annoying. > >Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >you replied to. I have a year's experience coding pl/1 for business, (or rather; warfare, since it was in the Navy ;-). It was a pleasant experience. We had to convert a lot of old autocoder/1410 code; which was an exercise in data archehology, even if the code was then only 22 years old. (1962-84). Now that pl/1 is older, but still in good shape. There are important bits I still miss from pl/1 when coding in C. But I do want warnings when the type conversion kicks in. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 17:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yjtvybebmsr2db@dell3100.workgroup> |
| In reply to | #163997 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 09:07:39 +0100, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <ni5lcu$djl$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: >> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Quadibloc wrote: >>> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> The story of how a single language answers the question, "Can a >>>>>> young girl with no previous programming experience find happiness >>> >>>>> Well, there you are. This explains why PL/I never caught on, while >>>>> FORTRAN and COBOL continue to this day. >>> >>>>> What self-respecting programmer would use a language that's designed >>>>> for... girls! >>> >>>> Patui! What self-respecting girls would choose PL/I? >>> >>> Nan Detlaff and Marj Benson, to name two of my acquaintance (though >>> Nan usually used BAL, since she was an OS/360 systems programmer). >>> >>> Nan was manager of the systems programmers at the Computer-Assisted >>> Education Laboratory of the College of Education at the University of >>> Texas when I was a lowly work-study lab monitor (who happened to know >>> programming, which fascinated her). >>> >>> Marj was the manager of Financial Systems at the University of Chicago >>> Computation Center who hired me as a junior programmer/analyst after I >>> finished class work for my Ph. D. in another field entirely. It was >>> her mandate that all non-vendor code (mostly COBOL) be written in >>> PL/I. >>> >>> And I'd say both of them respected themselves with good reason. >>> >>> Make that three: My high school girlfriend, Lin Nielsen (now Cochran), >>> made a good living with her library science degree and DBA skills. >>> She's the one who gave me a book on programming the System/360 as a >>> graduation present. >>> >>> PL/I rules! Just because it was ported to the VAX under VMS doesn't >>> mean it's a bad language. >> >> Over the years, I had little respect for PL/I. Then the time came when >> I had to use PL/I for a serious enhancement to existing PL/I code. The >> language did not let me down. I found it quite easy to write the simple >> parts with simple code and when I had to get into more sophisticated >> stuff, I found the language has some nice advanced features. >> >> Of course it makes no difference whether the coder is wearing a dress or >> a pair of slacks. I think referring to the coders sex was an attempt to >> be cute. Which I found annoying. >> >> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >> you replied to. > > I have a year's experience coding pl/1 for business, (or rather; warfare, > since it was in the Navy ;-). It was a pleasant experience. We had to > convert a lot of old autocoder/1410 code; which was an exercise in > data archehology, even if the code was then only 22 years old. (1962-84). > Now that pl/1 is older, but still in good shape. > > There are important bits I still miss from pl/1 when coding in C. But > I do want warnings when the type conversion kicks in. > It was is and always will be PL/I (not to be confused with DL/I) even if the I is pronounced "one" > -- mrr > > -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web