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 48 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 46 47 [48] 49 50 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 05:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkd8ct1p2i@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #165742 |
On 2016-06-22, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >> work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >> exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >> fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >> them. Even if you do find them, are they current this week? "Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common: both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied." <snip> > Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get > lost. Just people not looking in the right places. That sounds like one of my debugging rules: If you can't find something, you're probably looking in the wrong place. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 04:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #165742 |
In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, > > See.above@aol.com says... > >> > >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: > >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message > >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... > >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP > >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops > >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not > >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the > >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry > >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) > >> >> > >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. > >> >> > >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a > >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project > >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I > >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running > >> >> *TOMORROW* > >> > > >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of > >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to > >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody > >> > can hit the ground running. > >> > >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. > >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the > >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. > > > > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I > > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still > > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to > > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate > > them. > > Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 > system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems > analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often > bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they > were. > > So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the > computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. > Yep, there they were. I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. > The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. > Pointless really for designing a new process. > > Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get > lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've > worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a > warehouse for years before it dies. That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding anything is pretty much a hopeless task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 06:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <196981591.488285283.298158.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #165753 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>> See.above@aol.com says... >>>> >>>> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>>>> "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>>>> news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>>>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>>>>>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>>>>>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>>>>>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>>>>>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>>>>>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that *sometimes*. >>>>>> >>>>>> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>>>>> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>>>>> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>>>>> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>>>>> *TOMORROW* >>>>> >>>>> You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>>>> the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>>>> understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>>>> can hit the ground running. >>>> >>>> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>>> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>>> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>> >>> Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>> work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>> exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>> fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>> them. >> >> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >> were. >> >> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >> Yep, there they were. > > I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of > filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist > anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very > little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff > developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, > it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it > supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. > >> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >> Pointless really for designing a new process. >> >> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >> warehouse for years before it dies. > > That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that > warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, > poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding > anything is pretty much a hopeless task. > Good project for a couple of summer interns. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d4cca178fe898998a2a9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #165760 |
In article <196981591.488285283.298158.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > >> > >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> See.above@aol.com says... > >>>> > >>>> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: > >>>>> "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message > >>>>> news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... > >>>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>>>>>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP > >>>>>>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops > >>>>>>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not > >>>>>>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the > >>>>>>> above, but also experience within their specific industry > >>>>>>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I understand that *sometimes*. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a > >>>>>> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project > >>>>>> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I > >>>>>> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running > >>>>>> *TOMORROW* > >>>>> > >>>>> You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of > >>>>> the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to > >>>>> understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody > >>>>> can hit the ground running. > >>>> > >>>> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. > >>>> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the > >>>> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. > >>> > >>> Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I > >>> work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still > >>> exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to > >>> fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate > >>> them. > >> > >> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 > >> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems > >> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often > >> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they > >> were. > >> > >> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the > >> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. > >> Yep, there they were. > > > > I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of > > filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist > > anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very > > little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff > > developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, > > it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it > > supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. > > > >> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. > >> Pointless really for designing a new process. > >> > >> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get > >> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've > >> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a > >> warehouse for years before it dies. > > > > That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that > > warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, > > poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding > > anything is pretty much a hopeless task. > > > > Good project for a couple of summer interns. Good thought if we ever get a spare intern--the one we have now is working on a project for the actuaries. It's good for him though--by the time he goes back to school he'll know enough APL to either love it or loathe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <av6q3d-gsv.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #165753 |
In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >> > See.above@aol.com says... >> >> >> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >> >> >> >> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >> >> >> >> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >> >> >> *TOMORROW* >> >> > >> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >> >> > can hit the ground running. >> >> >> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >> > >> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >> > them. >> >> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >> were. >> >> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >> Yep, there they were. > >I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, and this was 1984. So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. >> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >> Pointless really for designing a new process. >> >> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >> warehouse for years before it dies. > >That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >anything is pretty much a hopeless task. When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our lawyer go through the motions. These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance of the contracts. Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost to their pensions. The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past the 10 year normal limitations for collection. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000535F1CD4FC849@aca40519.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #165768 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >>> >>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>> > See.above@aol.com says... >>> >> >>> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>> >> >> *TOMORROW* >>> >> > >>> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>> >> > can hit the ground running. >>> >> >>> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>> > >>> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>> > them. >>> >>> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >>> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >>> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >>> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >>> were. >>> >>> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >>> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >>> Yep, there they were. >> >>I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >>filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >>anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >>little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >>developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >>it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >>supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. > > I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in > question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca > 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but > were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, > and this was 1984. > > So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with > included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. What a kewl approach. > > After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it > in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. I bet you gave a sigh of relief :-). How did you split up the work? By functionality or pages of code? Was the code one program or many? > >>> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >>> Pointless really for designing a new process. >>> >>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>> warehouse for years before it dies. >> >>That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >>warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >>poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >>anything is pretty much a hopeless task. > > When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a > large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. > They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large > life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our > lawyer go through the motions. > > These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They > had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral > for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows > and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance > of the contracts. > > Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost > to their pensions. > > The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past > the 10 year normal limitations for collection. What a bizarre story. :-) and almost unbelievable because one would think that a company wouldn't be so stupid. However, it reminds me of the bank which ended up owning my mortgage in Southboro. When I POed enough at the bank, I paid a lump sum of the principle just to get the aggravation out of my life. I wanted the deed they supposedly held; I was told that the mortgage was the deed and nothing I said changed their mind. 20 years later, when I wanted to sell the house, it turns out that the bank didn't send the county the paperwork which removed the lien from the deed. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 15:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vf6t3d-5m3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #165836 |
In article <PM000535F1CD4FC849@aca40519.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >>>> >>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> > See.above@aol.com says... >>>> >> >>>> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>>> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>>> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>>> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>>> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>>> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>>> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>>> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>>> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>>> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>>> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>>> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>>> >> >> *TOMORROW* >>>> >> > >>>> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>>> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>>> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>>> >> > can hit the ground running. >>>> >> >>>> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>>> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>>> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>>> > >>>> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>>> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>>> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>>> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>>> > them. >>>> >>>> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >>>> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >>>> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >>>> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >>>> were. >>>> >>>> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >>>> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >>>> Yep, there they were. >>> >>>I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >>>filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >>>anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >>>little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >>>developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >>>it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >>>supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. >> >> I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in >> question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca >> 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but >> were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, >> and this was 1984. >> >> So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with >> included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. > >What a kewl approach. It was the logical one, in our view. We had the 4341(?) that did 1401 emulation; as well as run pl/1 native. >> After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it >> in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. > >I bet you gave a sigh of relief :-). How did you split up the >work? By functionality or pages of code? We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell disassemblies; to identify patches. >Was the code one program or many? Around 15 programs, 3 of which had any degree of hairyness. The remaining ones were "just checkouts"; seeing to it that they still sid what the spec said. >>>> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >>>> Pointless really for designing a new process. >>>> >>>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>>> warehouse for years before it dies. >>> >>>That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >>>warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >>>poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >>>anything is pretty much a hopeless task. >> >> When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a >> large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. >> They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large >> life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our >> lawyer go through the motions. >> >> These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They >> had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral >> for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows >> and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance >> of the contracts. >> >> Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost >> to their pensions. >> >> The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past >> the 10 year normal limitations for collection. > >What a bizarre story. :-) and almost unbelievable because one would >think that a company wouldn't be so stupid. However, it reminds >me of the bank which ended up owning my mortgage in Southboro. Tunnel vision among the employees. Normally you would discard all accounts after 10 years. But not for the policy originals; which the clerks handling the storage were 200% unaware of. >When I POed enough at the bank, I paid a lump sum of the principle >just to get the aggravation out of my life. I wanted the deed >they supposedly held; I was told that the mortgage was the deed >and nothing I said changed their mind. 20 years later, when >I wanted to sell the house, it turns out that the bank >didn't send the county the paperwork which removed the lien >from the deed. Around here, you can send a court request to a bank to either prove that they have a reason for the collateral, or to lift any liens. Not complying is a criminal offense. The US used to be like that too, but not after ca 1993. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536054F81FBCC@aca41474.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #165850 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000535F1CD4FC849@aca40519.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >>>>> >>>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>>>> > See.above@aol.com says... >>>>> >> >>>>> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>>>> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>>>> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>>>> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>>>> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>>>> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>>>> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>>>> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>>>> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>>>> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>>>> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>>>> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>>>> >> >> *TOMORROW* >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>>>> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>>>> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>>>> >> > can hit the ground running. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>>>> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>>>> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>>>> > >>>>> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>>>> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>>>> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>>>> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>>>> > them. >>>>> >>>>> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >>>>> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >>>>> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >>>>> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >>>>> were. >>>>> >>>>> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >>>>> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >>>>> Yep, there they were. >>>> >>>>I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >>>>filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >>>>anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >>>>little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >>>>developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >>>>it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >>>>supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. >>> >>> I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in >>> question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca >>> 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but >>> were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, >>> and this was 1984. >>> >>> So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with >>> included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. >> >>What a kewl approach. > > It was the logical one, in our view. We had the 4341(?) that did > 1401 emulation; as well as run pl/1 native. > >>> After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it >>> in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. >> >>I bet you gave a sigh of relief :-). How did you split up the >>work? By functionality or pages of code? > > We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. > One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell > disassemblies; to identify patches. More than 4 people wouldn't have worked well. Could 2 people do the job or was an extra needed to keep the other 2 "honest"? > >>Was the code one program or many? > > Around 15 programs, 3 of which had any degree of hairyness. The > remaining ones were "just checkouts"; seeing to it that they still > sid what the spec said. Were you bound to the original spec by laws? > >>>>> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >>>>> Pointless really for designing a new process. >>>>> >>>>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>>>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>>>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>>>> warehouse for years before it dies. >>>> >>>>That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >>>>warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >>>>poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >>>>anything is pretty much a hopeless task. >>> >>> When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a >>> large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. >>> They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large >>> life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our >>> lawyer go through the motions. >>> >>> These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They >>> had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral >>> for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows >>> and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance >>> of the contracts. >>> >>> Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost >>> to their pensions. >>> >>> The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past >>> the 10 year normal limitations for collection. >> >>What a bizarre story. :-) and almost unbelievable because one would >>think that a company wouldn't be so stupid. However, it reminds >>me of the bank which ended up owning my mortgage in Southboro. > > Tunnel vision among the employees. Normally you would discard all > accounts after 10 years. But not for the policy originals; which > the clerks handling the storage were 200% unaware of. Yea, that's the problem with divorcing paper babysitting from the functionality. I saw a similar problem at DEC when the company's pieces were getting sold off. > >>When I POed enough at the bank, I paid a lump sum of the principle >>just to get the aggravation out of my life. I wanted the deed >>they supposedly held; I was told that the mortgage was the deed >>and nothing I said changed their mind. 20 years later, when >>I wanted to sell the house, it turns out that the bank >>didn't send the county the paperwork which removed the lien >>from the deed. > > Around here, you can send a court request to a bank to either > prove that they have a reason for the collateral, or to lift any > liens. Not complying is a criminal offense. > > The US used to be like that too, but not after ca 1993. The realtor tried to find the storage site but the bank had been bought out at least two times. The current bank had no knowledge of me. I did have a piece of paper which was acceptable by the county but I had to send them my original instead of a copy. I was nervous about that. It's been 8 years and I haven't had a backlash so I hope that mess is gone. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 17:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7004d-bo4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #165875 |
In article <PM000536054F81FBCC@aca41474.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000535F1CD4FC849@aca40519.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >>>>>> >>>>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>>>>> > See.above@aol.com says... >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>>>>> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>>>>> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>>>>> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>>> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>>>>> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>>>>> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>>>>> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>>>>> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>>>>> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>>>>> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>>>>> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>>>>> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>>>>> >> >> *TOMORROW* >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>>>>> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>>>>> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>>>>> >> > can hit the ground running. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>>>>> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>>>>> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>>>>> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>>>>> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>>>>> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>>>>> > them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >>>>>> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >>>>>> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >>>>>> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >>>>>> were. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >>>>>> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >>>>>> Yep, there they were. >>>>> >>>>>I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >>>>>filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >>>>>anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >>>>>little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >>>>>developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >>>>>it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >>>>>supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. >>>> >>>> I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in >>>> question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca >>>> 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but >>>> were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, >>>> and this was 1984. >>>> >>>> So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with >>>> included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. >>> >>>What a kewl approach. >> >> It was the logical one, in our view. We had the 4341(?) that did >> 1401 emulation; as well as run pl/1 native. >> >>>> After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it >>>> in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. >>> >>>I bet you gave a sigh of relief :-). How did you split up the >>>work? By functionality or pages of code? >> >> We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. >> One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell >> disassemblies; to identify patches. > >More than 4 people wouldn't have worked well. Could 2 people do the >job or was an extra needed to keep the other 2 "honest"? We needed the interaction between people. One was "secretary", and the 2-3 others generated input. 3 or 4, where 2 or 3 did the work and the last ones "kept minutes" was the most beneficial one. We had problems reading the 1401 assembly and RPG and understanding it directly, all of us. We often did low-level translation to PL/1, and then we sometimes got the code after re-reading what we had written as pl/1. Then we re-wrote it more clearly. >>>Was the code one program or many? >> >> Around 15 programs, 3 of which had any degree of hairyness. The >> remaining ones were "just checkouts"; seeing to it that they still >> sid what the spec said. > >Were you bound to the original spec by laws? No, but there were organisational requitements to get the documentation up to standards. Fortulatly this was all batch, and the last 4 years of monthly runs had been preserved, so we could run comparisons. There was some work getting things into and out of the 1401 mode, but nothing a few tapes couldn't do. >>>>>> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >>>>>> Pointless really for designing a new process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>>>>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>>>>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>>>>> warehouse for years before it dies. >>>>> >>>>>That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >>>>>warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >>>>>poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >>>>>anything is pretty much a hopeless task. >>>> >>>> When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a >>>> large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. >>>> They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large >>>> life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our >>>> lawyer go through the motions. >>>> >>>> These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They >>>> had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral >>>> for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows >>>> and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance >>>> of the contracts. >>>> >>>> Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost >>>> to their pensions. >>>> >>>> The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past >>>> the 10 year normal limitations for collection. >>> >>>What a bizarre story. :-) and almost unbelievable because one would >>>think that a company wouldn't be so stupid. However, it reminds >>>me of the bank which ended up owning my mortgage in Southboro. >> >> Tunnel vision among the employees. Normally you would discard all >> accounts after 10 years. But not for the policy originals; which >> the clerks handling the storage were 200% unaware of. > >Yea, that's the problem with divorcing paper babysitting from >the functionality. I saw a similar problem at DEC when the >company's pieces were getting sold off. > >> >>>When I POed enough at the bank, I paid a lump sum of the principle >>>just to get the aggravation out of my life. I wanted the deed >>>they supposedly held; I was told that the mortgage was the deed >>>and nothing I said changed their mind. 20 years later, when >>>I wanted to sell the house, it turns out that the bank >>>didn't send the county the paperwork which removed the lien >>>from the deed. >> >> Around here, you can send a court request to a bank to either >> prove that they have a reason for the collateral, or to lift any >> liens. Not complying is a criminal offense. >> >> The US used to be like that too, but not after ca 1993. > >The realtor tried to find the storage site but the bank had >been bought out at least two times. The current bank had >no knowledge of me. I did have a piece of paper which >was acceptable by the county but I had to send them my original >instead of a copy. I was nervous about that. It's been 8 years >and I haven't had a backlash so I hope that mess is gone. Better check. You should be able to check for liens pretty easily. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkjs6b1nmf@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #165886 |
On 2016-06-24, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <PM000536054F81FBCC@aca41474.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>> We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. >>> One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell >>> disassemblies; to identify patches. >> >> More than 4 people wouldn't have worked well. Could 2 people do the >> job or was an extra needed to keep the other 2 "honest"? > > We needed the interaction between people. One was "secretary", and > the 2-3 others generated input. 3 or 4, where 2 or 3 did the work and > the last ones "kept minutes" was the most beneficial one. This sounds like the "surgical team" approach described by Fred Brooks in "The Mythical Man-Month" (although scaled down to 3 or 4 people from his original 10). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005361A0B340E89@aca41cce.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #165896 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-24, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <PM000536054F81FBCC@aca41474.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>>> We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. >>>> One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell >>>> disassemblies; to identify patches. >>> >>> More than 4 people wouldn't have worked well. Could 2 people do the >>> job or was an extra needed to keep the other 2 "honest"? >> >> We needed the interaction between people. One was "secretary", and >> the 2-3 others generated input. 3 or 4, where 2 or 3 did the work and >> the last ones "kept minutes" was the most beneficial one. > > This sounds like the "surgical team" approach described by Fred Brooks > in "The Mythical Man-Month" (although scaled down to 3 or 4 people from > his original 10). > I don't see how 10 can function unless it's split into 3 teams of 3 and the extra monitoring the teams. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005361A06BEFA95@aca41cce.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #165886 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000536054F81FBCC@aca41474.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM000535F1CD4FC849@aca40519.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> In article <MPG.31d41cd7f53fdd3298a2a8@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <nkcunr$9nl$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > In article <PM000535C85060A67E@aca41c29.ipt.aol.com>, >>>>>>> > See.above@aol.com says... >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>>>>>> >> > "Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >>>>>>> >> > news:87d1nbmtuo.fsf@senguio.mx... >>>>>>> >> >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>>>>> >> >>> Well, back in the 1970s and 1980s, many large employers of DP >>>>>>> >> >>> people were far more restrictive. For instance, the large shops >>>>>>> >> >>> with S/370 OS wanted that specific experience--S/370-DOS was not >>>>>>> >> >>> acceptable. Further, some large employers wanted not only the >>>>>>> >> >>> above, but also experience within their specific industry >>>>>>> >> >>> (e.g. manufacturing, banking, retail, etc.) >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> I understand that *sometimes*. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> It depends on why I'm hiring how picky I will be -- when I'm in a >>>>>>> >> >> tight spot (let's say my lead programmer on an important project >>>>>>> >> >> gets an offer for ten times what I can afford to go to Google) I >>>>>>> >> >> need to hire someone *TODAY* who can hit the ground running >>>>>>> >> >> *TOMORROW* >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > You make it sound as though you hire hackers (in the old sense of >>>>>>> >> > the world) because in any sizeable project, it takes time to >>>>>>> >> > understand that project and all that goes to make it, and nobody >>>>>>> >> > can hit the ground running. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Of course they can. I knew quite a lot of people who could do that. >>>>>>> >> it takes a day or two to read the specs. If the project is in the >>>>>>> >> debugging phase, it's even easier to begin working. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Specs? What are these "specs"? The specs for a lot of the code I >>>>>>> > work on have been MIA for decades. Everybody is sure they still >>>>>>> > exist, somewhere in a huge off-site archive, but nobody is willing to >>>>>>> > fund the archaeological expedition that would be necessary to locate >>>>>>> > them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Back in my consulting days I was working on-site to redesign a 1401 >>>>>>> system to something more modern. I dealt with a dysfunctional systems >>>>>>> analysis group operating under control of a user area. They often >>>>>>> bemoaned their lost specs. They went on and on about how great they >>>>>>> were. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, not even looking for them, I wandered into a room right off the >>>>>>> computer room. Saw about 10 large filing cabinets so I took a look. >>>>>>> Yep, there they were. >>>>>> >>>>>>I wish we were so fortunate. But no, I've been through the room full of >>>>>>filing cabinets--I found a lot of specs for stuff that doesn't exist >>>>>>anymore, imported from a company that doesn't exist anymore, but very >>>>>>little on our home-grown stuff. There's partial specs on stuff >>>>>>developed in the last 15 years or so and that's about it. Even there, >>>>>>it's not specs for the code, it's specs for the product that it >>>>>>supports, mostly written in actuarial shorthand. >>>>> >>>>> I was part of a "recover the specs" for existing code. The code in >>>>> question was 1401/1410 assembly and some RPG. It had specs from ca >>>>> 1963, but it had been pathced many times. Sources were available, but >>>>> were way off the mark. Specs had not been updated after ca 1966, >>>>> and this was 1984. >>>>> >>>>> So we went through the code, and wrote the logic out in PL/1 with >>>>> included comments with the pseudocode from the specs as comments. >>>> >>>>What a kewl approach. >>> >>> It was the logical one, in our view. We had the 4341(?) that did >>> 1401 emulation; as well as run pl/1 native. >>> >>>>> After about 5 months we had recreated the logic and documented it >>>>> in pl/1. All batch jobs gave identical results. >>>> >>>>I bet you gave a sigh of relief :-). How did you split up the >>>>work? By functionality or pages of code? >>> >>> We had 3-4 person code walkthroughs. Lots of paper and blackboards. >>> One program at a time. We ran with the source printouts and parallell >>> disassemblies; to identify patches. >> >>More than 4 people wouldn't have worked well. Could 2 people do the >>job or was an extra needed to keep the other 2 "honest"? > > We needed the interaction between people. One was "secretary", and > the 2-3 others generated input. 3 or 4, where 2 or 3 did the work and > the last ones "kept minutes" was the most beneficial one. Intense. > > We had problems reading the 1401 assembly and RPG and understanding > it directly, all of us. We often did low-level translation to PL/1, > and then we sometimes got the code after re-reading what we had > written as pl/1. Then we re-wrote it more clearly. That sounds like a fun project -- after you're done and everything works ;-). Did you run into any astonishing surprises? > >>>>Was the code one program or many? >>> >>> Around 15 programs, 3 of which had any degree of hairyness. The >>> remaining ones were "just checkouts"; seeing to it that they still >>> sid what the spec said. >> >>Were you bound to the original spec by laws? > > No, but there were organisational requitements to get the documentation > up to standards. > > Fortulatly this was all batch, and the last 4 years of monthly runs had > been preserved, so we could run comparisons. There was some work getting > things into and out of the 1401 mode, but nothing a few tapes couldn't do. That was a big help. Having a metric to compare against is very useful to prove consistency. > >>>>>>> The bulk of the stuff was in data dictionary format manually created. >>>>>>> Pointless really for designing a new process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>>>>>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>>>>>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>>>>>> warehouse for years before it dies. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's the thing, ours are almost certainly in a warehouse. But that >>>>>>warehouse contains the relics of more than a century of operations, >>>>>>poorly catalogued (where it's catalogued at all), and actually finding >>>>>>anything is pretty much a hopeless task. >>>>> >>>>> When we went through the basements of my previous dwellings we found a >>>>> large paper archive that had been locked away for several decades. >>>>> They hadn't paid the rent for at least 10 years, the tenant was a large >>>>> life insurance company. So we finally cut the lock after having our >>>>> lawyer go through the motions. >>>>> >>>>> These were the original life insurance policies from ca 1935-1955. They >>>>> had pretty generaous terms, and since they had been taken as collateral >>>>> for the missing rent we owned them. We handed them over to the widows >>>>> and orphans who were suing the same insurance company for underperformance >>>>> of the contracts. >>>>> >>>>> Way underperforming, it showed. around 1300 people got a large boost >>>>> to their pensions. >>>>> >>>>> The morale is: Pay the rent, even if all the documents are way past >>>>> the 10 year normal limitations for collection. >>>> >>>>What a bizarre story. :-) and almost unbelievable because one would >>>>think that a company wouldn't be so stupid. However, it reminds >>>>me of the bank which ended up owning my mortgage in Southboro. >>> >>> Tunnel vision among the employees. Normally you would discard all >>> accounts after 10 years. But not for the policy originals; which >>> the clerks handling the storage were 200% unaware of. >> >>Yea, that's the problem with divorcing paper babysitting from >>the functionality. I saw a similar problem at DEC when the >>company's pieces were getting sold off. >> >>> >>>>When I POed enough at the bank, I paid a lump sum of the principle >>>>just to get the aggravation out of my life. I wanted the deed >>>>they supposedly held; I was told that the mortgage was the deed >>>>and nothing I said changed their mind. 20 years later, when >>>>I wanted to sell the house, it turns out that the bank >>>>didn't send the county the paperwork which removed the lien >>>>from the deed. >>> >>> Around here, you can send a court request to a bank to either >>> prove that they have a reason for the collateral, or to lift any >>> liens. Not complying is a criminal offense. >>> >>> The US used to be like that too, but not after ca 1993. >> >>The realtor tried to find the storage site but the bank had >>been bought out at least two times. The current bank had >>no knowledge of me. I did have a piece of paper which >>was acceptable by the county but I had to send them my original >>instead of a copy. I was nervous about that. It's been 8 years >>and I haven't had a backlash so I hope that mess is gone. > > Better check. You should be able to check for liens pretty easily. This was on the house I sold in Massachusetts. I am hoping that the title search done for that sale is the precedent for subsequent sales. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <916936c2-312f-483a-859b-ab5ab452f4a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #165742 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:55:56 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: > Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get > lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've > worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a > warehouse for years before it dies. Every few years an office goes on a cleaning purge. Sometimes it's inspired by a new boss, sometimes by an office renovation, sometimes when a person leaves. But tons of stuff gets thrown out, often without sufficient inspection as to whether it is still valid or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 19:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nksc48$p20$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166016 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:55:56 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: > >> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >> warehouse for years before it dies. > > Every few years an office goes on a cleaning purge. Sometimes it's > inspired by a new boss, sometimes by an office renovation, sometimes > when a person leaves. But tons of stuff gets thrown out, often > without sufficient inspection as to whether it is still valid or not. I was just watching a PBS show on the origin of AIDS 2 days ago. The show reminded me of this discussion. They were looking for tissue samples that matched documentation for patients that had died in the late 50s. Here's the kicker, they were looking in hospitals in Kinshasa and it's surroundings (the Congo). The tissue samples were embedded in paraffin numbered, and sometimes stored in tiny boxes. Sometimes, just piles of the samples. One of the African doctors remarked that they never threw anything out, but finding stuff was hard. In one case, they needed a retired worker to come back since he was the only one that knew where stuff was. I was amazed that they could find anything. The Belgians left the Congo in 1960 and it hasn't been the most peaceful country on the continent. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnn4g61.19a.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #166016 |
On 2016-06-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:55:56 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: > >> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >> warehouse for years before it dies. > > Every few years an office goes on a cleaning purge. Sometimes it's > inspired by a new boss, sometimes by an office renovation, sometimes > when a person leaves. But tons of stuff gets thrown out, often > without sufficient inspection as to whether it is still valid or not. Daughters sometimes do the same thing, every book I have here, I put on a bookshelf with books of a similiar subject. Someone arrived here recently looking for a book on something, I pointed her to a bookcase. 'There is one there', That was before the latest tidying, in the latest, books were sorted by size. -- greymaus.ireland.ie . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 10:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtf1ruFkojkU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #166035 |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:17:54 +0000, mausg wrote: > On 2016-06-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:55:56 PM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: >> >>> Getting back to losing stuff, I've seen very little stuff actually get >>> lost. Just people not looking in the right places. Most places I've >>> worked really don't throw stuff out. When they do, it goes to a >>> warehouse for years before it dies. >> >> Every few years an office goes on a cleaning purge. Sometimes it's >> inspired by a new boss, sometimes by an office renovation, sometimes >> when a person leaves. But tons of stuff gets thrown out, often without >> sufficient inspection as to whether it is still valid or not. > > Daughters sometimes do the same thing, every book I have here, I put on > a bookshelf with books of a similiar subject. Someone arrived here > recently looking for a book on something, I pointed her to a bookcase. > 'There is one there', That was before the latest tidying, in the latest, > books were sorted by size. No one would dare do that here. All the books are in a database that says what shelf they are on. All 4000 of them. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160628114633.9d2d86938e712eea8d2caf3a@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #166037 |
On 28 Jun 2016 10:29:18 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > No one would dare do that here. All the books are in a database that says > what shelf they are on. All 4000 of them. Impressed, I take it you don't plan on moving any time soon. -- 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 | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtfba3FkojkU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #166038 |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:46:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On 28 Jun 2016 10:29:18 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >> No one would dare do that here. All the books are in a database that >> says what shelf they are on. All 4000 of them. > > Impressed, I take it you don't plan on moving any time soon. No. Just built more shelves. That doesn't include the complete run of Analog since 1943. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnn502f.188.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #166050 |
On 2016-06-28, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:46:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> On 28 Jun 2016 10:29:18 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> >>> No one would dare do that here. All the books are in a database that >>> says what shelf they are on. All 4000 of them. >> >> Impressed, I take it you don't plan on moving any time soon. > > No. Just built more shelves. > > That doesn't include the complete run of Analog since 1943. > > > Did you buy them individually, or in bulk second hand?. -- greymaus.ireland.ie . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtfuniFkojkU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #166057 |
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:49:04 +0000, mausg wrote: > On 2016-06-28, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:46:33 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> >>> On 28 Jun 2016 10:29:18 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>> >>>> No one would dare do that here. All the books are in a database that >>>> says what shelf they are on. All 4000 of them. >>> >>> Impressed, I take it you don't plan on moving any time soon. >> >> No. Just built more shelves. >> >> That doesn't include the complete run of Analog since 1943. >> >> >> >> > Did you buy them individually, or in bulk second hand?. I was given them some years ago, but my old boss. He collected them one by one, starting in 1943. I kept up the subscription. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 48 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 46 47 [48] 49 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web