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 7 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 50 Next page →
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlb0sm$c33$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166389 |
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:45:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > and data dictionary specifications. > I *resemble* that. In most of the good development groups I've worked in, analysts and designers were also implementers - and some of these were quite large so that wasn't a small outfit quirk. It was also notable that some of the worst practises and most difficult systems to run were the product of outfits with a NO-CONTACT rule keeping the analysts and designers entirely separate from the implementors and operations groups. The best working environment was one where the project manager, technical manager and senior developers came onboard during the bid process and, if the bid was won, were responsible for implementing, acceptance testing and delivering the project. This worked, and tended to deliver working projects on time and to budget and without requiring excess overtime, etc. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2002886884.489253386.480869.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #166391 |
Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:45:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >> and data dictionary specifications. >> > I *resemble* that. > > In most of the good development groups I've worked in, analysts and > designers were also implementers - and some of these were quite large so > that wasn't a small outfit quirk. It was also notable that some of the > worst practises and most difficult systems to run were the product of > outfits with a NO-CONTACT rule keeping the analysts and designers > entirely separate from the implementors and operations groups. > > The best working environment was one where the project manager, technical > manager and senior developers came onboard during the bid process and, if > the bid was won, were responsible for implementing, acceptance testing > and delivering the project. This worked, and tended to deliver working > projects on time and to budget and without requiring excess overtime, etc. > > I worked at CTG before it was CTG (Marx-Baer), and our usual modus operandi was to bid the systems analysis and design. The customer could than hire us to do the implementation, do it themselves in-house, or presumably hire someone else to do it. This was a good guarantee of producing implantable systems, since we'd work on a fixed-price contract to do the implementation. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536BAFA9E9EEE@aca48018.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166389 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>> >>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a band-aid >>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast majority >>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage to >>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was certainly >>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>> instruction. >>>> >>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high >>>>>> level language. ... >>>> >>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something worse. >>>> >>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>> >>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>> >>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>> >>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>> END >>>> >>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>> >>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked them >>>> with assigned gotos. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. I >>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >> >> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO TO >> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >> included code from a COPY library. >> >> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that the >> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to execute >> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run times. >> >> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not use >> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >> >> > And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing > on very large data sets. Was it originally? > > A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > and data dictionary specifications. You need to reexamine that assumption. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlb6vf$fc8$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166395 |
On 03/07/16 14:33, jmfbahciv wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>>> >>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a band-aid >>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast majority >>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage to >>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was certainly >>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>>> instruction. >>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high >>>>>>> level language. ... >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something worse. >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>>> >>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>>> >>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>>> END >>>>> >>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>>> >>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked them >>>>> with assigned gotos. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. I >>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >>> >>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO TO >>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >>> included code from a COPY library. >>> >>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that the >>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to execute >>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run times. >>> >>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not use >>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >>> >>> >> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing >> on very large data sets. > > Was it originally? > I think so. Batch processing of payroll etc etc. >> >> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >> and data dictionary specifications. > > You need to reexamine that assumption. I don't think I do. Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, but the general progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst > > /BAH > -- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlbbgr$5qi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166401 |
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 15:20:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > Batch processing of payroll etc etc. > Its true enough that it was batch processing in the 70s - necessarily so because, even in 1968, most data was stored on mag tape because of the cost and limited capacity of disk drives. That was when I started: we had a pair 8MB disks and six tape drives. So large master file had to be stored on multiple tapes at somewhere around 12MB per 2400ft x 1/2" reel. By '71 or so we had a pair of 60MB disks and were running George 3, so we had some terminals: ASR-33 Teletypes plus one 'glass Teletype' so called because although it used a CRT, it wasn't capable of anything more than showing lines of text and scrolling. However, despite the limited computers, we wrote and ran everything from small payrolls and accounting systems up to the full systems needed by a magazine distributor to handle accounts, magazine inventory, and that used an optical mark reader (remember those?) to record details of magazine deliveries and returns and a paint manufacturing systems the dealt with stock control and the process of paint mixing. This was in NZ. Depending on your musical taste you may have indirectly met my last large COBOL system. From 1983 until the BBC stopped using ICL mainframes this interactive system handled all the details of program making for Radio 3. As well as maintaining the music and performer catalogues the system tracked program production, from proposal through production, scheduling, initial broadcast and and subsequent reuse. To do this it had to keep track of the licensing details and of every transmission of each and any part of the works in each broadcast. It was popular too -it was originally intended for use by just the 8 people in the music planning office, but producers liked it to and it ended up in 40 terminals. So much for small, simple COBOL systems, what? >>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >>> and data dictionary specifications. >> >> You need to reexamine that assumption. > > I don't think I do. > Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, > Too right. I remember one who designed a system that was OK through program testing but that proved impossible to run in production. IIRC the data flow between programs was the problem but I had no involvement with that system so I don't know the details. > but the general > progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst > Yep, but the logic in a lot of these systems can be a lot more esoteric than yo might think, particularly on the sales and order taking side. One system I built for a toy manufacturer had to handle orders denominated in dozens, bakers dozens, double bakers dozens, by the gross, trailer or railcar load - all with their different discount structures. Then there were additional discount schemes, special discount schemes for particular customers and overrides to any and all of this due to face-to-face deals. And, of course, the system had to track salesmen's commissions. Even the Radio 3 music system had its moments. For starters, many classical music works don't have names (Beethoven's 5th Symphony is one, though the 3rd does [Eroica]) and some works have multiple versions and arrangements of these, so your catalogue had better be able to handle all this as well as dates from 55BC (a piece by Euripides) into the future and had to handle a range of dates of varying accuracy and type (financial quarters and years, birth/death/composition dates of varying accuracy (exact, to the month, just a year, when somebody flourished, the century,...) Put all this type of stuff together and the system complexity soon builds up. Now add the type of user, which may have to cover restricted access by person or role of user as well as providing an interface that is equally usable by the people who use it all day, every day as well as the people who only use it once every month or two. More complexity to build in. And the whole thing has to provide acceptable response times, as well as being reliable and easy to maintain. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 12:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <564143845.489254241.819854.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #166414 |
Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 15:20:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> Batch processing of payroll etc etc. >> > Its true enough that it was batch processing in the 70s - necessarily so > because, even in 1968, most data was stored on mag tape because of the > cost and limited capacity of disk drives. That was when I started: we had > a pair 8MB disks and six tape drives. So large master file had to be > stored on multiple tapes at somewhere around 12MB per 2400ft x 1/2" reel. > > By '71 or so we had a pair of 60MB disks and were running George 3, so we > had some terminals: ASR-33 Teletypes plus one 'glass Teletype' so called > because although it used a CRT, it wasn't capable of anything more than > showing lines of text and scrolling. > > However, despite the limited computers, we wrote and ran everything from > small payrolls and accounting systems up to the full systems needed by a > magazine distributor to handle accounts, magazine inventory, and that > used an optical mark reader (remember those?) to record details of > magazine deliveries and returns and a paint manufacturing systems the > dealt with stock control and the process of paint mixing. This was in NZ. > > Depending on your musical taste you may have indirectly met my last large > COBOL system. From 1983 until the BBC stopped using ICL mainframes this > interactive system handled all the details of program making for Radio 3. > As well as maintaining the music and performer catalogues the system > tracked program production, from proposal through production, scheduling, > initial broadcast and and subsequent reuse. To do this it had to keep > track of the licensing details and of every transmission of each and any > part of the works in each broadcast. It was popular too -it was > originally intended for use by just the 8 people in the music planning > office, but producers liked it to and it ended up in 40 terminals. > > So much for small, simple COBOL systems, what? > >>>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >>>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >>>> and data dictionary specifications. >>> >>> You need to reexamine that assumption. >> >> I don't think I do. >> Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, >> > Too right. I remember one who designed a system that was OK through > program testing but that proved impossible to run in production. IIRC the > data flow between programs was the problem but I had no involvement with > that system so I don't know the details. > >> but the general >> progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst >> > Yep, but the logic in a lot of these systems can be a lot more esoteric > than yo might think, particularly on the sales and order taking side. One > system I built for a toy manufacturer had to handle orders denominated in > dozens, bakers dozens, double bakers dozens, by the gross, trailer or > railcar load - all with their different discount structures. Then there > were additional discount schemes, special discount schemes for particular > customers and overrides to any and all of this due to face-to-face deals. > And, of course, the system had to track salesmen's commissions. Paul Strassman has a description of the problems with Xerox COIN distributed order-entry system in _The Computers Nobody Wanted_ (which I almost got pulled into). As I recall the problem is that almost all the salesmen and reps each had a different commission structure, so it almost had to be programmed on an individual basis. At least you presumably got your system to work. > > Even the Radio 3 music system had its moments. For starters, many > classical music works don't have names (Beethoven's 5th Symphony is one, > though the 3rd does [Eroica]) and some works have multiple versions and > arrangements of these, so your catalogue had better be able to handle all > this as well as dates from 55BC (a piece by Euripides) into the future > and had to handle a range of dates of varying accuracy and type > (financial quarters and years, birth/death/composition dates of varying > accuracy (exact, to the month, just a year, when somebody flourished, the > century,...) > > Put all this type of stuff together and the system complexity soon builds > up. > > Now add the type of user, which may have to cover restricted access by > person or role of user as well as providing an interface that is equally > usable by the people who use it all day, every day as well as the people > who only use it once every month or two. > > More complexity to build in. > > And the whole thing has to provide acceptable response times, as well as > being reliable and easy to maintain. > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlbhcp$79p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166421 |
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:03:14 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > Paul Strassman has a description of the problems with Xerox COIN > distributed order-entry system in _The Computers Nobody Wanted_ (which I > almost got pulled into). As I recall the problem is that almost all the > salesmen and reps each had a different commission structure, so it > almost had to be programmed on an individual basis. At least you > presumably got your system to work. > Yes, we did. In this case there were special deals for the larger customers, but all the salesmen sang from the same sheet IIRC, though their ability to strike deals that differed from the customer's special deal might have been a problem, in practise the deal entry screen's ability to override the deal sheet seemed to do the trick. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 15:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nldr5q$edl$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166401 |
On 04/07/16 15:01, Osmium wrote: > "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: > >> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief >> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >> accurately. >> >> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >> >> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the >> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block > > You actually lived and experienced that in real life? Oh yes. As a contract programmer, you did what you were told. -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 18:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nle6bi$5fg$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166401 |
On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief >>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>> accurately. >>>>> >>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>> >>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the >>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>> >>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>> >>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>> >>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a particular >>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the same. >> >> >> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >> >> >> > No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should > have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and didn't alter the pseudo code. If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. Is it actually meeting the specification? If not fix it. The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo code? If not, fix the code. Its called coding discipline. IN a small project you can get away without it. When any random idiot out of a thousand may be called upo9n to fix the bug, possibly even in acceptance testing, then its the only way to get the bug fixer up to speed. Its how you employ average coders and get results. -- Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not. Ayn Rand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 03:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9KqdnWr3ruRviubKnZ2dnUU78b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #166466 |
On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>> chief >>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>> accurately. >>>>>> >>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the >>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>> >>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>> >>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>> >>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a particular >>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>> same. >>> >>> >>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>> >>> >>> >> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. > > That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and > didn't alter the pseudo code. > > If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. > Is it actually meeting the specification? > > If not fix it. > > The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo code? > > If not, fix the code. > Enhancements are not in the pseudo code > Its called coding discipline. IN a small project you can get away > without it. When any random idiot out of a thousand may be called upo9n > to fix the bug, possibly even in acceptance testing, then its the only > way to get the bug fixer up to speed. > > Its how you employ average coders and get results. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 06:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlfftd$nmq$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166528 |
On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>> chief >>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>> >>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>> >>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>> >>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>> particular >>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>> same. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >> >> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >> didn't alter the pseudo code. >> >> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >> Is it actually meeting the specification? >> >> If not fix it. >> >> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >> code? >> >> If not, fix the code. >> > > Enhancements are not in the pseudo code They should be > >> Its called coding discipline. IN a small project you can get away >> without it. When any random idiot out of a thousand may be called upo9n >> to fix the bug, possibly even in acceptance testing, then its the only >> way to get the bug fixer up to speed. >> >> Its how you employ average coders and get results. >> >> > -- You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. Al Capone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536E308338FDD@aca41e7f.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166569 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>>> chief >>>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>>> particular >>>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>>> same. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >>> >>> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >>> didn't alter the pseudo code. >>> >>> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >>> Is it actually meeting the specification? >>> >>> If not fix it. >>> >>> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >>> code? >>> >>> If not, fix the code. >>> >> >> Enhancements are not in the pseudo code > > They should be It sounds like you have never done raw development. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 14:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlge3v$ajs$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166595 |
On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>>>> chief >>>>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>>>> particular >>>>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>>>> same. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>>>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >>>> >>>> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >>>> didn't alter the pseudo code. >>>> >>>> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >>>> Is it actually meeting the specification? >>>> >>>> If not fix it. >>>> >>>> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >>>> code? >>>> >>>> If not, fix the code. >>>> >>> >>> Enhancements are not in the pseudo code >> >> They should be > > It sounds like you have never done raw development. Probably more than you have. > > /BAH > -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 09:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7661577.489419715.506545.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #166604 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>>>>> chief >>>>>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>>>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>>>>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >>>>> >>>>> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >>>>> didn't alter the pseudo code. >>>>> >>>>> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >>>>> Is it actually meeting the specification? >>>>> >>>>> If not fix it. >>>>> >>>>> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >>>>> code? >>>>> >>>>> If not, fix the code. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Enhancements are not in the pseudo code >>> >>> They should be >> >> It sounds like you have never done raw development. > > Probably more than you have. > >> >> /BAH >> > > God, another troll. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlgfd2$dm8$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #166607 |
On 05/07/16 14:55, Peter Flass wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>>>>>> chief >>>>>>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>>>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>>>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>>>>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>>>>>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >>>>>> didn't alter the pseudo code. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >>>>>> Is it actually meeting the specification? >>>>>> >>>>>> If not fix it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >>>>>> code? >>>>>> >>>>>> If not, fix the code. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Enhancements are not in the pseudo code >>>> >>>> They should be >>> >>> It sounds like you have never done raw development. >> >> Probably more than you have. >> >>> >>> /BAH >>> >> >> > > God, another troll. > Nope. From 1983 to 1992 I was a full time software engineer writing embedded code for micros all over the place. 8080/z80/6809/8086 and friends.. I wrote a bit more after that, but was more system and network design after that. -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 09:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87poqs16zq.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #166607 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > God, another troll. I think it's one of Gareth's sock puppets ... he follows gareth around, and has a habit of appearing in his threads, "disagreeing" with Gareth, and then picking up the trolling when enough people KF the original. Just a gut feeling ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 15:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlghps$j0n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #166622 |
"Lawrence Statton NK1G" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:87poqs16zq.fsf@senguio.mx... > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> God, another troll. > > I think it's one of Gareth's sock puppets ... he follows gareth around, > and has a habit of appearing in his threads, "disagreeing" with Gareth, > and then picking up the trolling when enough people KF the original. I have no sock puppets and neither am I a troll, unlike you who seems to employ the personal remark at every turn. The PP is KFed here anyway for repeated rudeness
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536F72AB4BD8C@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #166607 |
Peter Flass wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 05/07/16 03:14, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>> On 04/07/2016 18:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 04/07/16 18:20, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 17:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>> On 04/07/16 17:33, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 15:01, Osmium wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write IIRC, but was maintainable and the >>>>>>>>>>> chief >>>>>>>>>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type >>>>>>>>>>> accurately. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>>>>>>>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>>>>>>>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used >>>>>>>>>>> for what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> logic, repeated as line by line comments down the block >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You actually lived and experienced that in real life? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am used to each line of assembler having a comment. Subroutines were >>>>>>>>> commented at the top. No pseudo code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually pseudo code would have been a dangerous distraction. When >>>>>>>>> maintaining it I need to know what the code has to do (for a >>>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>> data value) and what it actually does. Then I can make the two the >>>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, pseudo code is good, because that says what it has to do. >>>>>>>> To anyone coming along blind with a bug to fix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. At best pseudo code says what someone thinks how the code should >>>>>>> have worked. It is now out of date and frequently inaccurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's because someone like you came along and hacked the code and >>>>>> didn't alter the pseudo code. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a bug the first thing to do is to examine the pseudo code. >>>>>> Is it actually meeting the specification? >>>>>> >>>>>> If not fix it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The does the actual code perform the functions outlined by the pseudo >>>>>> code? >>>>>> >>>>>> If not, fix the code. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Enhancements are not in the pseudo code >>>> >>>> They should be >>> >>> It sounds like you have never done raw development. >> >> Probably more than you have. >> >>> >>> /BAH >>> >> >> > > God, another troll. Nah, I think he's a kid but I haven't gotten to the point of handing him a Kleenix. He has potential for learning if can get that microchip off his shoulder. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nldsqb$43b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166401 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:26:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/07/16 13:42, jmfbahciv wrote: >> I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL. >> >> > She sure did! > Nope - she wrote the first compiler, for the A language in 1952. And she was responsible for MATH-MATIC (a scientific/engineering language and FLOW-MATIC (for business use). However, COBOL was designed by CODASYL committee with Hopper acting as technical consultant. It seems that COBOL was essentially an extension of FLOW-MATIC with some additional ideas from IBM's COMTRAN, e.g. the PICTURE clause. It looks as if much of COBOL's procedure division came from FLOW-MATIC. From the code fragments I've found it looks as though FLOW-MATIC was a BASIC-like in using line numbers as flow control targets rather than COBOL's section and paragraph names. I haven't been able to find examples of FLOW-MATIC's data definitions so don't know if they fed into COBOL's data division. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nldtb4$43b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166401 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:26:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Indeed. [COBOL] took AGES to write IIRC, > True enough because its quite verbose. > the chief attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch > type accurately. > Thats not right at all. Back in the day, COBOL, like much assembler, was written on coding sheets, usually in block caps with a pencil, and passed to the card punch girls who punched and verified the cards before sending them back to you. Alternatively, you punched the cards yourself, on a machine punch if you were lucky, and on a 12 key hand punch in most of the places I worked. Corrections were always made with the hand punch. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web