Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 18 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 29 Next page →
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bec22af-e916-4473-b759-850d47fa6951@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98375 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/8/2016 10:22 AM, David Brown wrote: > > On 08/12/16 15:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/7/2016 9:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > <snip> > >>> You could post a link to a compiler manual that backs up your claim. > >>> That way you would not have to make so many irrelevant personal remarks. > >>> > >> > >> Gee, how many compiler manuals were even available in soft copy in 1985? > >> How about ZERO? But I guess you'll now state that since none of them > >> were available in soft copy, I'm wrong. > >> > > > > Soft-copy manuals were not unheard-of from that time, usually as plain > > text files. I don't have any myself from that era - I did not start > > professional C programming until about 1994 or 1995. > > > > Exactly which compilers had soft copies? Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy manual, usually decades later. > They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and you > could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at the time > were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would take several > minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual would take days. What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, not on PCs. > > It is also not difficult to find old manuals that have been scanned or > > otherwise copied to digital format, available on the net, such as here: > > > > Scanners were very expensive at the time, Which is why most of the scanning was done at a later time, when the scanning was much cheaper. > ... and pretty much limited to > mainframe systems. Additionally, .pdf and similar formats had not bee > invented, or if they were, were not commonly used. ... Which is why any documents from that time period that are now available in PDF format were not created in that format until long after the original hard copies were printed out. > ... But the time > scanners became readily available, no one was real interested in > scanning hundreds of pages of out-of-date docs. For something that no one was interested in, an awful lot of it actually got done: > > <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> > > <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> > > > > I haven't looked at the details here, but I am sure that someone willing > > to document their claims about old compilers could have a look at these > > or other sites and come up with something relevant. > > > > Please feel free to do so. You're the one who claims that there's not just one compiler, but many, which performed argument conversions based upon K&R style function definitions, if and only if those definitions preceded the definition of the calling function. If you're right about that, you know what names those compilers had, and should have some idea where to look in their documentation to find a description of that feature. We could look at a thousand different compiler manuals, never find anything which describes such a feature, report our inability to find it to you, and all you would say is "you weren't looking at the right place". All you have to do is look at one manual, find the relevant text, cite it for us, and we would have no choice to concede your point, at least for that compiler (assuming the relevant text means what you think it means - from past experience with you, I think that it's quite plausible that you would misinterpret the text, the same way you misinterpret so many other things). The ball's inherently in your court now, because only you can prove your point with a positive citation. We can't prove our point by presenting you with a failure to locate such a citation. You don't have to do anything about it; but if you make that choice, we're entitled to assume that didn't provide such a citation for the simple reason that no such citation exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eau0pdF5ebcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98406 |
On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? > > Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they first came out, > do have soft copies now, because someone went to the trouble of making soft > copies of the original hard-copy manual, usually decades later. > >> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and you >> could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at the time >> were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would take several >> minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual would take days. > > What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of softcopies? > The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft copies were, in general, > printed by big printing presses, not on PCs. He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least with SunOS) had decent man pages. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20161208221727.54050a42@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #98410 |
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:14:21 +1300 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle > > wrote: > > >> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? > > > > Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they > > first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to > > the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy manual, > > usually decades later. > >> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and > >> you could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at > >> the time were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would > >> take several minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual > >> would take days. > > > > What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of > > softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft > > copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, not on > > PCs. > > He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago > was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more than > capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least with > SunOS) had decent man pages. > Hm ,many? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eau16hF5ebcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98412 |
On 12/ 9/16 10:17 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:14:21 +1300 > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>> wrote: >> >>>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? >>> >>> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they >>> first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to >>> the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy manual, >>> usually decades later. >>>> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and >>>> you could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at >>>> the time were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would >>>> take several minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual >>>> would take days. >>> >>> What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of >>> softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft >>> copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, not on >>> PCs. >> >> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more than >> capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least with >> SunOS) had decent man pages. >> > > Hm ,many? Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version of "many" :) -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20161208222459.06d84a28@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #98413 |
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:21:21 +1300 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12/ 9/16 10:17 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:14:21 +1300 > > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > >>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? > >>> > >>> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they > >>> first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to > >>> the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy > >>> manual, usually decades later. > >>>> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and > >>>> you could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at > >>>> the time were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would > >>>> take several minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual > >>>> would take days. > >>> > >>> What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability > >>> of softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern > >>> soft copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, > >>> not on PCs. > >> > >> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago > >> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more > >> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least > >> with SunOS) had decent man pages. > >> > > > > Hm ,many? > > Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version > of "many" :) > 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2e6m0$9vl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98414 |
On 08/12/16 22:24, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:21:21 +1300 > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/ 9/16 10:17 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:14:21 +1300 >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? >>>>> >>>>> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they >>>>> first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to >>>>> the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy >>>>> manual, usually decades later. >>>>>> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and >>>>>> you could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at >>>>>> the time were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would >>>>>> take several minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual >>>>>> would take days. >>>>> >>>>> What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability >>>>> of softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern >>>>> soft copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, >>>>> not on PCs. >>>> >>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>> >>> >>> Hm ,many? >> >> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >> of "many" :) >> > > 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) > I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... > 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher budget than I did as a teenager.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2f3c5$1hh9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98485 |
On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hm ,many? >>> >>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>> of "many" :) >>> >> >> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >> > > 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online > manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! > > But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher > budget than I did as a teenager. And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, classifies as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2furb$avp$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98607 |
On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hm ,many? >>>> >>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>> of "many" :) >>>> >>> >>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>> >> >> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >> >> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >> budget than I did as a teenager. > > And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format > specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old > requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in > those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, > classifies > as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. > Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. But we know you're arguing just to argue. It goes right along with your third grade mentality and intelligence. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <47in4cdfj44slobh908ugis26qf96i9sl0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #98650 |
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:05:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>> >>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>> of "many" :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>> >>> >>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>> >>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>> budget than I did as a teenager. >> >> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >> classifies >> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >> > >Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago >OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and >even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. In 1991 OS v1.3 was released, and did not support Windows. The first 32-bit version of OS/2, v2.0, which did include Windows support, was released in 1992.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2h2cu$bj4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98673 |
On 10/12/16 10:22, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:05:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>>> of "many" :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>>> >>>> >>>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>>> >>>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>>> budget than I did as a teenager. >>> >>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>> classifies >>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>> >> >> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago >> OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and >> even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. > > > In 1991 OS v1.3 was released, and did not support Windows. The first > 32-bit version of OS/2, v2.0, which did include Windows support, was > released in 1992. > It was with Warp in 1994 that OS/2 really took off. It needed more memory than was common on PC's at the time, but it was a great system - well beyond Windows. And DOS programs typically ran a good deal faster under Warp than under native DOS!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kegs$jlb$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98673 |
On 12/10/2016 4:22 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:05:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>>> of "many" :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>>> >>>> >>>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>>> >>>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>>> budget than I did as a teenager. >>> >>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>> classifies >>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>> >> >> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago >> OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and >> even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. > > > In 1991 OS v1.3 was released, and did not support Windows. The first > 32-bit version of OS/2, v2.0, which did include Windows support, was > released in 1992. > Wrong again. OS/2 1.1 had a DOS box which supported Windows 2.0 and 3.0. Not very well, but you could run it just like almost any other DOS program. OS/2 2.0 had Windows program support built in. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jkfs4c9rrcgeg9j5491gjp4n0ri1mck3t4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #98894 |
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 15:57:12 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >On 12/10/2016 4:22 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:05:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle >> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>>>> of "many" :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>>>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>>>> >>>>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>>>> budget than I did as a teenager. >>>> >>>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >>>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >>>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>>> classifies >>>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>>> >>> >>> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago >>> OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and >>> even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. >> >> >> In 1991 OS v1.3 was released, and did not support Windows. The first >> 32-bit version of OS/2, v2.0, which did include Windows support, was >> released in 1992. >> > >Wrong again. OS/2 1.1 had a DOS box which supported Windows 2.0 and >3.0. Not very well, but you could run it just like almost any other DOS >program. OS/2 2.0 had Windows program support built in. While I agree that it's at least plausible that you could run Windows 2.0 in the DOS box of OS/2 1.x, I never saw anyone do it, and I'm pretty sure no one would have meant that as a feature of OS/2, especially given the very small usage* associated with Windows 2. The whole OS/2 being "a better DOS and DOS" and "a better Windows than Windows" was very much a 2.0+ thing. *except, perhaps, with "Windows 386", which still ran Win2.1 in a single DOS machine, was actually a pretty good DOS multi-tasker - although, of course, that did not run under OS/2, (only the real-mode Windows 2.1 part)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2mda1$kch$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98992 |
On 12/12/2016 1:13 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 15:57:12 -0500, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 12/10/2016 4:22 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:05:18 -0500, Jerry Stuckle >>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>>>>> of "many" :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>>>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>>>>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>>>>> >>>>>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>>>>> budget than I did as a teenager. >>>>> >>>>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>>>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >>>>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >>>>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>>>> classifies >>>>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. And 25 years ago >>>> OS/2 had already been out for several years. It was multitasking and >>>> even ran DOS and Windows 3.x programs. >>> >>> >>> In 1991 OS v1.3 was released, and did not support Windows. The first >>> 32-bit version of OS/2, v2.0, which did include Windows support, was >>> released in 1992. >>> >> >> Wrong again. OS/2 1.1 had a DOS box which supported Windows 2.0 and >> 3.0. Not very well, but you could run it just like almost any other DOS >> program. OS/2 2.0 had Windows program support built in. > > > While I agree that it's at least plausible that you could run Windows > 2.0 in the DOS box of OS/2 1.x, I never saw anyone do it, and I'm > pretty sure no one would have meant that as a feature of OS/2, > especially given the very small usage* associated with Windows 2. The > whole OS/2 being "a better DOS and DOS" and "a better Windows than > Windows" was very much a 2.0+ thing. > Sure it could be done. So your comment is more BS. OS/2 2.0 is not related to this discussion. > > *except, perhaps, with "Windows 386", which still ran Win2.1 in a > single DOS machine, was actually a pretty good DOS multi-tasker - > although, of course, that did not run under OS/2, (only the real-mode > Windows 2.1 part) > You might think "Windows 386" was a pretty good DOS multi-tasker. I guess for those only familiar with DOS it was. To others, it was pretty bad. But once again that is not related to this discussion. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2guuf$1smv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98650 |
On 10-12-16 05:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>> >>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>> of "many" :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>> >>> >>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an online >>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as soft! >>> >>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a higher >>> budget than I did as a teenager. >> >> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the 30-years-old >> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I used in >> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >> classifies >> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >> > > Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you wrong has nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kekt$jlb$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98685 |
On 12/10/2016 8:11 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 10-12-16 05:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/9/2016 3:15 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 09-12-16 13:06, David Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>>>>>>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more >>>>>>>> than capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least >>>>>>>> with SunOS) had decent man pages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hm ,many? >>>>>> >>>>>> Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version >>>>>> of "many" :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 30 years ago, I couldn't afford more then amstrad CPC ;) >>>>> I had practice on Burroughs and IBM, though... >>>>> >>>> >>>> 30 years ago I had HiSoft C on my ZX Spectrum. It didn't have an >>>> online >>>> manual - but the printed documentation was thin enough to count as >>>> soft! >>>> >>>> But 25 years ago I used C on SunOS systems. The university had a >>>> higher >>>> budget than I did as a teenager. >>> >>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the >>> 30-years-old >>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I >>> used in >>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>> classifies >>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>> >> >> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. > > Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what > you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you wrong has > nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. There have been lots of them in the history of computers. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2kjbb$11in$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98895 |
On 11-12-16 21:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file format >>>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the >>>> 30-years-old >>>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I >>>> used in >>>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>>> classifies >>>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>>> >>> >>> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. >> >> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what >> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you wrong has >> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. > > Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. > There have been lots of them in the history of computers. As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2klm8$miq$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98923 |
On 12/11/2016 5:18 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 11-12-16 21:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> And 25 years ago Commodore released AmigaGuide, a hypertext file >>>>> format >>>>> specially designed for documentation. So it doesn't meet the >>>>> 30-years-old >>>>> requirement, but it's pretty close, and the Amiga itself (which I >>>>> used in >>>>> those days) /is/ 30 years old, perfectly capable of multitasking, >>>>> classifies >>>>> as a PC, and relatively inexpensive. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. >>> >>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what >>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you wrong has >>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >> >> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. > > As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. > Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. But trolls will try anything, just to argue. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mm4r$d42$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98936 |
On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what >>>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you wrong has >>>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >>> >>> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >>> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. >> >> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. >> > > Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems > that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. > > But trolls will try anything, just to argue. Like narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. Yeah, you know all there is to know about trolls. All you need to do is check a mirror... -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o31kp5$eu$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99087 |
On 12/12/2016 12:18 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what >>>>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you >>>>> wrong has >>>>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >>>> >>>> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >>>> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. >>> >>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. >>> >> >> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems >> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >> >> But trolls will try anything, just to argue. > > Like narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. Yeah, you > know all there is to know about trolls. All you need to do is check a > mirror... > Nope. Just pointing out that a failed computer in a niche market isn't worth talking about. But trolls will try anything, just to argue. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o31nf5$27s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99688 |
On 16-12-16 22:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/12/2016 12:18 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with what >>>>>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you >>>>>> wrong has >>>>>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >>>>> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. >>>> >>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. >>>> >>> >>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems >>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>> >>> But trolls will try anything, just to argue. >> >> Like narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. Yeah, you >> know all there is to know about trolls. All you need to do is check a >> mirror... >> > > Nope. Just pointing out that a failed computer in a niche market isn't > worth talking about. Just narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web