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 568 — 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 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-27 20:18 +0000
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 19 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 29 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o32buu$2p5$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99704 |
On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 16-12-16 22:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/12/2016 12:18 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you >>>>>>> wrong has >>>>>>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >>>>>> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. >>>>> >>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems >>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>> >>>> But trolls will try anything, just to argue. >>> >>> Like narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. Yeah, >>> you >>> know all there is to know about trolls. All you need to do is check a >>> mirror... >>> >> >> Nope. Just pointing out that a failed computer in a niche market isn't >> worth talking about. > > Just narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. > Nope. Just pointing out that a filed computer in a niche market isn't worth talking about. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o33fhg$cor$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99724 |
On 17-12-16 04:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 16-12-16 22:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/12/2016 12:18 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> Doesn't it? Soft manuals and multitasking have nothing to do with >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> you are discussing? Oh, ofcourse, any argument that proves you >>>>>>>> wrong has >>>>>>>> nothing to do with what you are discussing. I get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, a failed computer in a niche market isn't part of the topic. >>>>>>> There have been lots of them in the history of computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche systems >>>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>>> >>>>> But trolls will try anything, just to argue. >>>> >>>> Like narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. Yeah, >>>> you >>>> know all there is to know about trolls. All you need to do is check a >>>> mirror... >>>> >>> >>> Nope. Just pointing out that a failed computer in a niche market isn't >>> worth talking about. >> >> Just narrowing down the requirements after you're proven wrong. >> > > Nope. Just pointing out that a filed computer in a niche market isn't > worth talking about. Whatever. We both know you're wrong, everybody else here knows you're wrong, so it's not worth discussing anymore. Go waste someone else's time. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o33jt6$geq$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99737 |
On 12/17/2016 8:45 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 17-12-16 04:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Nope. Just pointing out that a filed computer in a niche market isn't >> worth talking about. > > Whatever. We both know you're wrong, everybody else here knows you're > wrong, > so it's not worth discussing anymore. Go waste someone else's time. > No, you're the one wasting time by arguing about a failed computer in a niche market. But that's what trolls do. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnvauiicfo.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99737 |
Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> writes:
> On 17-12-16 04:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
[more of the same]
> Whatever. We both know you're wrong, everybody else here knows you're wrong,
> so it's not worth discussing anymore. Go waste someone else's time.
At the moment, I see 7 followups from you in this thread. I agree that
it's not worth discussing -- so why do you keep discussing it?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000 |
| Subject | People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) |
| Message-ID | <o345tc$u72$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #99762 |
In article <lnvauiicfo.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> writes: >> On 17-12-16 04:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >[more of the same] >> Whatever. We both know you're wrong, everybody else here knows you're wrong, >> so it's not worth discussing anymore. Go waste someone else's time. > >At the moment, I see 7 followups from you in this thread. I agree that >it's not worth discussing -- so why do you keep discussing it? He did say "anymore" - as in, it's not worth discussing *anymore*. Presumably, up until now, it *was* worth discussing. -- No puppet. No puppet. You're a puppet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ehs7$hru$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98413 |
On 12/8/2016 4:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/ 9/16 10:17 AM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:14:21 +1300 >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? >>>> >>>> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they >>>> first came out, do have soft copies now, because someone went to >>>> the trouble of making soft copies of the original hard-copy manual, >>>> usually decades later. >>>>> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and >>>>> you could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at >>>>> the time were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would >>>>> take several minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual >>>>> would take days. >>>> >>>> What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of >>>> softcopies? The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft >>>> copies were, in general, printed by big printing presses, not on >>>> PCs. >>> >>> He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago >>> was a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more than >>> capable of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least with >>> SunOS) had decent man pages. >>> >> >> Hm ,many? > > Well I was and so were my colleagues, so I guess that's one version of > "many" :) > I should also add - man pages are not a substitute for full documentation. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2d7ku$m2r$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98410 |
On 12/8/2016 4:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/ 9/16 09:50 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:52:17 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >>> Exactly which compilers had soft copies? >> >> Many compilers that didn't have manuals in soft copy when they first >> came out, >> do have soft copies now, because someone went to the trouble of making >> soft >> copies of the original hard-copy manual, usually decades later. >> >>> They didn't - because on a PC, the only OS available was DOS, and you >>> could only do one thing at a time on it. Plus, printers at the time >>> were slow dot matrix on continuous-feed paper and would take several >>> minutes to print just one page. Printing a manual would take days. >> >> What does printing speed of PCs have to do with the availability of >> softcopies? >> The hard copies that were the basis of the modern soft copies were, in >> general, >> printed by big printing presses, not on PCs. > > He doesn't realise than the "PC" many of us were using 30 years ago was > a Sun workstation or a (micro)VAX. Both of these were more than capable > of doing more than one thing at a time and (at least with SunOS) had > decent man pages. > So? I was using mainframes at the time, which was quite capable of doing many things at one time. But the documentation was still hard copy. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2d7ik$m2r$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98406 |
On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > 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. > Which compilers from 1985 have soft copies available? Who went to the trouble of scanning the doc for a compiler several versions out of date? >> 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. > Read my post. The soft copy source wasn't in a format which could be printed directly. IBM's documentation, for instance, used a scripting language that had to be processed by a program. HTML 1.0 got some of its ideas from that. And the program wasn't available on PC's. IBM never saw a need to make it available (at least not by 1990). >>> 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 the documentation was no longer available or the versions so out of date they were not worth copying. >> ... 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. > OK, exactly which compilers from 1985 have their documentation available in soft copy today? >> ... 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). > I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You aren't that important to me. > 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. > Nope. It's in your court to show where there is documentation for compilers from 1985. You're the one who made the claim it exists. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2dqk7$43a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98443 |
Here's a fascinating story... On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> 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> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported it.) >>>>>> 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. JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, which is the mid-1980s: >>>>> 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. <big old snip> BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: >>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from 1980s C compilers.) And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: > I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You > aren't that important to me. Isn't that a hoot? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2e7eh$crr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98458 |
On 09/12/16 09:40, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Here's a fascinating story... > > On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> 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> > > BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that > Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly > matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't supported > it.) > >>>>>>> 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. > > JERRY points out, some might think quite reasonably, that it's quite > difficult to find links for compiler manuals for the period in question, > which is the mid-1980s: > >>>>>> 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. > > <big old snip> > > BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have to > do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in the > discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, so he > courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: > >>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> > > (I looked up both of these, and of course Ben is right, as we have come > to expect from him: they are both links to archived documentation from > 1980s C compilers.) > > And now let's look at JERRY's reaction: > >> I'm not going to bother to look for something that doesn't exist. You >> aren't that important to me. > > Isn't that a hoot? > Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links. And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of such manuals. Had Ben posted the links, he may have had purer motives. The oldest of these linked manuals is from 1982, I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2e81j$er7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98488 |
On 09/12/16 12:19, David Brown wrote: <snip> > Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links. My apologies to you, David. I should have checked more thoroughly. > And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I > also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of > such manuals. Well, I have news for you: they don't exist. Even though you've posted links to them and even though I've seen them and in fact glanced very briefly through them, they *don't exist*. Jerry has said so, and since Jerry never, ever demeans himself by supporting his claims, we must all take him at his word; if we don't, we're tone-deaf pigs. And since he claims that he doesn't give a damn what anyone here thinks about him, he must necessarily be right in everything he says. That all sounds very logical to me, and utterly beyond dispute. Didn't you get the memo? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2ebrg$ro4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98490 |
On 09/12/16 13:29, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/12/16 12:19, David Brown wrote: > <snip> >> Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links. > > My apologies to you, David. I should have checked more thoroughly. No problem. I consider it a complement that you thought my post was written by Ben! > >> And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I >> also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of >> such manuals. > > Well, I have news for you: they don't exist. Even though you've posted > links to them and even though I've seen them and in fact glanced very > briefly through them, they *don't exist*. Jerry has said so, and since > Jerry never, ever demeans himself by supporting his claims, we must all > take him at his word; if we don't, we're tone-deaf pigs. And since he > claims that he doesn't give a damn what anyone here thinks about him, he > must necessarily be right in everything he says. That all sounds very > logical to me, and utterly beyond dispute. Didn't you get the memo? > I've been given that notice a few times. I have lost count of the number of times I have been called a pig that can't sing. Jerry had another phrase for a while that I can't remember - it wasn't particularly imaginative, but at least it was a break from singing pigs. I have filed these along with other honorary titles I have collected in this group, such as "commonist blabling" (though I don't believe I made the elite group of "zomboids"), devil-possessed sinner, and linux/gcc fanatic. (I am happy to be a "fan", but don't see myself as a "fanatic".) The great thing about people like Jerry is that they are so honest and knowledgeable, and such good judges of character - they let you know who you /really/ are. For example, James probably thought he has been a professional C programmer for some 30+ years, and his employers and colleagues have viewed him as a serious programmer writing good, solid code and providing helpful advice to all who ask. And yet now, thanks to Jerry, we know he is illiterate, has no understanding of C whatsoever, has never actually written any code, and that the code that he did write is wrong and not up to the quality of the least of Jerry's students. Who would have guessed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ei8s$jh0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98495 |
On 12/9/2016 8:34 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 09/12/16 13:29, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 09/12/16 12:19, David Brown wrote: >> <snip> >>> Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links. >> >> My apologies to you, David. I should have checked more thoroughly. > > No problem. I consider it a complement that you thought my post was > written by Ben! > >> >>> And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I >>> also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of >>> such manuals. >> >> Well, I have news for you: they don't exist. Even though you've posted >> links to them and even though I've seen them and in fact glanced very >> briefly through them, they *don't exist*. Jerry has said so, and since >> Jerry never, ever demeans himself by supporting his claims, we must all >> take him at his word; if we don't, we're tone-deaf pigs. And since he >> claims that he doesn't give a damn what anyone here thinks about him, he >> must necessarily be right in everything he says. That all sounds very >> logical to me, and utterly beyond dispute. Didn't you get the memo? >> > > I've been given that notice a few times. I have lost count of the > number of times I have been called a pig that can't sing. Jerry had > another phrase for a while that I can't remember - it wasn't > particularly imaginative, but at least it was a break from singing pigs. > > I have filed these along with other honorary titles I have collected in > this group, such as "commonist blabling" (though I don't believe I made > the elite group of "zomboids"), devil-possessed sinner, and linux/gcc > fanatic. (I am happy to be a "fan", but don't see myself as a "fanatic".) > > The great thing about people like Jerry is that they are so honest and > knowledgeable, and such good judges of character - they let you know who > you /really/ are. For example, James probably thought he has been a > professional C programmer for some 30+ years, and his employers and > colleagues have viewed him as a serious programmer writing good, solid > code and providing helpful advice to all who ask. And yet now, thanks > to Jerry, we know he is illiterate, has no understanding of C > whatsoever, has never actually written any code, and that the code that > he did write is wrong and not up to the quality of the least of Jerry's > students. Who would have guessed? > > The difference is that I'm not here to make you feel good. I'm old enough that I don't give a damn about people like you and refuse to kiss your ass. I do care about people who want to learn. But not those who argue just to argue - which is common from a few people here. And I know what James claims. I also know he wouldn't last two weeks with some of the people I've worked with. And neither would you or some others here. You think you know everything about C. But it's the blind leading the blind. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2ek82$rgd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98525 |
On 09/12/16 16:24, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/9/2016 8:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/12/16 13:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 09/12/16 12:19, David Brown wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links.
>>>
>>> My apologies to you, David. I should have checked more thoroughly.
>>
>> No problem. I consider it a complement that you thought my post was
>> written by Ben!
>>
>>>
>>>> And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I
>>>> also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of
>>>> such manuals.
>>>
>>> Well, I have news for you: they don't exist. Even though you've posted
>>> links to them and even though I've seen them and in fact glanced very
>>> briefly through them, they *don't exist*. Jerry has said so, and since
>>> Jerry never, ever demeans himself by supporting his claims, we must all
>>> take him at his word; if we don't, we're tone-deaf pigs. And since he
>>> claims that he doesn't give a damn what anyone here thinks about him, he
>>> must necessarily be right in everything he says. That all sounds very
>>> logical to me, and utterly beyond dispute. Didn't you get the memo?
>>>
>>
>> I've been given that notice a few times. I have lost count of the
>> number of times I have been called a pig that can't sing. Jerry had
>> another phrase for a while that I can't remember - it wasn't
>> particularly imaginative, but at least it was a break from singing pigs.
>>
>> I have filed these along with other honorary titles I have collected in
>> this group, such as "commonist blabling" (though I don't believe I made
>> the elite group of "zomboids"), devil-possessed sinner, and linux/gcc
>> fanatic. (I am happy to be a "fan", but don't see myself as a "fanatic".)
>>
>> The great thing about people like Jerry is that they are so honest and
>> knowledgeable, and such good judges of character - they let you know who
>> you /really/ are. For example, James probably thought he has been a
>> professional C programmer for some 30+ years, and his employers and
>> colleagues have viewed him as a serious programmer writing good, solid
>> code and providing helpful advice to all who ask. And yet now, thanks
>> to Jerry, we know he is illiterate, has no understanding of C
>> whatsoever, has never actually written any code, and that the code that
>> he did write is wrong and not up to the quality of the least of Jerry's
>> students. Who would have guessed?
>>
>>
>
> The difference is that I'm not here to make you feel good. I'm old
> enough that I don't give a damn about people like you and refuse to kiss
> your ass.
No one is interested in your ass-kissing habits. I am happy when I have
learned something in this group, or when someone has learned something
from me. I have no interest in people praising me to make me "feel
good", and I believe the same applies to most of the other regulars here.
>
> I do care about people who want to learn. But not those who argue just
> to argue - which is common from a few people here.
The key reason people argue with you here is that many of us care about
the people who want to learn - and thus we don't want your
misinformation and errors standing unchallenged. You make your mistakes
with such a claim to authority ("I worked for IBM"), and with such
stubbornness, that there is a real danger that less experiences C
programmers might believe you.
>
> And I know what James claims. I also know he wouldn't last two weeks
> with some of the people I've worked with. And neither would you or some
> others here.
If I believed anything you say about the people you have worked with,
then I am quite confident that most people in this group would have
wanted to leave them well within a two week timespan. I can't imagine
there are many people quite as unpleasant and unsociable as you (or at
least, your Usenet persona) working as developers, consultants or
teachers. But certainly you would not be welcome where I work.
>
> You think you know everything about C. But it's the blind leading the
> blind.
>
No, I know a lot about C - and I also know that I /don't/ know
everything. You, on the other hand, clearly know a bit about C - but
you /think/ you know everything. Inventing stuff to fill gaps in your
knowledge is standard practice for some types of consultants who feel it
is important to appear omniscient - but it does not fly when faced with
a technical group who know more than you. So you may have "made it as a
consultant" - but you can't "make it" as an engineer or as a member of a
discussion group. I guess you probably made plenty of money in your
career - who needs self-respect when they have money?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2fv2o$btk$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98541 |
On 12/9/2016 10:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/12/16 16:24, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/9/2016 8:34 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/12/16 13:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/16 12:19, David Brown wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Just one nitpick - it was me, rather than Ben, who provided those links.
>>>>
>>>> My apologies to you, David. I should have checked more thoroughly.
>>>
>>> No problem. I consider it a complement that you thought my post was
>>> written by Ben!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And while my main motivation was to be helpful, I must admit that I
>>>>> also wanted to demonstrate how wrong Jerry was about the existence of
>>>>> such manuals.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I have news for you: they don't exist. Even though you've posted
>>>> links to them and even though I've seen them and in fact glanced very
>>>> briefly through them, they *don't exist*. Jerry has said so, and since
>>>> Jerry never, ever demeans himself by supporting his claims, we must all
>>>> take him at his word; if we don't, we're tone-deaf pigs. And since he
>>>> claims that he doesn't give a damn what anyone here thinks about him, he
>>>> must necessarily be right in everything he says. That all sounds very
>>>> logical to me, and utterly beyond dispute. Didn't you get the memo?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've been given that notice a few times. I have lost count of the
>>> number of times I have been called a pig that can't sing. Jerry had
>>> another phrase for a while that I can't remember - it wasn't
>>> particularly imaginative, but at least it was a break from singing pigs.
>>>
>>> I have filed these along with other honorary titles I have collected in
>>> this group, such as "commonist blabling" (though I don't believe I made
>>> the elite group of "zomboids"), devil-possessed sinner, and linux/gcc
>>> fanatic. (I am happy to be a "fan", but don't see myself as a "fanatic".)
>>>
>>> The great thing about people like Jerry is that they are so honest and
>>> knowledgeable, and such good judges of character - they let you know who
>>> you /really/ are. For example, James probably thought he has been a
>>> professional C programmer for some 30+ years, and his employers and
>>> colleagues have viewed him as a serious programmer writing good, solid
>>> code and providing helpful advice to all who ask. And yet now, thanks
>>> to Jerry, we know he is illiterate, has no understanding of C
>>> whatsoever, has never actually written any code, and that the code that
>>> he did write is wrong and not up to the quality of the least of Jerry's
>>> students. Who would have guessed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The difference is that I'm not here to make you feel good. I'm old
>> enough that I don't give a damn about people like you and refuse to kiss
>> your ass.
>
> No one is interested in your ass-kissing habits. I am happy when I have
> learned something in this group, or when someone has learned something
> from me. I have no interest in people praising me to make me "feel
> good", and I believe the same applies to most of the other regulars here.
>
You sure seem to be interested in proving yourself right, even when you
are wrong. But then you've been an "expert" on here for so long I know
it's hard for you to understand there are people who know more than you.
>>
>> I do care about people who want to learn. But not those who argue just
>> to argue - which is common from a few people here.
>
> The key reason people argue with you here is that many of us care about
> the people who want to learn - and thus we don't want your
> misinformation and errors standing unchallenged. You make your mistakes
> with such a claim to authority ("I worked for IBM"), and with such
> stubbornness, that there is a real danger that less experiences C
> programmers might believe you.
>
I care about people who want to learn. But you repeatedly argue from a
position of ignorance. And I hope less experienced C programmers do
believe me. Better than the trash some others here spew.
>>
>> And I know what James claims. I also know he wouldn't last two weeks
>> with some of the people I've worked with. And neither would you or some
>> others here.
>
> If I believed anything you say about the people you have worked with,
> then I am quite confident that most people in this group would have
> wanted to leave them well within a two week timespan. I can't imagine
> there are many people quite as unpleasant and unsociable as you (or at
> least, your Usenet persona) working as developers, consultants or
> teachers. But certainly you would not be welcome where I work.
>
Yup, those people are real experts. A couple have even been on the C
standards committee in the past. And I can be very pleasant and
sociable with those who don't argue from a position of ignorance just to
argue.
>>
>> You think you know everything about C. But it's the blind leading the
>> blind.
>>
>
> No, I know a lot about C - and I also know that I /don't/ know
> everything. You, on the other hand, clearly know a bit about C - but
> you /think/ you know everything. Inventing stuff to fill gaps in your
> knowledge is standard practice for some types of consultants who feel it
> is important to appear omniscient - but it does not fly when faced with
> a technical group who know more than you. So you may have "made it as a
> consultant" - but you can't "make it" as an engineer or as a member of a
> discussion group. I guess you probably made plenty of money in your
> career - who needs self-respect when they have money?
>
>
You know much less than you think.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eb4f5nFc0vnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98541 |
On 12/10/16 04:58 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 09/12/16 16:24, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> The difference is that I'm not here to make you feel good. I'm old >> enough that I don't give a damn about people like you and refuse to kiss >> your ass. > > No one is interested in your ass-kissing habits. So we're discussing bestiality now? -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dfa153b5-19ab-59ef-db0f-9bbdbc48afc3@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #98495 |
On 12/09/2016 08:34 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > The great thing about people like Jerry is that they are so honest and > knowledgeable, and such good judges of character - they let you know who > you /really/ are. For example, James probably thought he has been a > professional C programmer for some 30+ years, and his employers and > colleagues have viewed him as a serious programmer writing good, solid > code and providing helpful advice to all who ask. And yet now, thanks > to Jerry, we know he is illiterate, has no understanding of C > whatsoever, has never actually written any code, and that the code that > he did write is wrong and not up to the quality of the least of Jerry's > students. Who would have guessed? It's not all bad. Apparently, despite having no understanding of C, I've been able to convince many people I'm a C expert, including many people who are themselves C experts. That's implies that I have truly amazing skills at deception. Maybe I should consider a career in politics! I refuse to attempt a joke connecting that comment to recent US politics - mainly because I can't come up with one that would do justice to the current situation. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877f798bsx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98458 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Here's a fascinating story... > > On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> 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> > > BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that > Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly > matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't > supported it.) Oh it's a doozy. I think it should be preserved forever! <big old snip> > > BEN helpfully provides links to two such manuals --- he doesn't have > to do this, of course, since it is helping the case of his opponent in > the discussion, but BEN is more interested in truth than in winning, > so he courteously gives his opponent a helping hand: > >>>>> <http://aztecmuseum.ca/docs/index.htm> >>>>> <http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.html> Actually, those were posted by someone else (David, I think). I posted some compiled output from a 1985 Microsoft compiler that contradicts Jerry's claim, though it being rolled back from "every one of them" to "IBM and Microsoft for two". No doubt it will contract further. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2ec9k$sfa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98496 |
On 09/12/16 13:35, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> Here's a fascinating story... >> >> On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> 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> >> >> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that >> Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly >> matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't >> supported it.) > > Oh it's a doozy. I think it should be preserved forever! Apropos of nothing at all, have you and Jerry ever considered going into business together? For example, you might do well running an ice cream parlour. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871sxh8ayn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98497 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 09/12/16 13:35, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> Here's a fascinating story... >>> >>> On 09/12/16 03:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2016 3:50 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> 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> >>> >>> BEN suggests that JERRY should provide some EVIDENCE for a claim that >>> Jerry made. (The actual claim is lost in the mists of time. It hardly >>> matters. The point is that Jerry made the claim, and he hasn't >>> supported it.) >> >> Oh it's a doozy. I think it should be preserved forever! > > Apropos of nothing at all, have you and Jerry ever considered going > into business together? For example, you might do well running an ice > cream parlour. "Bacarisse & Stuckle"? I can't see it caching on. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web