Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #11730 > unrolled thread

Is it a lost cause?

Started by"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
First post2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Last post2016-07-05 14:28 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 788 — 65 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi


Contents

  Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
    Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:02 +0200
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0000
        Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 17:43 -0400
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:05 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:52 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:52 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:55 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:53 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:22 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 13:27 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:41 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 15:05 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 14:09 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:07 +0100
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 23:02 +0000
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:56 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:13 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:39 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:46 +0200
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:51 +0200
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:14 -0400
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:54 +0000
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:57 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 13:02 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 14:45 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:32 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:22 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:56 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:30 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:59 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:42 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:48 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:22 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:28 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:39 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:56 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-14 09:48 -0500
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:08 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 00:18 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:57 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:05 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:53 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:53 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:24 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:53 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 13:10 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 12:28 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 15:37 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:19 +0300
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:52 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:08 +0300
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:09 +0300
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 22:58 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:03 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:24 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 03:47 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 23:55 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:03 +0300
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 10:20 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:43 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 04:38 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-02 14:00 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 08:13 -0700
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 12:09 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 12:36 -0700
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:32 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:49 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-01 22:17 -0400
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:10 +0000
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 21:35 +0300
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 20:45 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 22:14 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-02 21:42 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:33 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:45 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:36 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:20 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:38 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 12:03 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:18 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 15:17 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 18:28 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 03:14 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:17 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:53 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 09:55 -0400
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:15 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:42 -0500
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:51 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:45 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:54 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:10 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 20:16 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 22:12 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 21:20 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:15 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:26 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:35 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 18:20 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-04 09:01 -0500
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:55 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:11 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:01 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:32 +0200
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-05 17:11 -0700
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 -0400
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 14:44 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 18:19 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:01 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:30 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 17:31 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:30 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:57 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 14:51 -0400
                                  Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 23:18 +0000
                                    Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-07-04 08:24 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:20 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 16:15 -0400
                            Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:55 +0000
                              Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:35 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 11:22 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-03 12:33 -0500
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:57 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-04 15:47 -0500
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:24 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:31 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:10 -0400
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:47 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 21:56 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 00:44 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 00:55 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:21 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 11:39 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:21 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:06 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 13:53 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:02 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 01:16 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:35 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 23:23 -0400
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 00:07 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:20 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 13:37 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:22 -0400
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:59 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 14:49 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-04 10:00 -0700
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:42 -0400
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:52 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-07-05 22:59 -0400
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 06:44 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 09:45 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:14 +0300
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:04 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 07:49 -0700
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:26 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 21:53 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 -0400
                  Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:05 +0100
                    Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:05 +0000
                      Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
                      Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +0100
                        Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 12:03 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:43 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:39 +0000
                    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:40 +0000
                    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:42 +0000
                      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:53 +0100
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 15:20 -0400
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:50 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-04 16:28 -0500
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:37 +0100
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:13 +0100
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 06:36 -0400
                                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:37 +0100
                                  Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                                    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:12 +0100
                                      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0200
                                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 19:52 +0100
                                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0200
                                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:30 +0100
                                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:51 +0000
                                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0100
                                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:32 +0100
                                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:44 +0000
                                      Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0000
                                        Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                          Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 15:01 +0000
                                            Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
                                      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:49 -0400
                                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 10:45 +0100
                                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-06 12:05 +0200
                                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 11:41 +0100
                                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 08:59 -0400
                                      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                                  Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:00 +0200
                                  Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:46 -0400
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:56 +0000
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:52 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:25 +0000
                          Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:10 +0100
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:35 -0500
                                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-05 16:33 +0000
                                  Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:16 +0000
                                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:05 +0100
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:12 +0000
                                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 21:49 +0000
                                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-06 06:12 -0500
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:51 -0600
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:05 +0100
                      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-04 23:04 +0300
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 20:35 +0000
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:54 +0000
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:49 +0000
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-04 21:54 +0100
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0300
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:40 -0500
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-05 18:51 +0100
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0300
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:21 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:28 +0100
                        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:38 +0000
                          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:53 +0100
                            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-04 14:52 -0600
                              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 17:22 -0400
                    Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:35 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:50 -0400
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:00 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:03 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 23:37 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 20:43 -0400
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:05 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:07 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-14 10:20 -0700
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:16 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-15 08:01 -0500
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 13:06 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 14:26 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 03:24 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 08:43 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:11 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 07:56 -0700
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-02 10:30 -0500
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 16:50 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 17:21 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 16:58 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 11:52 -0700
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-02 06:23 -0500
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:02 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:09 -0400
        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:01 +0100
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:09 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:29 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:30 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:57 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:14 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 08:36 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:25 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:22 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 22:33 -0400
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:24 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:02 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 12:02 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:38 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:35 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:36 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:02 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:32 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:00 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-18 18:14 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-18 12:25 -0500
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:11 -0400
        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:04 +0100
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:26 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:43 -0500
          Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:48 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:50 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:08 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:42 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:50 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:52 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-07-01 20:28 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-01 20:21 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-01 23:10 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-01 22:35 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:35 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:53 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 11:24 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 11:21 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-02 12:39 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:01 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 13:51 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:32 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-02 19:51 -0700
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:39 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:36 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 18:56 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:14 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 15:28 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:23 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 17:35 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 19:48 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 15:01 -0400
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:25 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 13:17 -0700
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:24 +1000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:29 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 12:09 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-05 17:38 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 18:23 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:30 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:29 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 23:07 +0200
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 12:45 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 09:05 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 13:52 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 07:37 -0700
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 08:51 -0700
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 00:26 -0500
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:12 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-04 12:47 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:43 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 18:40 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 09:14 -0400
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 13:00 -0400
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:46 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 14:59 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 14:08 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:27 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:34 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 16:57 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:23 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:06 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:17 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:42 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:17 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:10 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:18 +0200
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:28 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:53 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:34 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 14:45 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 16:27 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 11:53 -0400
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:33 +0200
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:30 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-08 12:18 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:38 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:19 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 14:22 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:30 +0200
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:25 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:51 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-07 07:47 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 23:41 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-09 00:46 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 12:51 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 13:05 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 14:12 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:21 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 19:35 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:55 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:40 -0400
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-09 09:02 -0700
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:28 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:13 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:25 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 16:39 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2016-07-09 16:56 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 16:30 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:43 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 21:52 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 18:25 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:53 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 20:55 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-10 12:06 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 14:05 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-11 11:32 +0000
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0400
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:57 +0100
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 16:01 +0000
                                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:27 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:46 +0000
                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 18:00 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 18:39 +0000
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:44 +0000
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:59 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-12 01:47 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:48 +0200
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 06:34 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:34 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 15:46 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:23 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:49 -0500
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:04 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:20 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:43 +0200
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 19:30 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:19 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:48 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 15:30 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:36 +0200
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-08 20:43 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-06 00:28 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:32 +0200
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:20 +0100
    Re: Is it a lost cause? Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2016-06-13 20:07 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:42 +0200
      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:43 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:12 +0000
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:17 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:31 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
    Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:44 +0100
    Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 20:29 +0000
      Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:48 -0400
        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 08:11 +0100
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:49 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:14 +0000
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:23 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:33 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:46 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 10:22 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:36 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:01 +0100
                          OT was Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-14 12:09 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:59 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:30 -0400
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:21 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:51 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-14 15:24 -0700
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 17:07 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:14 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:45 +0200
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:34 -0400
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:44 +0200
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:21 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:15 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:42 +0200
                  Symbolics [Re: Is it a lost cause?] colonel_hack@yahoo.com - 2016-06-15 17:08 -0700
                Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:05 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:10 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:29 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:41 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:42 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:29 +0000
        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:47 +0100
          Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:24 -0400
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:37 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:42 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 13:53 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:20 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> - 2016-06-14 08:35 -0700
          Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:45 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:18 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 15:57 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:03 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:36 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:40 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:02 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:13 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:59 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:19 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 21:58 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:15 +0100
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:23 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 10:01 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:40 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 12:19 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:37 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:19 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:39 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:53 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:17 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:50 +0300
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:59 +1000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:06 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:50 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 19:44 +1000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:55 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 11:49 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:31 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:29 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-15 18:20 +0200
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:27 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:58 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-16 07:38 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 08:59 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:30 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:34 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-16 07:49 -0500
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-17 12:26 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 13:06 +0000
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:10 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 20:11 +0100
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Hall <sweet_stevie@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 19:42 +0000
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:54 +0100
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:48 +0000
                                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:07 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:16 +0000
                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:40 +0100
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +0000
                                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:10 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-19 13:31 +0000
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:05 -0500
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 19:04 -0700
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-16 09:37 -0700
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:42 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:55 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +1000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:18 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:47 +1000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:53 +0100
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 22:37 +0100
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-16 09:49 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:23 +0100
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:55 +1000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +1000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 16:24 +0000
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-17 18:53 +0100
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-17 20:05 -0700
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 12:27 -0500
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:29 -0500
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:35 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 19:54 -0400
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:15 +0200
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 10:32 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:05 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:52 -0700
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:32 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-18 17:36 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 09:08 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:47 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:26 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 13:58 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:52 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:53 +0200
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0400
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:45 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 09:53 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 11:02 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 11:13 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-06-18 15:19 +0200
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:35 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:50 +0200
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:58 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 19:09 +0200
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:11 +0200
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:13 +0300
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 14:40 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:56 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0300
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:49 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:25 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:04 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:31 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:31 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-19 21:49 +0300
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-20 07:41 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:49 -0400
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:54 +0100
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:55 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:24 -0400
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-19 14:13 -0500
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 22:12 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-19 19:24 -0400
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:27 -0400
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 11:25 +0000
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 12:10 +0000
                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 17:24 +0000
                                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:29 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 17:57 +0000
                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:18 +0100
                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0300
                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 18:38 +0000
                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:57 +0100
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:25 +0000
                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:17 +0100
                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:41 +0000
                                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:52 +0100
                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:02 +0300
                                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:01 -0400
                                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-03 13:50 -0400
                                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:11 +0100
                                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 23:05 +0000
                                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 07:05 +0100
                                                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:56 +0200
                                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 12:54 +0100
                                                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 13:14 +0100
                                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 16:19 +0100
                                                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:51 +0100
                                                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-04 01:12 -0400
                                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0000
                                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 19:04 -0400
                                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-21 06:16 +0000
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:01 +0000
                                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 21:29 +0100
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 13:37 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:29 -0400
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 06:25 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-20 06:57 +0000
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 10:09 +0300
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-20 08:31 -0500
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-20 13:50 -0500
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:43 -0400
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:07 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:47 +0200
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:38 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:52 -0400
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:55 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:58 -0500
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:07 +0000
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:27 +0000
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:06 +0200
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:31 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:17 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:47 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-19 12:13 +0200
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 08:10 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-19 10:59 +0000
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 18:13 +0100
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-06-21 03:09 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 19:59 +0100
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-17 17:40 +0000
                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
                          Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 22:25 -0400
                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 10:56 -0400
                              Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 19:00 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 19:33 -0400
                                Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:46 +0100
                                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 10:51 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 12:30 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-19 13:03 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 16:32 +0000
                                        Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 17:17 +0000
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:19 +0100
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 07:53 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 18:44 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-19 21:08 +0100
                                          Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 11:16 +0000
                                            Re: Is it a lost cause? David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-20 15:26 +0100
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 16:44 +0100
                                              Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:07 +0000
                                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:35 +0100
                                      Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 19:33 +0000
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:34 -0400
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:12 +0200
                      Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:33 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:23 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 14:15 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:50 +0100
            Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:07 +0100
              Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:45 +0000
                Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:51 +0100
                  Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:58 +0100
                    Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 08:41 +0000
      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:46 +0100
        Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:31 -0400
    Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 12:08 +0100
      Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:36 +0100
    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:31 +0000
      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0000
        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 15:42 +0000
          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:54 +0000
            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:33 +0000
              Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:14 +0000
                Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:19 +0000
    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:42 +0000
    Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:47 +0000
    Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 17:55 -0400
      Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 02:46 +0000
        Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:58 +0100
          Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 07:54 -0700
            Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:43 -0700
          Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:57 -0400
            Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-05 16:06 +0000
              Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:05 -0400
                Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 13:24 -0500
                  Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:29 -0400
                    Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
                Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:31 +0000
                  Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 15:32 -0400
                    Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
                      Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 22:36 -0400
                        Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:14 +0000
                        Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 07:59 +0000
                  Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
                    Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
                Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:57 +0000
          Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:16 +0000
            Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:38 -0700
      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dennis <dennis@none.none> - 2016-07-04 19:55 -0500
        Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-05 12:46 -0500
          Re: 360 architecture, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0000
          Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
            Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:20 +0000
      Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000

Page 18 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 40  Next page →


#12251

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-02 10:36 +0100
Message-ID<nl81vj$i67$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12242
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> says...
>>
>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>> > I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and RPG3
>>
>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
>
> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
> really have little touch with reality.

Commercial programming has always been for people who are
out of touch with the realities of computing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12304

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-07-02 18:56 -0400
Message-ID<nl9gqf$ii1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12251
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:

> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>>> > I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and RPG3
>>>
>>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
>>
>> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
>> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
>> really have little touch with reality.
>
> Commercial programming has always been for people who are
> out of touch with the realities of computing.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/349310514822808245/

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12307

From"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-02 19:14 -0400
Message-ID<MPG.31e214ef7a5177d398a307@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#12304
In article <nl9gqf$ii1$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
> 
> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
> 
> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> > news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
> >>> > I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and RPG3
> >>>
> >>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
> >>
> >> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
> >> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
> >> really have little touch with reality.
> >
> > Commercial programming has always been for people who are
> > out of touch with the realities of computing.
> 
> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/349310514822808245/

+1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12348

Fromalister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
Date2016-07-03 15:28 +0000
Message-ID<naaez.1430977$z63.1275508@fx42.am4>
In reply to#12251
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:36:47 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>>> > I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and
>>> > RPG3
>>>
>>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
>>
>> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
>> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
>> really have little touch with reality.
> 
> Commercial programming has always been for people who are out of touch
> with the realities of computing.

what stupidity
Commercial programming is the raison d etre for programming.
anything else is just playing



-- 
You will be misunderstood by everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12357

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2016-07-03 17:23 +0100
Message-ID<nlbe4o$tks$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#12348
On 03/07/16 16:28, alister wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:36:47 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and
>>>>> RPG3
>>>>
>>>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
>>>
>>> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
>>> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
>>> really have little touch with reality.
>>
>> Commercial programming has always been for people who are out of touch
>> with the realities of computing.
>
> what stupidity
> Commercial programming is the raison d etre for programming.
> anything else is just playing
>
>
>
Now Now! stop trolling

In the days when computers cost half a bananas republic's GDP, that 
might have been the case.



-- 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have 
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12363

Fromalister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
Date2016-07-03 17:35 +0000
Message-ID<I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4>
In reply to#12357
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 17:23:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 03/07/16 16:28, alister wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:36:47 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.31e0bb1788ff429a98a2f2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> In article <nl6pp0$6m4$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:nl6jcj$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> I've successfully designed and written systems in COBOL, PL/1 and
>>>>>> RPG3
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple systems for consumerist programmers
>>>>
>>>> If you think that the accounting system for a Fortune 100 financial
>>>> services company is a "simple system for consumerist programmers" you
>>>> really have little touch with reality.
>>>
>>> Commercial programming has always been for people who are out of touch
>>> with the realities of computing.
>>
>> what stupidity Commercial programming is the raison d etre for
>> programming. anything else is just playing
>>
>>
>>
> Now Now! stop trolling
> 
> In the days when computers cost half a bananas republic's GDP, that
> might have been the case.

me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling 
comment) about commercial programming.

Oh and for clarity my definition of commercial programming is anything in 
a business environment so:-

software packages to run on users computers (windows, Mac, Linux, OS9, 
Amigaos, Flex even C64 and BBC Micro
Operating systems for new computers
Firmware for embedded micro-controllers in products.
Computer games

I also do not rule out Open Source, if the individuals or groups are 
running them in a business like way.

Playing is the sort of hacking I now do at home for my on self 
gratification & education.



-- 
Houston, Tranquillity Base here.  The Eagle has landed.
		-- Neil Armstrong

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12367

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-03 19:48 +0100
Message-ID<nlbmm3$rru$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12363
"alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>
> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
> comment) about commercial programming.

There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data 
processing
is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time 
systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12370

FromLew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca>
Date2016-07-03 15:01 -0400
Message-ID<Gidez.20012$Lh7.8754@fx30.iad>
In reply to#12367
On Sunday July 3 2016 14:48, in comp.sys.raspberry-pi, "gareth G4SDW GQRP
#3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>>
>> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
>> comment) about commercial programming.
> 
> There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data
> processing
> is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time
> systems.

Hmmmm......  I worked as a programmer/analyst/architect in a financial
institution for about 30 years, and I recall working on
- a real-time system to read MICR data from cheques, determine a physical
action to execute based on that data and data retrieved from multiple IMS and
DB2 databases, and then execute the physical action on a MICR sorter, all in
the milliseconds that it took a cheque to travel the (minimum) 2 metres from
read-head to first stacker module,
- an IMS & DB2 based Online Banking system that guaranteed sub-second response
time for all financial and inquiry tansactions to well over 10000 active
VTAM-supported terminals spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific in Canada,
down the eastern seaboard in the US, and in many foreign countries (such as
Japan, England, Spain, etc.)
- a VTAM/TCPIP/MQSeries-based data transport (that, for reasons beyond my
paygrade was written in COBOL) that moved financial transactions between
internal mainframe systems, external mainframe systems, customer-based
mainframe systems, and our internal web services, again with sub-second
response time.

Don't even try to tell me that "commercial data processing" is
for "second-rate" programmers, because to do real-time processing on millions
of dollars per transaction requires a finesse that you probably will never
get from your run-of-the-mill "real-time systems".

-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12373

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-03 20:25 +0100
Message-ID<nlboqj$3vr$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12370
"Lew Pitcher" <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote in message 
news:Gidez.20012$Lh7.8754@fx30.iad...
> On Sunday July 3 2016 14:48, in comp.sys.raspberry-pi, "gareth G4SDW GQRP
> #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>>> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
>>> comment) about commercial programming.
>> There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data
>> processing
>> is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time
>> systems.
> Hmmmm......  I worked as a programmer/analyst/architect in a financial
> institution for about 30 years, and I recall working on
> - a real-time system to read MICR data from cheques, determine a physical
> action to execute based on that data and data retrieved from multiple IMS 
> and
> DB2 databases, and then execute the physical action on a MICR sorter, all 
> in
> the milliseconds that it took a cheque to travel the (minimum) 2 metres 
> from
> read-head to first stacker module,
> - an IMS & DB2 based Online Banking system that guaranteed sub-second 
> response
> time for all financial and inquiry tansactions to well over 10000 active
> VTAM-supported terminals spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 
> Canada,
> down the eastern seaboard in the US, and in many foreign countries (such 
> as
> Japan, England, Spain, etc.)
> - a VTAM/TCPIP/MQSeries-based data transport (that, for reasons beyond my
> paygrade was written in COBOL) that moved financial transactions between
> internal mainframe systems, external mainframe systems, customer-based
> mainframe systems, and our internal web services, again with sub-second
> response time.
> Don't even try to tell me that "commercial data processing" is
> for "second-rate" programmers, because to do real-time processing on 
> millions
> of dollars per transaction requires a finesse that you probably will never
> get from your run-of-the-mill "real-time systems".

Despite what you say, all the above looks fairly run-of-the-mill COBOL
and data processing. What real-time programming did you do in the way
of device drivers, for example?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12376

FromAnne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Date2016-07-03 13:17 -0700
Message-ID<878txieasu.fsf@garlic.com>
In reply to#12370
Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> writes:
> - an IMS & DB2 based Online Banking system that guaranteed sub-second response
> time for all financial and inquiry tansactions to well over 10000 active
> VTAM-supported terminals spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific in Canada,
> down the eastern seaboard in the US, and in many foreign countries (such as
> Japan, England, Spain, etc.)
> - a VTAM/TCPIP/MQSeries-based data transport (that, for reasons beyond my
> paygrade was written in COBOL) that moved financial transactions between
> internal mainframe systems, external mainframe systems, customer-based
> mainframe systems, and our internal web services, again with sub-second
> response time.

IMS originally done DBMS for apollo program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_System

IMS group was later moved to STL (since renamed silicon valley lab).
Original sql/relational was System/R done on vm370 370/145 at
san jose research ... some past posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr

The followon to IMS DBMS was suppose to be EAGLE ... and while
the corporation was preoccupied with EAGLE, it was possible to
do tech transfer to Endicott for release as SQL/DS. Later when
EAGLE imploded, they asked how fast would it take to port
relational to MVS ... which is eventually released as DB2, originally
for analytical & decision support *ONLY*).

Along the way Jim Gray left IBM Research for Tandem ... and was palming
stuff on to me ... consulting with the IMS group ... and helping support
Bank of America ... an early System/R customer.

I've mentioned this reference to meeting in Ellison's conference room
Jan1992 on HA/CMP cluster scaleup. The Oracel senior VP in the meeting
would periodically tell the story that he did the SQL/DS tech transfer
from Endicott to STL for DB2
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13

Along the way, the (mainframe) DB2 group was complaining if I was
allowed to continue, it would be *at least* 5yrs ahead of anything
they were doing. Within a few weeks of the Ellison meeting, cluster
scaleup was transferred, announced as IBM supercomputer and we
were told that we couldn't work on anything with more than
four processors.

old cluster scaleup email around Jan1992 period
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa

ha/cmp posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp

a little x-over with this post in the thread
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#97 Is it a lost cause?

my wife was in the JES group and worked on loosely-coupled JES2 & JES3
(co-author of JESUS which specified how to combine all the necessary
features of JES2 & JES3 into single product ... which never
happened). She was then con'ed into going to POK to be the (mainframe)
loosely-coupled architect (mainframe for cluster). While there
she did peer-coupled shared data architecture ... some past
posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata

she didn't remain long because 1) little uptake (except for IMS
hotstandby until SYSPLEX and Parallel SYSPLEX) and 2) communication
group was constantly trying to force her into using SNA/VTAM for
loosely-coupled operation.

In the mid-80s, IMS hot-standby got really interested in the
SNA/NCP/VTAM emulator work. The problem was that while IMS hot-standby
could fall over in minutes, VTAM session restart time (on the standby
processor) grew non-linear, 20+k terminals could take 90mins elapsed
time. It was straight-forward for the SNA/NCP/VTAM emulation to maintain
(active) shadow sessions on the IMS standby processor so take-over for
everything was a couple of minutes (instead of an hour or more).

note that in the late70/early80s, there was a lot of work on subsecond
interactive response. YKT research was touting they had the best
online systems in the company with avg. quarter second system response.
The issue was that local channel-attached 3272 controlers with
3277 terminals had .086 hardware response. To get quarter second
human response, needed .164 system response. I had a number of
online systems with 90th precentile .11 sec trivial system
response ... for .196 second human response ... old post
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19

problem was that the replacement for 3272/3277 was 3274/3278 ... where
they had moved a lot of electronics out of the terminal head back into
the (shared) controller ... and hardware response tended to be betweeen
.283 to .530 seconds (for best case, fastest, direct channel attached
3274 controller) ... making it impossible to achieve quarter second
response seen by the human user. We made complaints to the 3274 about
the worse human factors for 3274/3278 ... and were eventually told that
3274/3278 wasn't designed for interactive computing ... but for "data
entry".

past posts mentioning Thadhani publishing studies on showing improved human
productivity with .25sec (or better) response (seen by human).
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#53 3270 Terminal
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#84 Is there an SPF setting to turn CAPS ON like keyboard key?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#12 Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#13 From Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#15 Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#2 The PC industry is heading for collapse
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#19 Writing article on telework/telecommuting
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#15 cp67, vm370, etc
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#37 Why File transfer through TSO IND$FILE is slower than TCP/IP FTP ?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#37 PDP-10 and Vax, was System/360--50 years--the future?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#1 3270 response & channel throughput
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#55 Dualcase vs monocase. Was: Article for the boss
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#44 System Response
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#127 How Much Bandwidth do we have?
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#4 You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY")
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#8 You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY")


-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12514

FromGordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid>
Date2016-07-06 01:24 +1000
Message-ID<h9knnbttaef3u0m1hfmhjuhphb2la2ebti@4ax.com>
In reply to#12367
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

>"alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
>news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>>
>> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
>> comment) about commercial programming.
>
>There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data 
>processing
>is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time 
>systems.

You seem confused between the application and the implementation. Most
real-time systems are commercial. You might be excused because you
obviously formed your ideas forty years ago except that, even then,
many banks and stock exchanges were implementing bespoke real-time
systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12515

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-05 16:29 +0100
Message-ID<nlgjod$nkm$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12514
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message 
news:h9knnbttaef3u0m1hfmhjuhphb2la2ebti@4ax.com...
> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data
>>processing
>>is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time
>>systems.
>
> You seem confused between the application and the implementation.

There is no confusion between those who understand how the computer
really works, the SEAL / SAS analogy, and those who do not and
are consumerist programmers, the ordinary squaddie analogy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12522

FromDan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
Date2016-07-05 12:09 -0400
Message-ID<nlgm30$tkd$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12515
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:

> "Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:h9knnbttaef3u0m1hfmhjuhphb2la2ebti@4ax.com...
>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data
>>>processing
>>>is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time
>>>systems.
>>
>> You seem confused between the application and the implementation.
>
> There is no confusion between those who understand how the computer
> really works, the SEAL / SAS analogy, and those who do not and
> are consumerist programmers, the ordinary squaddie analogy.

I suppose this is like candidates looking at the size of their hands.

I've done lots of bare metal stuff and lots of application
development.  Usually, bare metal impresses the programmers
that have never done it.

Other than that, it's just writing code.  You have to design it,
deals with lots of cases, code it, test it.

Your assertion that real-time experience somehow makes you special
is wrong.  Oh, did I mention that it's also insulting?
It's great to be special, but if you have to push someone else
down to get there, you are fooling yourself.
There are lots of genius application developers.
Find some other way to feel good about yourself.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12524

FromRob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
Date2016-07-05 17:38 +0100
Message-ID<20160705173857.31a743c2@Mars>
In reply to#12522
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:09:03 -0400
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Find some other way to feel good about yourself.

Where should he go if he's not allowed obnoxious behaviour in
newsgroups?  Standing on a roundabout shouting at passing cars?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12530

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-07-05 18:23 +0100
Message-ID<20160705182313.0818f233a733d6db87e011e3@eircom.net>
In reply to#12524
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:38:57 +0100
Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:09:03 -0400
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > Find some other way to feel good about yourself.
> 
> Where should he go if he's not allowed obnoxious behaviour in
> newsgroups?  Standing on a roundabout shouting at passing cars?

Long walk, short pier perhaps.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12531

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-05 18:30 +0100
Message-ID<nlgqrd$j10$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12524
"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:20160705173857.31a743c2@Mars...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:09:03 -0400
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Find some other way to feel good about yourself.
>
> Where should he go if he's not allowed obnoxious behaviour in
> newsgroups?  Standing on a roundabout shouting at passing cars?

There's nothing obnoxious about me. You. however, amy well
be a different matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12597

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Message-ID<PM000536F75EE778FC@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#12531
gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20160705173857.31a743c2@Mars...
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:09:03 -0400
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Find some other way to feel good about yourself.
>>
>> Where should he go if he's not allowed obnoxious behaviour in
>> newsgroups?  Standing on a roundabout shouting at passing cars?
>
> There's nothing obnoxious about me.

[emoticon wiping coffee off TTY screen]

You remind me of Cutler but he was able to work on more
than embedded apps.

> You. however, amy well
> be a different matter.

I disagree.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12529

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-07-05 18:29 +0100
Message-ID<nlgqpt$ina$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#12522
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:nlgm30$tkd$2@dont-email.me...
> Your assertion that real-time experience somehow makes you special
> is wrong.

I have never made such a claim. Are you making this up as you go along?

>  Oh, did I mention that it's also insulting?

No-one can insult you unless you give your full approval to be insulted

> It's great to be special, but if you have to push someone else
> down to get there, you are fooling yourself.

I'm not putting anyone down; merely observing that as in
all walks of life there are different degrees of competence.

> Find some other way to feel good about yourself.

Perhaps you talk about yourself , there?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12577

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-07-05 23:07 +0200
Message-ID<16kt4d-oqd.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#12514
In article <h9knnbttaef3u0m1hfmhjuhphb2la2ebti@4ax.com>,
Gordon Levi  <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
>"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
>>news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>>>
>>> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
>>> comment) about commercial programming.
>>
>>There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data 
>>processing
>>is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time 
>>systems.
>
>You seem confused between the application and the implementation. Most
>real-time systems are commercial. You might be excused because you
>obviously formed your ideas forty years ago except that, even then,
>many banks and stock exchanges were implementing bespoke real-time
>systems.

Yep, was there. In 1987 we had a cardinal rule that every price
transaction was to pass through all systems and be delivered to 
all recipients within 300 milliseconds. This was a hard limit.
Exchange to close if we couldn't cope.

300 ms is evidently the lower limit of the human reaction time 
that can bring oscillations into such  machine-human loop.

So this was audited.

We also were to not have any prioritisation among recipients, 
randomly selecting distribution order without bias. This was
also audited.

So, we not only had a real-time system, we had another real-time
system to audit the first one, and a third one to match the first
one for correctness.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#12592

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-07-06 12:45 +0000
Message-ID<B37fz.17612$%K5.7855@fx37.iad>
In reply to#12577
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>In article <h9knnbttaef3u0m1hfmhjuhphb2la2ebti@4ax.com>,
>Gordon Levi  <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
>>"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>"alister" <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:I1cez.1247044$2o6.298568@fx34.am4...
>>>>
>>>> me trolling, it was Gareth that made the stupid derogatory (& trolling
>>>> comment) about commercial programming.
>>>
>>>There is neither stupidity nor trolling to assert that commercial data 
>>>processing
>>>is simple and sanitised for second-rank programmers compared to real-time 
>>>systems.
>>
>>You seem confused between the application and the implementation. Most
>>real-time systems are commercial. You might be excused because you
>>obviously formed your ideas forty years ago except that, even then,
>>many banks and stock exchanges were implementing bespoke real-time
>>systems.
>
>Yep, was there. In 1987 we had a cardinal rule that every price
>transaction was to pass through all systems and be delivered to 
>all recipients within 300 milliseconds. This was a hard limit.
>Exchange to close if we couldn't cope.

In 1980, the burroughs B4955 would run ten MICR reader-sorters,
each at 2500 dpm (documents per minute).   The flow path between the
read-head and the pocket-select station was very short, if the host
didn't select the pocket in 10 milliseconds, the check would miss the
select station and processing would stop with a "too late to pocket select".

When the host was running the full ten sorters, it had about 2 milliseconds
to process the MICR line and select the destination pocket for the
document - stopages were discouraged as one could cost a bank hundreds
of thousands in float.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 18 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 40  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi


csiph-web