Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #11730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 788 — 65 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
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 4 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 40 Next page →
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njsdi5$glo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11956 |
"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message news:dsdr5eFkqbiU43@mid.individual.net... > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:03:12 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: >>> >>> IIRC, it was a three-way branch: one line reference for < 0, another >>> reference for == 0 and the third for > 0. This matches well for the >>> machine code of early IBM machines, such as 1620. >> >> ISTR it was called the computed goto in FORTRAN 66 > > Wrong. > Pause for thought.... after all it was 45 years ago... Arithmetic IF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 03:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mdWdneUpd4Wajv_KnZ2dnUU78K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
On 15/06/2016 21:03, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: > "Tauno Voipio" <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> wrote in message > news:njs2ma$687$1@dont-email.me... >> On 15.6.16 17:37, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 15/06/2016 13:28, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:10:03 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>>> >>>>> PLAN is an Assembler. >>>>> >>>> Correct -and that (plus a bit of FIND-2) is what we wrote commercial >>>> systems in at that time. These ranged from payrolls and accounts through >>>> a magazine wholesaler's delivery, billing and stock management system. >>>> >>>>> The ICL 1900's lack of a compare instruction suggest it was >>>>> designed for FORTRAN II. >>>>> >>>> Why do you say that? >>>> The various conditional jump and looping instructions did all I needed >>>> them to do. >>>> >>>> >>> FORTRAN II has conditional jumps. >> >> >> IIRC, it was a three-way branch: one line reference for < 0, another >> reference for == 0 and the third for > 0. This matches well for the >> machine code of early IBM machines, such as 1620. > > ISTR it was called the computed goto in FORTRAN 66 > > But 45 years since I last used it! > > FORTRAN II did have the computed goto but the three way branch was the arithmetic IF.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nla2bd$b1k$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #11955 |
>>> FORTRAN II has conditional jumps.
>> IIRC, it was a three-way branch: one line reference for < 0, another
>> reference for == 0 and the third for > 0.
FORTRAN has several test and GOTO variations as the language evolved
1) arithmetic if
citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_IF
IF (expression) negative,zero,positive
example:
if (foo - bar) 100,200,300
2) The "computed goto" is FORTRAN's idea of a 'switch' statement,
complete with drop-thru from case to case!
citing https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/805-4939/6j4m0vn9l/index.html
GO TO ( 10, 20, 30, 40 ), N
C drop thru for N<1 or N > 4
...
10 CONTINUE
...
20 CONTINUE
...
30 CONTINUE
...
40 CONTINUE
3) assigned goto (precursor to setjmp/longjump?)
citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto
Fortran also had an assigned goto variant
that transfers control to a statement label (line number)
which is stored in (assigned to) an integer variable.
assign 200 to i
...
goto i
4) and at long last, the logical IF
if (i .gt. 5) i=5
-- jeffj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nlagt2$ugl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12315 |
On 3.7.16 06:55, Jeff Jonas wrote: >>>> FORTRAN II has conditional jumps. > >>> IIRC, it was a three-way branch: one line reference for < 0, another >>> reference for == 0 and the third for > 0. > > FORTRAN has several test and GOTO variations as the language evolved > > > 1) arithmetic if > > citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_IF > IF (expression) negative,zero,positive > > example: > if (foo - bar) 100,200,300 > > > 2) The "computed goto" is FORTRAN's idea of a 'switch' statement, > complete with drop-thru from case to case! > > citing https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/805-4939/6j4m0vn9l/index.html > > GO TO ( 10, 20, 30, 40 ), N > C drop thru for N<1 or N > 4 > ... > 10 CONTINUE > ... > 20 CONTINUE > ... > 30 CONTINUE > ... > 40 CONTINUE > > > 3) assigned goto (precursor to setjmp/longjump?) > > citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto > Fortran also had an assigned goto variant > that transfers control to a statement label (line number) > which is stored in (assigned to) an integer variable. > > assign 200 to i > ... > goto i > > > 4) and at long last, the logical IF > if (i .gt. 5) i=5 > > -- jeffj Right, but it's off-topic for Fortran II. The additional forms started with Fortran IV. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vg7inb5jbp1nib25ha95tkm8grb2p7rqga@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12315 |
On 2 Jul 2016 23:55:25 -0400, jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) declaimed the
following:
>
>3) assigned goto (precursor to setjmp/longjump?)
>
>citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto
> Fortran also had an assigned goto variant
> that transfers control to a statement label (line number)
> which is stored in (assigned to) an integer variable.
>
> assign 200 to i
> ...
> goto i
>
With a compiler that permitted returning the assigned label via
parameters in subroutine call, this permitted implementation of coroutines
with a master. My manuals are in storage, so I can't provide the full
syntax. Essentially, the subroutine would perform an ASSIGN for where it
should continue on the next invocation, and return that to the master which
could then save it in an array or whatever, and move on to the next
subroutine, providing its last saved continuation point.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 12:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dsd0scFkqbiU37@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11909 |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:10:03 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 15/06/2016 11:53, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:53:54 +0000, Bob Eager wrote: >> >>> It was really designed for FORTRAN and COBOL, and stacks were in their >>> infancy in the business environment. >>> >> Are you sure? When I joined ICL's service bureau in Wellington, NZ in >> 1968 FORTRAN and ALGOL 60 compilers were there and in use, but all out >> commercial stuff was written in PLAN3 and it wasn't until a couple of >> years later that the bureau staff learned COBOL en mass and started >> using it in place of PLAN. However, I don't know if the reason that we >> weren't using COBOL in 1968 was because we were behind the times or >> because ICL wasn't pushing it any earlier. >> >> > PLAN is an Assembler. The ICL 1900's lack of a compare instruction > suggest it was designed for FORTRAN II. (digs out PLAN programming card from March 1965) TXU (026) and TXL (027) look like comparison instructions to me. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1622866874.487684743.630425.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #11856 |
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:54:51 -0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie > <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> declaimed the following: > >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:14:30 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: >> >>> Interesting... I found the 8080/Z80 chips clean and direct. Maybe >>> because my college mainframe was a Xerox Sigma 6 with its "LD" and "ST" >>> instructions (LD,<reg> <mem> vs ST,<reg> <mem> -- though <mem> 0..15 >>> mapped to the registers). >>> >> That sounds very like the ICL 1900 mainframes where I first >> learnt assembler (I'd previously learnt Algol 60 at uni). The 1900 only >> had two hardware registers, which held datum and limit addresses for the >> active program. Programs were a contiguous block of memory - task >> switching was done by changing datum and limit to point at the next >> program to run. Each program had its own register set because they were >> the first 8 words of each program, with word +8 being the PC and, since >> all addresses in a program were relative to datum, programs could be >> swapped in, out or moved in memory very simply. >> > Sigma task switch was done via an "eXchange Program Status Doubleword", > which held the new program counter value, condition codes, and (for > expanded machines) an indicator for which bank of registers to activate > (apparently one could add multiple 16-register banks to the processor). > > No standard stack register -- though one could dedicate a register to > do stack operations, the common (FORTRAN/non-recursive) paradigm turned > into indirect references via subroutine link register (also not a dedicated > register, one specified the link register in the call instruction). > Arguments were passed by... > > call,<lr> <subroutine> > data <address of first argument> > data <address of second argument> > ... > > subroutines would then copy the addresses by indexing off the <lr>, ending > by incrementing the <lr> by the number of arguments. > > Sigmas were (in)famous for having something like 224 interrupt vectors > (when IBM 360/370 only had 7 and had to poll to determine which device > interrupted). Each interrupt vector basically held a program status > doubleword, so an exchange PSD made for fast response. The machines aimed at doing real-time processing in addition to timeshating, batch etc. Except for the 360/44 IBM never (afaik) pursued this market for System/360 (computers from 1710 thru 1800 and System/7 were aimed there) Sigmas had multiple register banks so that you could have one dedicated to the OS, one for background, and still dedicate some to real-time tasks. > > The "big" assembler for them didn't even have a hard-coded instruction > set... Programs started with a "system ..." declaration which basically > loaded a macro definition file for all the opcodes. Out of boredom one day, > I wrote a "system" file that would generate absolute 8080 code. (I forget > the instruction format declaration but something like: > > MOV S:SIN,2,3,3 x'01',AF(1),AF(2) > > "Form an instruction with three fields sized 2-bit, 3-bit, 3-bit using > constant x01 for first, argument field 1 for second, argument field 2 for > third" (also had LF and CF for label and command field -- presuming one had > defined constants for the 8080 registers the above made > > MOV H,B > > a valid instruction to the assembler)) I never played much with the "meta" features of Meta-symbol. Off-topic I discovered that SDS originated Meta-symbol on 9-Series machines. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 04:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl7uhs$3om$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #11856 |
> Sigmas were (in)famous for having something like 224 interrupt vectors That's the tip of the iceberg. What was the I/O hierarchy? The 360 used channel controllers to device controllers, a far cry from each device going direct to the main bus. The Z80 (in interrupt mode 2: native chip support) received a 7 bit interrupt vector from the interrupting device, thus 128 vectors. But many chips generated multiple interrupts. A dual serial chip used the lowest 3 bits for "status alters vector": - one bit for channel A or B - 2 bits for receive, transmit, status or other change so that means there's really only 4 unique bits per interface chip for a maximum of 16. > (when IBM 360/370 only had 7 and had to poll to determine which device > interrupted). I'm not up on that part of the 360/370 but I thought the "sense interrupt" gave a status word on who interrupted. I'm more familiar with the IBM 1130. There were 6 vectored interrupts but each interrupt supports a 16 bit register for sharing it among devices. XIO "sense interrupt" loaded the per-interrupt status word: each device set its assigned bit if it wanted attention. The bit order determined the relative priority of devices at the same interrupt level. Very deterministic and quick. No polling or searching. The "shift left and count" instruction quickly located the most significant bit set in the status word. No need to test bit by bit. Kinda like a software priority encoder. Intel now has LZCNT: Count the Number of Leading Zero Bits which is a C/C++ Compiler Intrinsic! And the older Intel instructions BSF and BSR - Bit Scan Forward/Reverse. > Each interrupt vector basically held a program status > doubleword, so an exchange PSD made for fast response. I vaguely recall the 360 having PSWs for handling interrupts, unsure about alternate register sets. -- jeffj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iovfnbt1egmcnkm8ouie3uqrgb8k3j64kr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12247 |
On 2 Jul 2016 04:38:20 -0400, jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) declaimed the
following:
>> Sigmas were (in)famous for having something like 224 interrupt vectors
>
>That's the tip of the iceberg.
>What was the I/O hierarchy?
>The 360 used channel controllers to device controllers,
>a far cry from each device going direct to the main bus.
>
Sigma: four-bank, four-port, interleaved memory, allowed CPU and three
I/O Processors to chase each other through memory. IOPs came in two types
SIOP and MIOP (it's been too long, I don't recall if SIOPs were used with
tape-drives, and MIOPs with disks and other random devices)
>I'm not up on that part of the 360/370
>but I thought the "sense interrupt"
>gave a status word on who interrupted.
>
>I'm more familiar with the IBM 1130.
>There were 6 vectored interrupts
>but each interrupt supports a 16 bit register for sharing it among devices.
>XIO "sense interrupt" loaded the per-interrupt status word:
>each device set its assigned bit if it wanted attention.
>The bit order determined the relative priority of devices
>at the same interrupt level.
>Very deterministic and quick. No polling or searching.
>
It's still a case of determining what really generated the interrupt --
from within the interrupt handler, and then dispatching to the correct
sub-handler.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87twg8xebx.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #11856 |
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Sigmas were (in)famous for having something like 224 interrupt vectors > (when IBM 360/370 only had 7 and had to poll to determine which device > interrupted). Each interrupt vector basically held a program status > doubleword, so an exchange PSD made for fast response. 360/370 had svc, i/o, program, external/timer, machine-check interrupts ... loaded new psw (instruction address) from low store at same time as storing old psw (interrupted instruction address). interrupts stored information about the interrupt, in the case of i/o interrupt, it stored the interrupting device address (channel, controller, device) and the status (channel status word). old ios3270 version of "green card" that I did q&d convert to html low store layout for interrupting, old/new psw, csw, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#4 channel status word (for i/o interrupt) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#6 certain kinds of remote terminals had several termainals connected to single device address/port/line ... so there was additional work to find out which of several remote terminals ... sharing same line ... was responsible. note that 360/370 interrupts didn't save/restore registers ... so there was standard interrupt handlers to store registers of the interrupted process and load registers for the interrupt handler. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 12:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31e1b15eafc1420e98a300@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12271 |
In article <87twg8xebx.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... > > Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > Sigmas were (in)famous for having something like 224 interrupt vectors > > (when IBM 360/370 only had 7 and had to poll to determine which device > > interrupted). Each interrupt vector basically held a program status > > doubleword, so an exchange PSD made for fast response. > > 360/370 had svc, i/o, program, external/timer, machine-check interrupts > ... loaded new psw (instruction address) from low store at same time as > storing old psw (interrupted instruction address). interrupts stored > information about the interrupt, in the case of i/o interrupt, it stored > the interrupting device address (channel, controller, device) and the > status (channel status word). > > old ios3270 version of "green card" that I did q&d convert to html > > low store layout for interrupting, old/new psw, csw, etc > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#4 > > channel status word (for i/o interrupt) > http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#6 > > certain kinds of remote terminals had several termainals connected to > single device address/port/line ... so there was additional work to find > out which of several remote terminals ... sharing same line ... was > responsible. > > note that 360/370 interrupts didn't save/restore registers ... so there > was standard interrupt handlers to store registers of the interrupted > process and load registers for the interrupt handler. FWIW, my green card and my flowcharting template are both in my Struble on my desk at work. One of these days I'm going to have to work through Struble again just to get back up to speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h9c7ygqd.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #12271 |
re: http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#93 Is it a lost cause? closer to the sigma was series/1. the series/1 peachtree processor was significant more capable than what was selected for the 37x5 communication controllers. early 70s, the science center ... some past posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech strongly lobbied the communication group to choose the preachtree processor for the 3705 (rather than the processor they were designing) ... and lost. the folklore is that the official series/1 RPS system had been done by some former kingston os/360 MFT people that moved to boca and tried to reimplement os/360 MFT ... which wasn't good match for the series/1. The folklore for the alternative EDX system was originally done by some summer co-op students at IBM San Jose Research physics lab. Late 70s, early 80s, one of the baby bells did a 37x5/NCP emulator on series/1 .... the encapsulated SNA RUs in real network, emulated SNA sessions as "cross domain" (i.e. VTAM emulation with no-single-point-of-failue session management out in distributed series/1). Mid-80s, I got sucked into turning it into type-1 product. We tried to put in brickwalls anticipating the corporate dirty tricks that the communication group was well known for. What the communication group then did can only be described as truth is stranger than fiction. Old post with part of presentation that I gave in Raleigh at SNA architecture review board meeting http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#67 part of presentation by one of the original implementors at '86 common user group meeting http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#70 continue the lost cause theme ... periodically repeated, in the late 80s, a senior disk engineer got a talk scheduled at the world-wide, internal-only, annual, communication group conference, supposedly on 3174 performance ... but opened the talk with the statement that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. The issue was that the communication group had corporate strategic "ownership" of everything that crossed datacenter walls and they were strongly fighting off client/server and distributed computing trying to preserve their (emulated) dumb termina paradigm and install base. The disk division was seeing data fleeing the datacenter to more distributed computing platforms with drop in disk sales. The disk division had come up with a number of solutions to address the problem, but they were constantly vetoed by the disk division. some past posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal a few short years later, the company goes into the red and was being reorged into the 13 "baby blues" ... in preparation for breaking up the company. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 01:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dsbpgiFrqfgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11783 |
Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:14:30 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > >> Interesting... I found the 8080/Z80 chips clean and direct. Maybe >> because my college mainframe was a Xerox Sigma 6 with its "LD" and "ST" >> instructions (LD,<reg> <mem> vs ST,<reg> <mem> -- though <mem> 0..15 >> mapped to the registers). >> > That sounds very like the ICL 1900 mainframes where I first > learnt assembler (I'd previously learnt Algol 60 at uni). The 1900 only > had two hardware registers, which held datum and limit addresses for the > active program. Programs were a contiguous block of memory - task > switching was done by changing datum and limit to point at the next > program to run. Each program had its own register set because they were > the first 8 words of each program, with word +8 being the PC and, since > all addresses in a program were relative to datum, programs could be > swapped in, out or moved in memory very simply. That was true only of the 1901..1903 processors. More powerful processors had flip flop registers, but still addressable as words 0..8, rather like thePDP 10. -- Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 07:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dscfkrFkqbiU28@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11863 |
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 01:32:02 +0000, Anonymous wrote: > Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:14:30 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: >> >>> Interesting... I found the 8080/Z80 chips clean and direct. Maybe >>> because my college mainframe was a Xerox Sigma 6 with its "LD" and >>> "ST" >>> instructions (LD,<reg> <mem> vs ST,<reg> <mem> -- though <mem> 0..15 >>> mapped to the registers). >>> >> That sounds very like the ICL 1900 mainframes where I first learnt >> assembler (I'd previously learnt Algol 60 at uni). The 1900 only had >> two hardware registers, which held datum and limit addresses for the >> active program. Programs were a contiguous block of memory - task >> switching was done by changing datum and limit to point at the next >> program to run. Each program had its own register set because they were >> the first 8 words of each program, with word +8 being the PC and, since >> all addresses in a program were relative to datum, programs could be >> swapped in, out or moved in memory very simply. > > That was true only of the 1901..1903 processors. > More powerful processors had flip flop registers, > but still addressable as words 0..8, rather like thePDP 10. Exactly. And I suspect the PC was flip flop based in all machines. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 22:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl787j$hro$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #11747 |
>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with Motorola I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, using a genuine "green card" reference card. What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" [half a :-) there]. I found a valid reason to use "execute": execute MVC for a variable number of bytes without the overhead of all 'dem registers for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. I never needed to use translate-and-test despite it being a wonderful multi-purpose instruction. > Interesting... I found the 8080/Z80 chips clean and direct. > Maybe because my college mainframe was a Xerox Sigma 6 ... After using a 32 bit machine (IBM 360), I found Z80 weak and tedious to program in assembler :-/ "C" to the rescue! Years later, I finally used a 68000 based trainer in assembler. Bliss!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 09:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtpenrFblurU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12244 |
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 22:17:23 -0400, Jeff Jonas wrote: >>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with >>> Motorola > > I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, > using a genuine "green card" reference card. > What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" [half a > there]. > I found a valid reason to use "execute": > execute MVC for a variable number of bytes without the overhead of all > 'dem registers for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" > instruction. > > I never needed to use translate-and-test despite it being a wonderful > multi-purpose instruction. For better or for worse, the VAX had a *very* rich instruction set. Probably the richest ever. And it had proper direct 32 bit adsdressing, although of course memory was cheaper by then. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <440983857.489168038.520479.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12244 |
Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with Motorola > > I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, > using a genuine "green card" reference card. > What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" > [half a :-) there]. > I found a valid reason to use "execute": > execute MVC for a variable number of bytes > without the overhead of all 'dem registers > for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. > > I never needed to use translate-and-test > despite it being a wonderful multi-purpose instruction. > >> Interesting... I found the 8080/Z80 chips clean and direct. >> Maybe because my college mainframe was a Xerox Sigma 6 ... Which are nothing alike. OTOH x86 can be clean today if you confine yourself to a subset of instructions. > > After using a 32 bit machine (IBM 360), > I found Z80 weak and tedious to program in assembler :-/ > "C" to the rescue! > > > Years later, I finally used a 68000 based trainer in assembler. > Bliss! > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 21:35 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nl91hu$s07$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12277 |
On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: > Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with Motorola >> >> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >> [half a :-) there]. >> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes >> without the overhead of all 'dem registers >> for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. > > I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which is a least a bad habit, if not a clear no-no. It was no accident that execute was not included in x86's. The main need for it was in variable-port I/O, and it was corrected by having I/O addressed via DX. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl994v$h7g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12294 |
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:35:42 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote: > On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with >>>>> Motorola >>> >>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>> [half a :-) there]. >>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes without the overhead of all >>> 'dem registers for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" >>> instruction. >> >> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. > > > Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which is a least a > bad habit, if not a clear no-no. > Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high level language. I've seen it used in the past about once, in the worst-written system I've ever had the misfortune to see. Apart from ALTER statements it had: - meaningless data names (all records and fields over 4 tape files called MTnn where nn incremented in each successive line) and so on for CFnn (cards), LPnn (line printer) and WSnn (working storage). - no sections in PROCEDURE DIVISION, only paragraphs which all had 5 digit numeric names, but not in any detectable sequence or meaningful order. The outfit I worked for had unfortunately bought it. It was immediately scrapped when we saw the code and we wrote an equivalent but much better system from scratch, but I digress.... ALTER was declared obsolete in COBOL 1985 and removed from the specification in 2002 but apparently is still supported by some compilers. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 22:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nl9arg$t4f$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12299 |
On 02/07/16 21:45, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:35:42 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote: > >> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with >>>>>> Motorola >>>> >>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>>> [half a :-) there]. >>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes without the overhead of all >>>> 'dem registers for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" >>>> instruction. >>> >>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >> >> >> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which is a least a >> bad habit, if not a clear no-no. >> > Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO ... > statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high level > language. I've seen it used in the past about once, in the worst-written > system I've ever had the misfortune to see. Apart from ALTER statements > it had: > > - meaningless data names (all records and fields over 4 tape files called > MTnn where nn incremented in each successive line) and so on for > CFnn (cards), LPnn (line printer) and WSnn (working storage). > > - no sections in PROCEDURE DIVISION, only paragraphs which all had 5 > digit numeric names, but not in any detectable sequence or meaningful > order. > > The outfit I worked for had unfortunately bought it. It was immediately > scrapped when we saw the code and we wrote an equivalent but much better > system from scratch, but I digress.... > > ALTER was declared obsolete in COBOL 1985 and removed from the > specification in 2002 but apparently is still supported by some compilers. > > Sounds fun. Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 40 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web