Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #118758
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: What it would take... |
| Date | 2025-05-13 00:58 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theory
>>> is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
>>>
>>> If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if
>>> we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on
>>> to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
>> Eh?
>
> Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
Yes. That is, as it happens, how I address cranks. I don't usually
argue against them but try to get them to say, as clearly and as
unambiguously as possible, what they are trying to say. After a lot of
back and forth I got PO to be clear and unambiguous about what he was
saying. For example, I asked
| Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
| the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
and PO replied "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".
Ref: Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:23:29 -0500
This, to my mind, is the steel man that people should be addressing.
What is the point in countering anything other than this clear position?
Similarly, he was clear that false (does not halt) was correct for his
sketched simulator because of what /would happen/ if the code was
altered by removing the line that makes the simulation stop.
The current nonsense avoids the need for this because PO does not show
the full simulation. Mike Terry "steelmanned" the simulation by showing
the parts PO hides.
On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C. Yes, it's awful. He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that /is/ a straw man -- it's the simplest part of
his argument to fix. Someone, for example, you, could rewrite it all
clearly and neatly so that the real error (declaring false to be correct
for some halting computations) was even more clear. There is nothing
unfixable about the simulation.
>>> ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that
>>> window a little wider.
>> What on Earth do you mean? What window?
>
> Well, you know the history better than I do and I'm not about to trawl
> through a month's worth of back-messages, so maybe I'm talking nonsense, but
> I was under the impression that the line he was taking to attack on Linz's
> argument could conceivably have merit.
...
>>> Mr Olcott seems to have (correctly) spotted a minor flaw in
>>> the proof published by Dr Linz.
>
> Maybe I grasped the wrong end of that stick.
I don't know. There is, indeed, a small error in the notation that is
easy to fix. I offered to explain the details but you said you had
paint drying that needed to be watched. As far as I can see, both ends
of the stick say "easy to fix minor flaw". What end did you grasp?
...
>> (Rather belatedly, it occurs to me that you might be being sarcastic.
>
> Moi?!? Perish the thought!
>
> But no, I just thought that Mr Olcott is obviously not good at presenting
> his case, and it occurred to me that we could probably do a far better
> job. We could fix his code, clean up his reasoning, all that, and see what
> falls out the bottom.
As explained, I (and others) have done a lot of that. For me the steel
man is that, to PO, false is correct from some class of halting
computations. I assumed you were engaging with him just for the fun of
it, not that you thought there might be some merit in it.
> Even if it's only ash and clinker.
False is the correct answer for some halting computations. Is that ash
and clinker? I don't know, but I am puzzled by why so many posts don't
address this. (For the record, I refuse to talk to him because of his
inexcusable rudeness to me. I can take a lot, but his comments were
finally beyond the pale.)
--
Ben.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-10 02:11 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-09 22:18 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 04:04 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 08:50 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 14:24 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 14:44 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 20:05 +0000
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 10:07 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-10 17:25 +0200
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 23:35 +0800
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 10:46 -0500
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 00:18 +0800
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 11:37 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 15:02 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-11 12:37 +0300
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 15:01 -0400
Re: What it would take... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-12 18:21 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-12 19:38 +0100
Re: What it would take... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-13 00:58 +0100
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:25 -0400
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 22:27 -0400
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:39 +0300
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 03:26 +0100
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:14 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:31 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:39 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:14 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:38 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:44 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:44 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:11 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:46 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:05 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:56 +0200
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 04:23 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:37 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:41 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:44 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:17 -0400
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:14 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:34 -0400
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:16 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:49 +0300
Re: What it would take... André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:41 -0600
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:06 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:54 +0200
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 16:47 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:01 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 12:21 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:56 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 13:09 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:09 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:03 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:26 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:38 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:56 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:41 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:44 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:06 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:28 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:48 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:02 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:32 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 05:43 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:54 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 06:02 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 00:09 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 06:20 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:04 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 17:16 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:43 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:15 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:22 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:41 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:46 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:58 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:18 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 19:45 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:59 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:14 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:25 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:22 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 23:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:58 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-16 13:25 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 09:00 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 10:09 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 10:19 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 11:57 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 18:25 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 18:30 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:32 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:14 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:10 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 18:06 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 13:12 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:00 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 19:20 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 02:49 +0800
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:59 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:58 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:35 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 22:28 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:49 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:56 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:05 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:41 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:32 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 16:44 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:17 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:32 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:22 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:53 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:43 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:26 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:23 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:14 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:19 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:41 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 04:05 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:23 +0100
Re: What it would take... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-05-12 23:38 +0100
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:47 -0500
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 07:05 +0800
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:09 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:28 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:37 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:40 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:47 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:53 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 20:01 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 19:07 +0000
Re: What it would take... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-05-13 23:59 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 12:29 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:48 +0200
csiph-web